A recap of the days headlines and a look at whats in store for tomorrow. This friday night as we iron out this decision. Let me start with you. What they are saying is the Trump Administration didnt put up a good enough argument why this program should be disbanded but they said it never had Constitutional Authority behind president obama to start it and so why cant this president unwind it. A couple ways to digest this opinion. You can report that this judge is giving a stinging rebuke on the question of dac a itself, this was the judge on april 25th gave the government 90 days making it very clear if you articulate a solid reason for terminating at the board will listen carefully, they came forward after 90 days and the judge that you failed to articulate it but the last one is the key. This court is not holding that dhs can determine its program. You didnt give us the question. None of this will take until august 23rd, there will be a chance for appeal. Let me read the judges decisi
A recap of the days headlines and a look at whats in store for tomorrow. Terminate the program. Theyre saying, you didnt give us a sufficient reason. In the meantime, let me read a little bit of the judges decision. The courts simply hold that if they wish to take any other action, it must give a rational explanation for its decision. That a prior policy is illegal simply wont do it. Ken, is this their fault for not getting this right . I think this is going to be the travel ban 2. 0. It means we cant get kavanaugh on the Supreme Court soon enough. He needs to be confirmed as the new justice because this case may end up there eventually. The reality is there are three legal problems with daca. Theres a federal law with how agencies make policies to implement stac statutes. Its the Administration Procedure act. When both daca and dapa were
and that was their rational explanation. They werent very big fans of the reasoning in what they received. Our Buddy Buck Sexton tweeted, why do we e
this court is not holding that dhs can determine its program. you didn t give us the question. none of this will take until august 23rd, there will be a chance for appeal. let me read the judge s decision, the court holds if dhs wishes to recent the program or take any other action it must give a rational explanation for its decision. the assertion that prior policy is illegal accompanied by a hodgepodge illogical assertions won t do it. is it their fault for not getting this right? this will be travel ban 2.0. we can t get brett kavanaugh on the supreme court he needs to be confirmed as the new justice because this case may end up very eventually. there are three legal problems, a federal law how agencies implement statutes, the administrative procedure act. when d apa, the later version of
terminate the program. they re saying, you didn t give us a sufficient reason. in the meantime, let me read a little bit of the judge s decision. the courts simply hold that if they wish to take any other action, it must give a rational explanation for its decision. that a prior policy is illegal simply won t do it. ken, is this their fault for not getting this right? i think this is going to be the travel ban 2.0. it means we can t get kavanaugh on the supreme court soon enough. he needs to be confirmed as the new justice because this case may end up there eventually. the reality is there are three legal problems with daca. there s a federal law with how agencies make policies to implement stac statutes. it s the administration procedure act. when both daca and dapa were
not going that. and these things almost run into cost overruns. the initial budgeted amount tends to be very conservative estimates of how expensive they will be. let me ask you this, the california attorney general says he will sue, basically, saying the administration is overstepping its legal bounds here. is this just the tip of the iceberg? are we going to see more states with democratic attorneys general perhaps do this? without a doubt. most of the states along the border, i believe, have republican attorney generals, but there are so many different jurisdictions and different interest groups that will be able to sue that the legal battle here is going to be a real mess. is this travel ban 2.0 with the critical campaign pledge ending up tied up in courts? that could obviously be the case. clearly, like betsy said, because the border wall has to cross through so many different seat states and counties, different types of terrain and different types of people with private