Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 76
  1. #1
    Bosshog in the cut djohn2oo8's Avatar
    My Team
    Houston Rockets
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Post Count
    37,278

  2. #2
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    outlaws Trash/JeBo/Miller simply won't obey the judge.

    And what are the penalties for, in effect, disobeying the judge?

    Pre-empting rulings like this is why the Repugs/oligarchy/Federalist Society are polluting the Federal judiciary with young, extreme right wing assholes, "politicians in robes"

  3. #3
    LMAO koriwhat's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Post Count
    37,913
    lmao you must put this illegal bill back into action for all the illegals who have no actual rights but our far left ideology wants to grant them more rights than our citizens here. all of yall!

  4. #4
    non-essential Chris's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Post Count
    39,908

  5. #5
    Bosshog in the cut djohn2oo8's Avatar
    My Team
    Houston Rockets
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Post Count
    37,278
    Nominated by a Republican. Chris goes derp.

  6. #6
    ( •_•)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■) AaronY's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Post Count
    8,287
    Supreme court will overturn I'm sure. Maybe spurraider or someone who actually knows the law can comment

  7. #7
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,047
    Supreme court will overturn I'm sure. Maybe spurraider or someone who actually knows the law can comment
    i'd have to read the judge's written ruling (assuming there is one). news articles often do a poor job of going through this stuff.

  8. #8
    bandwagoner fans suck ducks's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Post Count
    71,514
    in closing the brief, the judge said that at no point did the court contend that the DHS didn't have "the statutory or cons utional authority" to end the program."

    "Rather, the Court simply holds that if DHS wishes to rescind the program - or to take any other action, for that matter - it must give a rational explanation for its decision," the judge said.

    What the ??? That doesn't even make sense. I'm soooooooo tired of this judicial activists. DACA is uncons utional on its face...Trump should simply issue an Executive Order to undo OdumbAss' original EO...(sigh)...

  9. #9
    non-essential Chris's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Post Count
    39,908



  10. #10
    Bosshog in the cut djohn2oo8's Avatar
    My Team
    Houston Rockets
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Post Count
    37,278
    meltdown

  11. #11
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,047
    everything a conspiracy

  12. #12
    non-essential Chris's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Post Count
    39,908
    using the word conspiracy to write things off that you don't agree with

  13. #13
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,047
    using the word conspiracy to write things off that you don't agree with
    you tried this in the novichok thread. we went through it step by step and showed your theory was indeed a conspiracy theory.

    should we walk through the same process here as well?

    conspiracy theory: the idea that many important political events or economic and social trends are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public.

    your theory: the judge's ruling (an important political event) is the product of a secret plot that is largely unknown to the public (he's secretly in cahoots with obama and the democrats and needed trump to lose!)


  14. #14
    Bosshog in the cut djohn2oo8's Avatar
    My Team
    Houston Rockets
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Post Count
    37,278
    using the word conspiracy to write things off that you don't agree with
    The irony is astounding in this post

  15. #15
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    6,202
    in closing the brief, the judge said that at no point did the court contend that the DHS didn't have "the statutory or cons utional authority" to end the program."

    "Rather, the Court simply holds that if DHS wishes to rescind the program - or to take any other action, for that matter - it must give a rational explanation for its decision," the judge said.

    What the ??? That doesn't even make sense. I'm soooooooo tired of this judicial activists. DACA is uncons utional on its face...Trump should simply issue an Executive Order to undo OdumbAss' original EO...(sigh)...
    So DHS has statutory/cons utional authority to end the program but they have to EXPLAIN why they are following the law/cons ution - he makes a lot of sense (sarcasm).

  16. #16
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,047
    full order is here. reading through it now

    https://assets.do entcloud.org/doc...s-20180803.pdf

  17. #17
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,047
    some key points from the order, imo

    although the Supreme Court has held enforcementdecisions to be “presumptively unreviewable,” NAACP, 298 F. Supp. 3d at 234 (citing Heckler v.Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 832–33 (1985)), the D.C. Circuit recognizes an exception for “generalenforcement polic[ies]” that “rel[y] solely on the agency’s view of what the law requires,”...

    The Court held that DACA’s rescission was reviewable under this exception because it was“predicated on DHS’s legal determination that the program was invalid when it was adopted.”
    so basically if the trump government didnt come out and say "we have to cancel DACA strictly because DACA was illegal to begin with" then they probably could have escaped review.

