The left talks about the rule of law. But by "law", it means its own power to impose its ideology.
There have almost been too many insane Federal court rulings denying Trump's right to do what every previous president could do to keep track of. Here's the latest DACA ruling.
Another federal judge has overruled the Trump administration's efforts to end a popular immigration program -- this time saying the government has to accept new applications.
The entire premise of DACA was that deportation was selective. The President has the power to decide whom to deport and whom not to deport. Now we've had multiple rulings by Federal judges which state, effectively, that Obama had the power to selectively deport illegal aliens, but not Trump.
And we have a court once again ruling that a unilateral move by Obama, with no legislative support, somehow has the rule of law. So that Trump not only has to abide by Obama's selective deportation policy, but that he has to perpetuate it, thereby giving Obama authority over deportation policy in the Trump admin.
Similar to the other rulings, Judge John Bates concluded that the wind-down of DACA was "arbitrary and capricious" because the Department of Homeland Security failed to "adequately explain its conclusion that the program was unlawful." The judge also accused the government of providing "meager legal reasoning" to support its decision.
We've had this same "arbitrary" nonsense in a number of areas.
And Judge Bates is actually arguing that precedent by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the lack of approval from Congress for a wholly unilateral executive move is meager legal reasoning.
In his 60-page decision, Bates took the administration to task for its justification for ending DACA, which was almost entirely based on a threat from Texas and a handful of other states to challenge DACA in court.
"Almost entirely".
We're talking about successful challenges from major states. Meanwhile the University of Hawaii somehow has the ability to block a terror travel ban.
Bates called the move "particularly egregious" given the hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients, young undocumented immigrants who came to the US as children, protected under the program over its five years. Given how many people's lives were built on the protections from DACA, Bates said, "its barebones legal interpretation was doubly insufficient."
That's not a legal decision. It's a political argument.
And that's all these decisions amount. Legislating from the bench.