Skip to comments.Brooklyn judge will consider Trumpís anti-Latino remarks in DACA decision
Posted on 01/30/2018 1:29:41 PM PST by 11th_VA
A Brooklyn federal judge said in court on Tuesday that he cannot make a decision regarding the status of young undocumented immigrants in the country on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program without considering President Donald Trumps incendiary anti-Latino comments.
The statements that were made during the election cycle were extremely volatile, said Judge Nicholas Garaufis in court, referring to Trumps recurring comments that had painted Latinos with a broad negative brush.
This came from the top. This isnt ordinary, Garaufis added while DACA recipients in the audience nodded. Its not what we see from our leaders, I hope.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman appeared in court, leading 16 other attorneys general motioning for a temporary injunction to stop the termination of DACA. The program is quickly approaching a March 5 deadline to cease after Trump called for its orderly wind down on Sept. 5, 2017.
A representative from Schneidermans office, Lourdes Rosado argued that the decision to end the program was fueled with bias, partly based on the many anti-immigrant and specifically Latino comments from the president. Of the 689,800 active recipients, known as Dreamers, roughly 94 percent are Latino.
When government lawyer Stephen Pezzi argued against the comments being used for consideration, Garaufis asked how he could decide by not taking into account the words by the man who sits in the oval office.
The plaintiffs, who are also made up of numerous Dreamers, called for the injunction because the possibly temporary injunction ruled by Judge William Alsup in California on Jan. 9 was not enough to protect all Dreamers.
There are New Yorkers that are left out of the injunction record in California, Schneiderman said outside the court ...
(Excerpt) Read more at brooklyneagle.com ...
judge cannot do that, legally anyway
liberal judges do whatever they want
What comments? Quote them in context.
all they’re trying to do is prevent our President from telling us voters and constituents his views on public policy matters
trying to cripple his presidency any way they can
the judge can flush any decision he writes based on presidential statements about public policy issues
and besides, Congress and the President share immigration jurisdiction, not the judge
Good. Makes it more the easier to overturn.
Hurt little Nicky’s feelings, did it???
Exactly. The stupid judge just showed HIS bias from his leftard statements which are grounds to be excused. Just hand the case to SCOTUS to shut them up. Trump is too much of a nice guy that he offered these DACA dumbasses a pathway to citizenship and the Dems still wont take it.
Trump should wait for a negative ruling and immediately say that he will never again even consider making these people legal. The day will come when they will all be deported since they clearly don’t respect the laws of the land
Trump did not make any untrue statements about “Latinos”, or anybody else.
I thought there are laws about what is admissible in court, including prior behavior, cases, etc.? I realize that is in certain proceedings but it would not applied here as well?
Trump should have let the original case proceed and lose then he could have swooped in...now they are picking Liberals to make it seem like the people were ever legal
Just another political judge. Trump made statement about Illegals committing crimes. Including murder. Now judge tell me where the law gives you any authority to used such statements in determining Federal law.
DACA was never a law for a judge to rule on. It was an executive order which was never legislation. It can be just eliminated the same way it began.
DACA is, was always, unconstitutiona, what the heck else matters?
Hmmm. A matter of law, which he says he is incapable of deciding without being influenced by political considerations.
Simplifies things, really. Recuse yourself immediately. Or be impeached.
(Do you know that word, "impeached"? People have been using it a lot lately.)
Feeeeewwwwwiiinnnngs! It’s not about law, it’s about feeeeeewwwwwiiiinnngggs! You hurt my feeeeewwwiinnggs!
I grew up in a time when it was expected that the purpose and need for judges was related to THE LAW. How did we get to this point? (rhetorical)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.