    According to the government, this rationale renders DACA’srescission unreviewable because it “cannot be meaningfully distinguished from other ‘bona fidediscretionary reasons’ that this Court found acceptable” in its prior opinion, “such as an agency’sfear that ‘negative publicity . . . would undermine the policy’s effectiveness.’” Gov’t’s Mot. at 7(quoting NAACP, 298 F. Supp. 3d at 233).

    But as the Court’s opinion explained in the very next paragraph, it is difficult to concludethat such policy assertions are “bona fide” when they are accompanied by an assertion from theCase 1:17-cv-02325-JDB Do ent 78 Filed 08/03/18 Page 15 of 2516agency that its longstanding policy is “unlawful.”
    same thing as above

    the Secretary claims that even though DACA “on its face . . . allow[s] for individualconsiderations,” id., it should nonetheless be rescinded because its programmatic nature somehowmisleads those charged with its implementation into applying it categorically.

    As an initial matter, this rationale strikes the Court as specious. It would be one thing fora challenger other than DHS to claim that although DACA calls for case-by-case discretion intheory, its application is categorical in practice. Indeed, this argument was made by the plaintiffsin the Texas litigation. See Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 171–72 (5th Cir. 2015), aff’d byan equally divided Court, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016) (mem). But when made by the agency itself, theargument becomes a non sequitur: if Secretary Nielsen believes that DACA is not beingimplemented as written, she can simply direct her employees to implement it properly. An agencyhead cannot point to her own employees’ misapplication of a program as a reason for its invalidity
    are you kidding me? so the DHS argued that the DHS is misapplying daca, and therefore DACA needs to be rescinded? wtf?

    relating to that argument...

    Specious though it may be, this rationale nonetheless presents as the sort of policyconsideration that, when offered as an independent reason for adopting a general enforcementpolicy, might foreclose judicial review. When viewed in the broader context of this litigation,however, this rationale reveals itself to be yet another attempt to disguise an objection to DACA’slegality as a policy justification for its rescission.
    so basically, even though the court says that argument makes no logical sense, they're saying that in a vacuum, that argument probably would have been enough to avoid judicial review, but its clearly part of DHS's overarching argument that DACA is inherently illegal, which again, is why this decision is subject to review

  18. #18
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,047
    so from what i gathered, yesterday's order seems correct... that there isn't a good legal reason to force the federal court to reconsider its original finding.

    but i haven't rad the original order/decision which i'm still skeptical of. it could still be overturned on appeal. but yesterday's ruling wasn't an appeal, it was a motion for reconsideration (asking the same judge to reconsider his own ruling... and you need very specific legal grounds to allow for that)

  19. #19
    non-essential Chris's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Post Count
    39,908

  20. #20
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,047
    if they didnt play the "DACA was illegal to begin with" card then they could have just rescinded it. the fact that they keep banging that drum is the only reason the courts are able to block its rescission

  21. #21
    ( •_•)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■) AaronY's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Post Count
    8,287
    if they didnt play the "DACA was illegal to begin with" card then they could have just rescinded it. the fact that they keep banging that drum is the only reason the courts are able to block its rescission
    So what happens now you think? Also the court that its going to be appealed to is that one conservative or what and will it just end up in the supreme court?

  22. #22
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,047
    So what happens now you think? Also the court that its going to be appealed to is that one conservative or what and will it just end up in the supreme court?
    it will definitely be appealed.

    again, i haven't read the full order regarding the initial ruling... which is probably much more useful at this point. last week's ruling was much more of a legal/procedural issue than anything really on the merits regarding whether the DACA rescission was invalid

  23. #23
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,047
    i mean, in one of my posts above, the court specifically pointed out that typically, these sorts of decisions are not subject to review... but there is an exception where the policy seems to rely solely on the agency's interpretation of the legality of it.

    so when DHS says "we need to repeal DACA because we believe DACA is illegal"... all they're doing is opening the door for the court to weigh in and say "nah, it actually wasnt illegal, so your rationale doesn't fly." the original ruling (which to date I have not read) is where the court ultimately made that call

    instead, they should have just said "we are repealing DACA because it is bad policy for x, y, z." once they started opining about the legality of it, they rolled out the red carpet for the courts to make that determination. last week's ruling merely confirmed that the court had the ability to weigh in in the first place

  24. #24
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,047
    here's the original ruling. much longer. will read on spare time

    https://assets.do entcloud.org/doc...a-20180424.pdf

    but this is where the court ruled that the government's claim that "DACA must be rescinded because it is illegal" fails because they didnt actually demonstrate how it is illegal

  25. #25
    bandwagoner fans suck ducks's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Post Count
    71,514
    they ruled a polically rulling for the democrat base knowing they do not have a leg to stand on by the law
    I hate judges on both politically parties that do that

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •