(National Sentinel) Activism from the Bench: Despite his oath to uphold the Constitution and issue rulings based not on what he thinks but what is and is not legal, a federal judge who believes the DACA program begun by Obama via executive will not rule to end it.
Instead, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen said he’ll allow the program to continue because — get this — he believes it would do more ‘harm’ to the country as a whole to end it, regardless of the expense and actual harm being caused to states that are suing to overturn it.
The Blaze reports that the Trump administration is refusing to defend the law against several states led by Texas who are suing to end it. POTUS Donald Trump tried to do that nearly a year ago by the same process his predecessor used to unconstitutionally implement it.
He even gave Congress six months to come up with a legislative fix, but Democrats refused to help and Republicans in the Senate could not get the 60 votes required for passage.
But even when Congress failed to come up with a legislative fix, federal judges refused to ‘allow’ POTUS Trump to exercise the same constitutional authority a president that Obama used.
And now, yet another federal judge is using legal gymnastics to avoid issuing the ruling he knows he must.
“Here, the egg has been scrambled,” Hanen wrote in his decision. “To try to put it back in the shell with only a preliminary injunction record and perhaps at great risk to many, does not make sense nor serve the best interests of this country.”
How does ruling on the law not ‘make sense’ when that’s what you were appointed to do?
The Blaze noted:
Basically, Hanen’s ruling means that it’s one thing to stop a program like DACA before it begins, but once it has been going for a number of years, it becomes a different issue to halt it.
The fact that the states suing to end the program waited so long to challenge it is a key factor. The states are claiming DACA is causing irreparable harm, but Hanen’s logic is that a couple more months won’t do much more damage after it’s already been going for six years.
“The states could have brought a lawsuit against the entire program in 2012 or anytime thereafter,” Hanen wrote.
In actuality, 26 states led by Texas did sue the federal government over DACA. In 2016, following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court, on a 4-4 tie ruling, failed to overturn a lower court ruling blocking DACA.
What happened to that decision? And why are lower federal courts still ruling on it?
The Blaze reports:
The issue of DACA’s legality is likely heading to the Supreme Court for a final ruling, eventually, and Hanen’s decision doesn’t mean he thinks the program was created legally. He believes it’s Congress’s job to create a program protecting Dreamers, if they choose to.
“DACA is a popular program and one that Congress should consider saving,” Hanen wrote, adding that “this court will not succumb to the temptation to set aside legal principles and to substitute its judgment in lieu of legislative action. If the nation truly wants to have a DACA program, it is up to Congress to say so.”
Free when you sign up for our daily email! Click here
Didn’t he just “succumb to the temptations to set aside legal principles” by refusing to rule that presidents cannot change laws by executive fiat?
Congress has already passed legislation that says you can’t come into the country illegally, period — and there is no special carve-out for anyone who was too young to have a say in it at the time.
And since when is a program’s perceived ‘popularity’ supposed to have any bearing on what the law actually says, as well as what presidents can and cannot do in terms of issuing executive orders?
Hanen is also wrong in asserting that Congress ‘must act’ to ‘fix this.’ Congress is under no obligation to do so. And again, Congress has already passed legislation laying out the process and requirements for entering the United States legally.
Is it a tough break for young people brought here illegally as babies? It sure is, and perhaps the humane thing to do is for Congress to take up the issue and ‘fix’ it — though the Republican majority will need Democrats for that.
But to issue this kind of ruling premised on emotion, personal beliefs and observations rather than the law is outrageous.
It’s no wonder Americans are losing faith in our institutions.