[Regulator]

The judge has no right to arrogate the power of the President to himself.

An EO is a temporary direction to the bureaucracy and survives only as long as a President sees fit. It is not a law that lives on once issued.

So where does the Judiciary think they get this kind of power?

The real question in this case is will we let this Constitutional abomination stand. Nothing like it has ever been asserted.

[DannyTN]

I agree with you the judge is out of line.

The judge said Trump erred in relying on arguments the program was unconstitutional. Don't know if he backed that up with any arguments in his ruling.

Given the judge's claim that the program is constitutional, then the question become can you end a program that provides protections that people were previously counting on? This judge apparently thinks you can ban new entrants but not remove the protections from those already under the program.

I think the judge is out of line. But I'm just trying to make sense of the judges ruling.

Trump appeal should be on two fronts.

• It's unconstitutional and Congress has had sufficent time to legalize it. So it's Trump's duty to end it.
• Even if it is somehow found to be constitutional, it has no supporting law, and it needs to be ended, and the President is delegated the authority over such matters.