Can the Judiciary Interfere with Executive Orders Like That?

8
39
Gavel
Gavel

IANAL, nor do I play one on TV. But here’s my understanding of where I think the law stands regarding this quack commie judge in NY who ordered that the Trump administration had to not only halt the dismantling of DACA but must steam full steam forward in implementing it (see Washington Times Article here).

So, let’s see if I have this straight. I am not venting or ranting. At least I think I’m not. This is what the law seems to me:

  • Executive orders are not laws. They were not voted on, they are directives by which a President seeks to either implement current legislation, or (getting to more shaky ground) to shape bureaucratic policy within existing law but with his own spin on it.
  • It seems to me that the only time any XO might come under judicial review is when an XO is arguably in conflict with the text or clear meaning of the law.
  • It also seems to me that an XO, whether or not it passes or would pass muster under #2, can be canceled or made null by any president in the future, including the same president who issued it.
  • Following the logic of #3, it seems the absolute height of judicial hubris, overreach, and a dead solid out-of-bounds, no f-ing way act for the judiciary, at any level, to order a president that he cannot cancel a previous XO. Under the most extremely generous (to the judiciary) interpretation, they MIGHT, in the merest form, have a minor, minor say-so in the manner in which the XO is canceled. And that area would be as it regards to standing legislated law.

The above I believe to be a fair interpretation of law regarding executive orders, legislation, and judicial review (which by the way I reject out of hand, but conceding the reality that America accepts Madison v Marbury, let us step past that little land mine).

Now the tie-in to this judge, and at least peripherally relating to Trump’s previous XO’s relating to the so-called travel ban. Along with his flimsy standing to make any ruling, add to it the pretty solid claim (I’ll stop short of calling it slam dunk, because again IANAL), that DACA in the first place is plainly an attempt to subvert existing law, not only in fact, but according to the words of Obama himself. [sidebar: if judges can factor Trumps’ tweets into a ruling (like they did in the travel ban, and I believe in this ruling as well), then they can also factor in Obama’s numerous public statements about DACA, notably the famous “pen and phone” statements as to acting where it was admittedly legislative purview.]

It staggers the imagination to believe a judge has a right to order a president to follow a plainly illegal Executive Order from a previous administration.

How about it, lawyers, legal beagles, and scruffy, Gun-and-Bible clinging civilians like myself?

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
8 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
bobmontgomery
bobmontgomery
February 14, 2018 1:53 pm

They don’t have that right. Everybody knows they don;t – Left, Right, Center, elected, appointed, working stiff who can read. Thanks for keeping the spotlight on this, for doing the job the think tanks and politicos won’t do. In keeping with your observation about these pseudo-judges including items in their findings like tweets, when the plaintiffs went before the judge in Hawaii to get Trump’s travel ban restrained, this is one of the items that the judge accepted in their pleadings – That it would hurt the tourism industry in Hawaii. National security, immigration protocol and explicit law be damned,… Read more »

Kenny Solomon
February 15, 2018 3:06 pm

Nudge.

Laura
Laura
February 17, 2018 8:04 am

THE DNC HAS BEEN DIRECTED BY SOROS TO TAKE ANYTHING AND EVERTHING TO COURT TO OBSTRUCT THE AGENDA THEY KNOW THEY WILL LOSE WHEN IT GETS TO SUPREME COURT BUT IT TAKES TIME TO GET THERE > I THINK THEY NEED TO START IMPEACHING JUDGES WHO KNOWINGLY OBSTRUCT THE PRESIDENT FOR THE SAKE OF OBSTRUCTION ALONE