AG Paxton reply brief to intervening motion to dismiss case - Page 2
Post your reply or quote more messages.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by a.martin3z
So it could be argued that since DACA has been around for 5 years, it can't be ruled on grounds of APA? Am I understanding this correctly?
|
Post your reply or quote more messages.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Copper
Yes exactly, because unlike DAPA, the DHS did give notice and requested comments on DACA before implementing the executive order. This new DACA lawsuit is because these attorney generals consider it unconstitutional, when in fact it is constitutional.
|
__________________
Expiration: 04/09/2020Renewal Accepted: 02/05/2019
Post your reply or quote more messages.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by eva02
Even if it is constitutional, Trump's AG has to defend it in court. Will Sessions do that? He might to stray under Trump's good graces...
|
Let's not forget that Kris Kobach also sued the Obama Administration back in 2013 because of DACA. That lawsuit was taken place in the state of Texas. That lawsuit was reviewed and dismissed by the judge before it even went to trial.
This isn't the first time that DACA has been under attack. I think we all need to calm down, relax, and most importantly stay optimistic.
Last edited by Copper; 08-08-2017 at 04:31 PM..
Post your reply or quote more messages.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Copper
It was blocked because of the Administrative Procedure Act.
Generally, when the executive branch seeks to issue a new regulation, it must first give notice to the public and an opportunity for people to comment on it. DHS did not give notice and ask for comment before issuing DAPA, which was the reason judge Hanen blocked DAPA. He did not rule on the constitutional arguments. |
The EXACT argument can be made for DACA and this same judge can easily slap an injunction on DACA on September 5th before he goes home. Maybe in a year or two it'll end up in the supreme court again. They don't have to make the constitutional argument now when they have a blueprint of what worked.
__________________
Late 40's Dreamer (Holy Fucking shit I'm almost 50 and still dealing with this), aged out of original DACA and didn't have a chance to apply for extended DACA after Republicans killed it on the vine.
Post your reply or quote more messages.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by eva02
Even if it is constitutional, Trump's AG has to defend it in court. Will Sessions do that? He might to stray under Trump's good graces...
|
__________________
Expires: 10/2021. Renewal for extension post 2021 sent.Update your signature: Click on username, control panel, user settings,edit signature
Post your reply or quote more messages.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IamAman
Nope. Because Texas claimed that driver's licenses are subsidized and cost more than what they actually charge drivers and those orders would force them to give the driver's licenses to DAPA and EDACA recipients, it would cost them money and so Texas would be hurt.
The EXACT argument can be made for DACA and this same judge can easily slap an injunction on DACA on September 5th before he goes home. Maybe in a year or two it'll end up in the supreme court again. They don't have to make the constitutional argument now when they have a blueprint of what worked. |
So much harm then why didn't they sue?
Post your reply or quote more messages.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IamAman
Nope. Because Texas claimed that driver's licenses are subsidized and cost more than what they actually charge drivers and those orders would force them to give the driver's licenses to DAPA and EDACA recipients, it would cost them money and so Texas would be hurt.
The EXACT argument can be made for DACA and this same judge can easily slap an injunction on DACA on September 5th before he goes home. Maybe in a year or two it'll end up in the supreme court again. They don't have to make the constitutional argument now when they have a blueprint of what worked. |
Quote:
|
Q. What are the claims in the lawsuit? The 26 states claim that expanded DACA and DAPA violate federal laws and the Constitution. Specifically, they make the following claims: --Expanded DACA and DAPA violate the “Take Care Clause” of the Constitution, which states that the President must “take Care that the laws be faithfully executed.” --Expanded DACA and DAPA violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because these initiatives are arbitrary and capricious or otherwise not in accordance with the immigration laws. --The federal government did not comply with certain technical procedural requirements under the APA, including notice-and-comment rulemaking, before it announced the expanded DACA and DAPA initiatives. Source: https://www.americanimmigrationcounc...-supreme-court Judge Hanen did not rule on the constitutional arguments. His ruling rests on an obscure but important statute called the Administrative Procedure Act. Source:http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...tion_will.html |
So NO, the exact same thing can NOT be said regarding this DACA lawsuit. It survived a Kobach lawsuit and I'm confident it will survived this one as well.
Last edited by Copper; 08-08-2017 at 05:14 PM..
Post your reply or quote more messages.
__________________
"The world is my country, science my religion"- Constantine Huygens
Post your reply or quote more messages.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JohannBernoulli1667
What Court did Kobach sue in?
|
Post your reply or quote more messages.
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»