Federal judge blocks Xidens 100 day moratorium

[WTH_Progs?]

PROGS desired a loser in office. As a matter of fact they desired a puppet loser, with dementia.

 

[martybegan]

This is a matter of Biden changing federal policy "just because" and as Trump was prevented from ending DACA, Biden has to provide more reasoning on why he did what he did, he just can't do it.

He did. The judge here doesn’t display much common sense. It’s just a TRO, however. Not the end of the world.

The judge followed the SC guidance on policy changes like this, and that was from the DACA decision.

The district judge was simply following the SC, which is what they are supposed to do.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Immigration is Constitutionally a Federal issue, not a state issue.

Yep, and it violates federal law.
Good for this judge and Ken Paxton

Exactly...

We can impeach Biden for not upholding his constitutional requirement to UP HOLD AND ENFORCE THE LAW. ITs time to impeach this bastard..

 

[pknopp]

Immigration is Constitutionally a Federal issue, not a state issue.

Yep, and it violates federal law.
Good for this judge and Ken Paxton

Exactly...

We can impeach Biden for not upholding his constitutional requirement to UP HOLD AND ENFORCE THE LAW. ITs time to impeach this bastard..

There are tens of thousands of employers hiring illegals. How many were charged for this under Trump?

 

[colfax_m]

This is a matter of Biden changing federal policy "just because" and as Trump was prevented from ending DACA, Biden has to provide more reasoning on why he did what he did, he just can't do it.

He did. The judge here doesn’t display much common sense. It’s just a TRO, however. Not the end of the world.

The judge followed the SC guidance on policy changes like this, and that was from the DACA decision.

The district judge was simply following the SC, which is what they are supposed to do.

Out of my field now, but there’s definitely a difference in prosecutorial discretion and reversing a policy like DACA.

 

[martybegan]

This is a matter of Biden changing federal policy "just because" and as Trump was prevented from ending DACA, Biden has to provide more reasoning on why he did what he did, he just can't do it.

He did. The judge here doesn’t display much common sense. It’s just a TRO, however. Not the end of the world.

The judge followed the SC guidance on policy changes like this, and that was from the DACA decision.

The district judge was simply following the SC, which is what they are supposed to do.

Out of my field now, but there’s definitely a difference in prosecutorial discretion and reversing a policy like DACA.

it's about the process of changing the current situation and policy via Executive Order.

 

[colfax_m]

it's about the process of changing the current situation and policy via Executive Order.

“The current situation” is ambiguous. I concede about final orders for removal but the idea that the executive needs someone else’s permission to not start a prosecution is ridiculous.

 

[martybegan]

it's about the process of changing the current situation and policy via Executive Order.

“The current situation” is ambiguous. I concede about final orders for removal but the idea that the executive needs someone else’s permission to not start a prosecution is ridiculous.

It was a change of policy by executive order. DACA looked to restart prosecutions, Biden tried to end them. Why is one different then the other?

 

[colfax_m]

it's about the process of changing the current situation and policy via Executive Order.

“The current situation” is ambiguous. I concede about final orders for removal but the idea that the executive needs someone else’s permission to not start a prosecution is ridiculous.

It was a change of policy by executive order. DACA looked to restart prosecutions, Biden tried to end them. Why is one different then the other?

Because DACA was far more than prosecutorial discretion, it provided some work permits and registrations for recipients.

 

[martybegan]

it's about the process of changing the current situation and policy via Executive Order.

“The current situation” is ambiguous. I concede about final orders for removal but the idea that the executive needs someone else’s permission to not start a prosecution is ridiculous.

It was a change of policy by executive order. DACA looked to restart prosecutions, Biden tried to end them. Why is one different then the other?

Because DACA was far more than prosecutorial discretion, it provided some work permits and registrations for recipients.

It flowed from the same source as the proposed moratorium, an Executive Order. It counteracts an Order put in place by Trump and Texas decided to sue over it, and won.

Now onto the circuit court, which also has the SC guidance on this matter.

 

[colfax_m]

it's about the process of changing the current situation and policy via Executive Order.

“The current situation” is ambiguous. I concede about final orders for removal but the idea that the executive needs someone else’s permission to not start a prosecution is ridiculous.

It was a change of policy by executive order. DACA looked to restart prosecutions, Biden tried to end them. Why is one different then the other?

Because DACA was far more than prosecutorial discretion, it provided some work permits and registrations for recipients.

It flowed from the same source as the proposed moratorium, an Executive Order. It counteracts an Order put in place by Trump and Texas decided to sue over it, and won.

Now onto the circuit court, which also has the SC guidance on this matter.

Executive orders are expressions of executive authority and those authorities come from different sources.

Don’t be so simplistic.

 

[martybegan]

it's about the process of changing the current situation and policy via Executive Order.

“The current situation” is ambiguous. I concede about final orders for removal but the idea that the executive needs someone else’s permission to not start a prosecution is ridiculous.

It was a change of policy by executive order. DACA looked to restart prosecutions, Biden tried to end them. Why is one different then the other?

Because DACA was far more than prosecutorial discretion, it provided some work permits and registrations for recipients.

It flowed from the same source as the proposed moratorium, an Executive Order. It counteracts an Order put in place by Trump and Texas decided to sue over it, and won.

Now onto the circuit court, which also has the SC guidance on this matter.

Executive orders are expressions of executive authority and those authorities come from different sources.

Don’t be so simplistic.

You are the one being simplistic. This is simply the end result of the DACA decision, where EO's have to conform to a passed law. Biden has to elaborate on why he is doing what he is doing, he just can't "do it"

 

[Orangecat]

Agreements with Trump are now moot. The Federal government does not have to get a state's approval.

The government derives its power from consent of the governed, not the other way around. Texans are amongst those whose consent is required.

 

[pknopp]

Agreements with Trump are now moot. The Federal government does not have to get a state's approval.

The government derives its power from consent of the governed, not the other way around. Texans are amongst those whose consent is required.

Texas has no say over immigration.

 

[Orangecat]

Agreements with Trump are now moot. The Federal government does not have to get a state's approval.

The government derives its power from consent of the governed, not the other way around. Texans are amongst those whose consent is required.

Texas has no say over immigration.

Sure it does. There are millions of citizens there who have a say in it when they vote. The federal government derives its power from consent of the governed, not the other way around.

 

[pknopp]

Agreements with Trump are now moot. The Federal government does not have to get a state's approval.

The government derives its power from consent of the governed, not the other way around. Texans are amongst those whose consent is required.

Texas has no say over immigration.

Sure it does. There are millions of citizens there who have a say in it when they vote. The federal government derives its power from consent of the governed, not the other way around.

How did that work? You can elect new leaders. Find a decent one and it might even happen.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

This is a matter of Biden changing federal policy "just because" and as Trump was prevented from ending DACA, Biden has to provide more reasoning on why he did what he did, he just can't do it.

He did. The judge here doesn’t display much common sense. It’s just a TRO, however. Not the end of the world.

READ: The judge here isn't following the current group think sense. So, I don't like it.

 

[justinacolmena]

Doesnt anyone have a standing to sue when the federal government is ignoring its own legislation?

Not only do government officials ignore their own legislation but they put us in prison for possessing or carrying firearms which are legal for any private citizen to possess and carry under the Second Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

constitutioncenter.org