PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: bflynn on March 07, 2018, 06:26:17 AM
-
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/5/trump-daca-phaseout-legal-judge-rules/
A judge in Maryland has ruled that the president's EO to phase out DACA is legal. Now this doesn't change the rulings by two other judges, but it does set up a legal conflict where lower courts are ruling in different ways. The law should be the law.
Past USSC decisions along this line have ruled that judges are not equipped to render decisions on political decisions; that if the people don't like a decision, then it is in their court to make a change on it. For a judge to rule that a political decision by the president is illegal removes power from the electorate.
-
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/5/trump-daca-phaseout-legal-judge-rules/
A judge in Maryland has ruled that the president's EO to phase out DACA is legal. Now this doesn't change the rulings by two other judges, but it does set up a legal conflict where lower courts are ruling in different ways. The law should be the law.
Past USSC decisions along this line have ruled that judges are not equipped to render decisions on political decisions; that if the people don't like a decision, then it is in their court to make a change on it. For a judge to rule that a political decision by the president is illegal removes power from the electorate.
The troubling part of these judge's decisions is they are not based on law. The judicial branch is desperately trying to take control away from the executive.
-
Actually, past supreme court ruling say that they're taking it away from us. These are essentially political decisions and their implementation properly is vested in the power of an office and WE elect the person in that office.
-
Actually, past supreme court ruling say that they're taking it away from us. These are essentially political decisions and their implementation properly is vested in the power of an office and WE elect the person in that office.
This is correct. The powers not delegated to the legislature, or exec remain in the hands of the people. In the real world, very few fed judges apply this standard. There is also ample legal history that is called exec equivalence. What one exec has done, another exec of same station may undo. Frex, the net neutrality implementation by the prev admin may be, and has been undone by the current admin exec of the same station. This will apply to DACA as well.
-
The troubling part of these judge's decisions is they are not based on law. The judicial branch is desperately trying to take control away from the executive.
The courts are also taking control away from the legislative branch as well. Just look at John Robert’s shameful re-write of the ACA by calling the fine for the individual mandate a tax instead of a fine.
If Congress wanted it to be a tax, they should have called it a tax, and paid the legislative price for doing so. Roberts bailed the democrats out by giving them a substance over form solution so they would never have to argue against the form that would be impossible to pass.