Judge orders reopening of DACA, after 90-day delay

Another federal judge has overruled the Trump administration’s efforts to end a popular immigration program – this time saying the government has to accept new applications.

The ruling on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, however, won’t take immediate effect, with the judge delaying the ruling for 90 days to allow the administration to make its case in a new memo justifying the end of the program.

Similar to the other rulings, Judge John Bates concluded that the wind-down of DACA was “arbitrary and capricious” because the Department of Homeland Security failed to “adequately explain its conclusion that the program was unlawful.” The judge also accused the government of providing “meager legal reasoning” to support its decision.

So this judge thinks a former US president can invent a program that violates established US law. And that is perfectly legal. But if the current president wants to end the illegal program that is itself illegal?

These judges are a joke. The good news is they clearly show that this country is now run by unelected black robes. What the citizens chose to do about it, if they care, will be interesting.

1 Like

I put more faith in our political and judicial institutions and say yes, before putting stock in anything said online by pseudo, or self-proclaimed, constitutional scholars.

That is the heart of liberalism, isn’t it? No one can have an opinion except experts who spent decades in schools. But at the same time it attempts to make on obviously ludicrous claim to love the poor and ignorant, whose opinions they just said are worthless. It is even funnier when it bizarrely insists these ignorant people should have a say in things by voting.

Regardless, I have made no claims about my training and you have no idea what it is or the sources of my very well informed opinion.

No problem with “opinions”, but when we present them as better than those coming from experts, does that make the soapbox the heart of conservatism?

You don’t need a degree to know bullcrap when it’s presented.


LOL…so i guess anyone with elementary familiarity with bovine fecal matter is as good as staying the night at Holiday Inn Express?

If word gets out, the next SCOTUS nominee will be Captain obvious.

What does that even mean?

If Captain Obvious is at least 35 and a natural born citizen, he’s met the requirements.

What makes an expert? Not that long ago you didn’t need a law degree to be a judge. So called experts often disagree. If they are experts how can they disagree unless it comes down to whatever they are talking about is opinion? Why should their opinions, which disagree, be better than that of anyone else? Can anyone who is not himself an expert label someone else an expert? I mean when the news was calling Obama a ‘constitutional expert’ how could they do so since they were themselves not experts?

As I said liberalism tries to exclude people who aren’t experts. It is a naked power grab by elites. The reason is liberal ideas can only be held by people with no common sense experience since liberalism contradicts what is obvious to everyone. If the common man were allowed to have an opinion it would quickly show the farce of most liberal ideas.

I suspect that liberalism, more so than conservatism, holds that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.