Judge Bates engages in judicial tyranny, commands Trump to restart Obama’s DACA

See Judge rules DACA program should restart, blocks Trump Administration plan for elimination

”In a blistering 25-page opinion, U.S. District Judge John Bates for District of Columbia said that the Trump administration did not justify its decision to eliminate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, also known as DACA.

Bates said the Department of Homeland Security, which runs the program, failed to “elaborate meaningfully on the agency’s primary rationale for its decision” and called the policy “unlawful and unconstitutional.” For the written opinion CLICK HERE

Keep in mind that in 2012, President Barack Hussein Obama created the DACA program by executive orders and without Congressional Approval. Nowhere in our Constitution has the President of the United States been granted authority to exercise such power. To allow a president to exercise such power, which is exactly what Judge Bates is doing, is to defy and ignore our Constitution’s guarantee to a “Republican Form of Government” in which the people’s representative sent to Congress have exclusive legislative powers ___ see Article 1, Section 1 of our Constitution:

”All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

The Judge’s argument that the Trump Administration has failed to “elaborate meaningfully on the agency’s primary rationale for its decision” ending DACA, is not within a judge’s assigned duties.

To allow judges and Justices to evaluate the wisdom or rationality of duly enacted policy established by Executive or Congressional authority, and strike such decisions down because a rational explanation has not been presented to the Court which the finds agreeable, is to usurp policy making authority vested in these two branches of government [Executive and Legislative] and alter our very system of government and its intentional separation of powers.

In fact, our very own Supreme Court confirmed with regard to the power over policy making decisions “……we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress’ action, however, is not within our province to second guess. ___ ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003)

The Trump Administration, in ending the DACA program ___ created by Executive Orders under the Obama Administration and without Constitutional or Congressional approval ___ is in fact restoring the integrity of our constitutionally limited system of Government, its separation powers, and is the rational explanation which Judge Bates apparently disagrees with. In his world, he believe himself to be clothed with power to second guess the wisdom of abiding by our written Constitution and its separation of powers.


”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47


well said.
the idea that one president cannot by eo undo the unconstitutional excesses of a previous who freely admitted he did not have the constitutional authority to do what he did without sufficient rationale is insane


There needs to be a process in which these radical judges attempting to legislate from the bench are removed.

1 Like

I would approach this from a different angle and I think when Judge Kavanaugh ascends to the Supreme Court, the window will open.

The Judge makes this decision, invoking the Administrative Procedures Act, passed in 1946.

I would challenge this decision and seek a holding that the Administrative Procedures Act is itself an unconstitutional infringement of executive rule making powers.

Once the APA is gone, a President could quickly and easily wipe out DACA or anything else he likes and it would not be subject to judicial review.


The most ridiculous judicial ruling I have ever read.

Isn’t there an impeachment process?

Finally, a few words about the nature of the relief being granted by this Court. The Court did not hold in its prior opinion, and it does not hold today, that DHS lacks the statutory or constitutional authority to rescind the DACA program. Rather, the Court simply holds that if DHS wishes to rescind the program—or to take any other action, for that matter—it must give a rational explanation for its decision. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). A conclusory assertion that a prior policy is illegal, accompanied by a hodgepodge of illogical or post hoc policy assertions, simply will not do. The Court therefore reaffirms its conclusion that DACA’s rescission was unlawful and mustbe set aside.13 A separate order has been issued on this date.

Words the OP should ponder…


It is absolutely stunning that a judge moves beyond his assigned duty to determine what is and what is not within constitutional limits as applied to a policy making decision, and anoints himself with an arbitrary power to reject or approve policy making decisions based upon his personal partialities which he assumes to be rational.

In fact, Judge Bates has taken it upon himself to go beyond his assigned duty to determine what is and what is not constitutional, and demands public policy decisions must henceforth be supported by a “rational explanation” which conforms to his personal views as distinguished from what is, and what is not constitutional.

Is this not the very definition of judicial tyranny?


“The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice.” – Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

The process is impeachment and the charges are malfeasances, misfeasance and nonfeasance. The problem is we have too many Fifth Column activists masquerading as Republicans who work hand in hand with the Democrat Party Leadership.


Without a Fifth Column Media, Yellow Journalism, Hollywood, and a corrupted FBI, Loretta Lynch, Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama, would be making license tags in a federal penitentiary

Good for him. d

1 Like

Is that something “Qish”?

The problem is not the Judge in this case, but rather the law itself. Judge Bates is a relatively moderate judge, but he is faced with a law that specifically authorizes judicial review of rule making. The Administrative Procedures Act, like so much legislation, was passed with noble intentions but has been perverted into an obstructive weapon.

Moreover, what Trump/Sessions are doing are going back to a strict and literal interpretation of the law. DACA basically was an authorization of prosecutorial discretion, declining at least temporarily to enforce the law.

However, the President of the United States is charged by the Constitution to “TAKE CARE that the laws be faithfully executed.”

I believe this interpretation of the Administrative Procedures Act violates the TAKE CARE clause and thus accordingly, the Administrative Procedures Act must fall, either in its entirety or at least insofar as it contradicts the TAKE CARE clause.

I do not care for Trump or his bombasticity. However, this interpretation of the law is so repugnant, I believe the President would be fully justified in openly defying this court’s order, while he appeals this up the ladder. Trump is protected from a contempt arrest and he could protect Sessions from arrest, at least until this goes before the Supreme Court. And if Trump did openly defy the court, Chief Justice Roberts, in his capacity as Circuit Justice of the D.C. Circuit, would likely grant a stay of the District Judges order, which would take contempt proceedings off the table during appeals. This actually would be a time when Trump should show some backbone.

BTW, I am NOT going to pick on Judge Bates over this. I believe he is simply following a the long standing over reading of the Administrative Procedures Act, which should not apply in this instance.

The problem is not the Judge, but the law itself.


DACA is ■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■ anyway. Get the hell rid of it. So one president needs to give a rational explanation of why he’s doing away with another president’s policy? Does the judge have to approve that rationale too?

The judge cannot set immigration policy. He will be overturned by the SC just like those travel ban judges were.

ICAM and I’m sick to death of liberal activists judges and our judicial system is infested with them, they do need to go. The Supreme Court will overrule this idiot Judge but it wastes a lot of time.

Revoking a prior policy because that policy had not legal basis is not in itself a justification for the rescission? At the time, the only basis use was prosecutorial discretion in enforcement of laws. Discretion means that the person enforcing the law can use, well, discretion.

No, it’s not unless supported by something other than a " hodgepodge of illogical or post hoc policy assertions"? You see how legal arguments work now?

Ending a program started by an EO of a previous President by a new President should not be reviewable in the first place. It is NOT the law, it is merely the will of the executive.

The APA, a legislative act, is not superior to the Constitution. Surely Judge Bates realizes this, and is why he is part of the problem.


"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

Agreed. Be very careful.