This is what happens when presidents govern by executive order rather than having Congress do it. Whatever it may be, subsequent presidents can undo what they did.

Given previous executive orders that a current president can end, our state Attorney General has no basis for his suit. However, he is extremely vane and hopes for another guest appearance on Rachel Maddow.
I'd hate to agree with raindrop but he's right. This is nothing but virtue signally to the left and won't accomplish anything. But hey...prove me wrong!!! Let's see how this will stop the President rolling back DACA as Congress rolls over and lets him do it.
Is Bob Ferguson running for president? well, if so he's got my weary little vote.
@1 - What happens when Congress refuses to act out of nothing but spite? it's not like this would've been uncommon for them - remember Merrick Garland?

In this case, the EO served as the equivalent of a recess appointment. Congress can still act, but they won't because Republicans are horrible people as you and the President and Congress keep showing us. You show us over and over and over again.
@2 - On one hand you whine the Dems do nothing and then when the Dems do something within their power you call it "virtue signaling."


As usual, Attorney General Ferguson has a good case. The federal courts could very well reject a politically motivated attempt by President Trump to rescind DACA waivers.

Properly speaking, DACA is not a presidential executive order but instead a DHS policy memorandum. See DHS, "Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to US as Children,"June 15, 2012.

As an agency action rather than an executive order, DACA is subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Under the APA, when an agency abruptly reverses an established policy without adequate reason, the reversal is unlawful. See U.S. Dept. of Treasury v. FLRA, 995 F.3d 301 (D.C. Cir. 1993). An order from the President to reverse an established agency policy for political reasons is not, by itself, adequate reason to justify a reversal. See, eg., Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n. v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (1983); Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007).

Unless President Trump can convince the courts there is some legitimate, non-political reason why the United States needs to rescind DACA waivers, the waivers will probably survive. DACA has other legal problems, and I think the red states' legal challenge to it will succeed. But just because DACA may be unlawful does not justify the president in behaving unlawfully to attack it.
Shorter raindrop: "It's all that Kenyan's fault."
@7 - Appreciate that.
8 - My comment is presidentialy agnostic.

Shorter seatackled: null
The umbrella got my attention.
Good work for the dreamers Rob but drop your US Supreme Court challenge to the treaty-reserved right to a "moderate standard of living" for the state's original inhabitants. State needs to own up to the damage it's caused the Tribes.
@10, I love how conservatives squirm with the "I didden do nuthin!" after they scream their dog whistles. Nope, sweet cheeks, your innocent act is complete bullshit. We remember what "executive orders" mean to your ilk.
Shorter seatackled: null

Yes, of course. After all, replying to raindrop is like multiplying by zero. The result is always going to be nothing.
@14: Since you're so clairvoyant, I suggest you mull over what you think my response would be to @14.

Obama knew of constitutional overreach, and it would have been a good thing in the case of DACA - thinking that no president would want to do away with it. Nobody predicted Trump would be president in 2015.

That said, my point in @1 remains sound in that the WH should let Congress do it's job and if doesn't do it's job the president's job is to do, well, nothing - constitutionally.

If you want to read yesteryear partisan toxicity into my words, you're on your own.
@15: Well, at least zero has a value as opposed to null.
oh raindrop- motivation, endurance, and last word obsession aside, I hope you think you are smart and funny.
No one else does.
Guarded borders and restrictive immigration are the truck nutz of of nationhood. A country with good reason to be proud of itself doesn't need borders.
Trump has shown a remarkable talent at squandering executive power. Who would have expected a President could open himself to challenge on an immigration order? But if you don't follow legal process because you think you're king, sometimes it bites you in the ass.
Go, Bob, GO! Fuck Congress! Stick a fork in Trumpzilla's fat ugly ass, call Checkmate and let's FINALLY regain our benighted country from the insanity of white criminal oligarchy.
@1, @9, @10, @16 & @17: Lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala
@5: (first question) - Then you got a very sorry situation, but that shouldn't give the president more power.
Ferguson never sued when the Dreamer Act wasn't passed. He never sued for anything like immigrant rights on the level of daca before it existed. To me he smacks of prepping for a run at governor or senator.
Funny how people don’t get to choose where they can go or stay unless it is a corporation or a member of the wealthy.

Little freedom of movement for working people and other members of the disenfranchised on this beautiful blue green planet whose environment is being destroyed by those who should not have the power. Liberation is not just a word.
@23 - I didn't realize the Supreme Court had ruled on that the President couldn't do this within his existing powers. Can you point me to that case? Thanks!

@24 - I didn't know you could sue Congress for failed legislation. On the other hand, AGs frequently engage in actions like these as part of their job. You might remember the Muslim ban lawsuit too, yeah?
@21 - You give me life Auntie. <3
"To me he smacks of prepping for a run at governor or senator."

Yeah, what the fuck is up with these guys who go around taking action to make the world a better place? It's totally a cynical ploy to make us think if we give them even more power, they'd use is to take even more actions to make the world an even better place. And you know damn well that is what Ferguson would do. He's spend his whole time in the Governor's office trying to figure out ways to make things to happen that voters want. We're on to you, Bob.

Say what you want about Donald Trump, but he has never gone around doing, you know, effective and beneficial things. He's not one of those "competent" types who "knows" things and "understands" how things "work", and then "solves problems". Trump brings to his job an entire lifetime of never once doing anything to help another human being, and that's something these Bob Ferguson types will never match.
@29 -- Two thumbs up.

@24 -- Because of course the best argument for being a candidate for higher office is to fight for the things your state holds as important. What your comment needed is a reason *why* you think that doing these things to "prep a run for Gov or Sen" in any way makes this a bad choice. Because as @29 points out: making "being a tool" into a political platform is what gave us Trump.
why the fuck would Bob Ferguson run for Senate? that's just dumb.

as to Governor, him or Dow. IDGAF as long as it's not a Republikkk.
Can anyone name just one country that allows illegal immigrants to stay in the country without consequence. Just one?

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.