Daca discussed on The DeMaio Report with Carl DeMaio and Lou Penrose


The legality of daca was never challenged here okay the ability of the administration to get rid of daca was never challenged they tried getting on a technicality and this court basically got off on a technicality wrongfully but doctor was illegally established in the lawsuit that challenged daca can now come back because it that was still in place and that the states that sued three four years ago certainly have the ability to say see we we're going to negotiate a settlement with you if you got rid of it now it's back we're going to see you again and this is gonna have to wait another two or three years and then more importantly there's a precedent that's established any administration now can set up an illegal program at the end of the administration they just say aha what we're gonna do is we're going to create rights for second amendment you know second amendment rights for concealed carry organised Abbas national program allowing this doing this and doing that just whip it out of thin air as much as you and I would love to see that I'm just using that as an example because she was on the other foot sure did a Democrat administration comes in it is assuming there's no hypocrisy here and I think that's a big assumption because liberal justices always bent over backwards and reversed themselves on when it when it suits a liberal policy that's why they're activist judges but if if that happened a new administration can't just simply say well now that we're in charge we don't find this program to be legal it's indefensible it's not something that was authorized by Congress so we're putting an end to it no you can't do that because you have to think about the consequences of ending in a legal program you need to think through the process of how to end an illegal program even though it was not a legally established program you need to present evidence that you getting rid of it is not arbitrary and capricious of course is not arbitrary capricious it's illegal much more do you need to talk about that's why this decision is so fatally flawed it's embarrassing it really is embarrassing to try to explain this decision the ticket the guy that I think picked apart the past was justice Clarence Thomas when he wrote is to dissent to this decision at you know justices when they vote against that decision have an opportunity if they want to write a dissent explaining why basically shaming them the other judges as to why they're wrong and I think justice Thomas nailed it he nailed it he said you agree that the administration had the ability to get rid of the program you don't opine as to the legality the program you literally come out and say yeah you ministration has the power to get rid of it because it was established by executive order can be eliminated by executive order and now you've established this president that's dangerous and more importantly you totally look over any door the fact that not one but two administration policy memoranda were were issued doing all the things you said the administration didn't do it's so disappointing yeah it's a religion of duty what president trump had some interesting things to say about what the Supreme Court justice said on doc I will share with you what he had to say we tweeted out that's next on the devour for first traffic in lower case this report is sponsored by the San Diego county BMW centers the single or has been canceled on the sixty seven that website traffic is flowing freely through there now there was an earlier brush fire that's been knocked down eastbound seventy eight still slow through San Marcos north bound fifteen you'll be on and off those breaks from the seventy.

Coming up next