SCOTUS/Travel ban

[Rthur]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...s-trump-travel-ban-muslim-majority-countries/

This will be interesting. The title seems misleading per the text of the article.

R

 

[MtnCreek]

According to AP, the ban was reinstated with some limitations.

I'm really hoping Kennedy or one of the marxist justices announce retirement. Liberals will go into full meltdown mode.

 

[K-tech]

According to AP, the ban was reinstated with some limitations.

I'm really hoping Kennedy or one of the marxist justices announce retirement. Liberals will go into full meltdown mode.

As much as I'd like to see it, I wouldn't hold your breath. They are going to give Ginsburg whatever snake-oil it takes to keep her above the dirt 'til the next president is in office

 

[ArmyJerry]

well the way i see it, the court is just one co equal branch of our government, the executive is one co equal branch, congress being the other. Congress clearly gave the president this authority 50 years ago, the president read that law, that means 2/3rd of the government said he could ban whoever the fk he wants to, the interim where trump didn't order ICE or Homeland to follow his orders was a show of weakness and he endangered the country, the judiciary is just one branch and the president in time of crisis can suspend the other two branches.

 

[vh20]

Uh, are you saying that Trump instituted a travel ban, it got challenged in Federal court and overturned by liberal judges at least twice, so he had to take it to the Supreme Court and you see that as Trump's fault and HE is the one endangering the country? That's quite an interesting perspective.

 

[pmclaine]

The SCOTUS is coequal but its power is supposed to be as referee only. I think it was Hamilton that said "neither power of sword or purse".

Yesterday it performed that function and even went so far as saying "and don't try to pull any cute shit like saying every refugee is now a visiting college professor and sneak them in".

Refreshing to see them not legislate from the bench and only consider a case on its merits not "feelings".

The media is being deceptive by stating "watered down" executive order they make it sound like SCOTUS amended it. SCOTUS took up the second EO and approved it as written. Watered down refers to the fact the Jan 27 order was changed based on the 9th circuits ruling.

Its likely had the first EO been the subject of the appeal to SCOTUS it would have passed.

Roberts hands are tied on this. He was the one that established "the rhetoric of the campaign can not be a consideration when considering the law as written". He did this when he changed Obamacare "penalties" for not being insured to "taxes". A complete reversal of how the legislation was presented before it was voted in.

In October its likely going to be pronounced that POTUS has full power to enforce immigration law and accept or deny immigration as necessary to ensure national security.

The left may try to sugar coat it but in the words of Donald Trump they were "schlonged" yesterday.

Jerry regards the failure to meet promises I see a lot of things that show John Kelly is doing a great job and enforcing the rule of law. Im not so concerned with the wall. Sure it should be built in some locations but our immigration laws are a solid wall on paper. Enforce the laws against those that overstay their welcome and enforce the law against those businesses that provide them jobs to fund their law breaking. It will do the same as the wall and more importantly it ensnares those, and there are a lot of them, that come in through routes other than our southern border.

In Boston there is currently a shit storm brewing because an Irish interloper is being sent back to kiss the blarney stone. "OH MY GOD THEY ARE DEPORTING WHITE RED HEADED PEOPLE NOW> NONE OF US ARE SAFE FROM THESE MONSTERS".

So I guess immigration law is only supposed to apply to non English speaking or brown people? Not so and Im happy to see that law breakers of all stripes are being sent back.

 

[ArmyJerry]

I am saying trump could have ignored the lower court and instituted the travel ban as he should have. The court is just that, a court, he is the chief executive with different responsibilities. You dont need 9 mfers to interpret the law as its written and as its been pacticed harshly by the courts fellow dems against Iranians and others in the past.

Uh, are you saying that Trump instituted a travel ban, it got challenged in Federal court and overturned by liberal judges at least twice, so he had to take it to the Supreme Court and you see that as Trump's fault and HE is the one endangering the country? That's quite an interesting perspective.

 

[pmclaine]

I remember a kid in my grade school being shipped back to Iran in 79. No protests no SJW or Antifa involved.

I don't think Trump can over ride the court as policy. If that was okay Obam would have steamrolled the TX judge that killed DACA. I know Obam did what he could in the meantime to bring his voting base in but still he wasn't able to implement his full plan and he opened his admin to further sanction.

This worked well enough and further sets the precedent.

Yesterdays ruling contained language that the President has wide latitude and the courts better have a strong case before they interfere.

In this case the Liberal Appeals circuit judges are the frog in the pot and the heat has been turned up.

Some fights should probably be avoided because the answer may make it more difficult to engage in other fights that are of more concern. The libs chose a battle that based on the actions of their own parties executives should have been seen was a losing issue.

The libs are blind with rage. Lets hope they keep this shit up until they ride the burning ship all the way to the bottom.

 

[ArmyJerry]

you wouldn't be saying that if another building got felled and another 3k citizens got incinerated would ya?

 

[P-Squared]

pmclaine; technically I think the President could ignore the courts. It would result in a shit storm, but what could they do? The Executive branch enforces the laws, the Legislative branch writes the laws, and the Judicial branch is the referee. The President could order his DOJ to enforce his order regardless of what the 9th and the 4th circuits ruled, and he could ignore the SCOTUS as well. I think the shit storm would start with Congress passing legislation that forbid the President. At that point the President would have to enforce the law. I think we have given to much credence to the Judicial and allowed them to legislate from the bench. The only reason that has happened is the Executive and Legislative branches have allowed it.

Now I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express a few nights.

 

[pmclaine]

Yeah he could ignore the courts but if something is found unconstitutional by the courts and he does it anyway you get into the area of high crimes and misdemeanors.

The rinos are guilty of letting Obam do just that thing to some extent. He only pushed it to the point that boner and mcconnel could cover themselves by saying they havent reached the point of impeachment yet.

i dont think mcconnel, ryan, lindsay and mcstain would give trump that much rope and schumer and pelosi have been ready to kick his stool since nov 9.

This way he is legitimate as hell.

Remember "We are going to win so much....."

 

[ArmyJerry]

He could also disband congress if national security is at stake, its been done before and its constitutional.

I am not advocating this action but the other branches need to be put back on their heals and bought back to reality. Lets face it our judicial branch caused more misery and loss of freedom than the other two branched combined, they are and were responsible for slavery. Not very hard to interpret our BOR, its written in plain language, they have interpreted themselves out of credibility in my opinion. Always remember Unconstitutional laws are not laws at all, same with unconstitutional rulings.

 

[pmclaine]

Lets hope we get another Gorsuch that just reads than law, makes his decision based on what is written in the law than says if you dont like the decision than do your job and change the law.

 

[FS1]

In Worcester v Georgia, Andrew Jackson said John Marshal (chief Justice) has made his decision, Now let him enforce it. It has been done before. But it would raise a shitstorm.

 

[Forgetful Coyote]

In Worcester v Georgia, Andrew Jackson said John Marshal (chief Justice) has made his decision, Now let him enforce it. It has been done before. But it would raise a shitstorm.

Yeah I doubt we'll see the likes of Jackson again unfortunately tho - motherfucker also threw a kegger as his inauguration party and challenged/was challenged to multiple duels to the death, they dont make em like that anymore. We're more likely to get another "honest" Abe Lincoln..