Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
SCOTUS hasn’t ruled on it yet AS MY SOURCE EXPLAINED TO YOU.Wrong again as usual.
DACA 2012 has been an unqualified policy success, allowing over three-quarters of a million recipients to continue their education, receive professional licensing, find employment, and pay taxes into Social Security and other tax coffers.
All illegally.
.
So you’re just pissing in the wind saying it’s illegal.
Trump will cave and allow these highly productive individuals to stay. You watch.
Do you understand what I have been complaining about?Off point? Lmao
You said it was unconstitutional. I posted what legal scholars said about it. That’s as ON POINT as anyone can be.
You a legal scholar or just think you are?
While the fate of DACA was left in a state of uncertainty due to the even number of judges on the Supreme Court in 2016, it’s not uncommon for presidents to allow certain groups of immigrants to enter the United States on a temporary basis. Importantly, so-called deferred action is constitutional, according to a group of more than 100 law professors who spoke out in favor of DACA, and often used to help better utilize limited government resources.
A decision you disagree with does not = judicial misconduct.And by "sanity" you mean clear judicial misconduct?Another win for sanity. Another loss for this impotent prez
You outcome-oriented tools have no business anywhere near the bench.
He has stable Alzheimer’swell Cheetoboi called DACA a "bill of love today"
remember when he stabbed Jeb in the ass for calling it an act of love ?
poor old bastard cant remember shit. Guess he's dangerously out there ...
````````````````````````````
Trump called the potential DACA deal bill a “bill of love.”
During an April 2014 interview on the Breitbart News Sunday radio program, Trump slammed Bush for remarks that illegal immigration is an “act of love.” Trump called Bush’s remarks “pretty ridiculous” and “dangerous.” At the 2014 inaugural Freedom Summit in New Hampshire Trump called Bush’s comments “out there.”
Yes. Next?Judges get to decide if a president's rolling back of an EO is constitutional?You’re such a poor losing pussy.
Judges get to decide what’s Constitutional, not little twerps like you.
Yeah we get it: you’re a constitutional scholarDo you understand what I have been complaining about?Off point? Lmao
You said it was unconstitutional. I posted what legal scholars said about it. That’s as ON POINT as anyone can be.
You a legal scholar or just think you are?
A judge cannot prevent the executive from recending one of the executive's policies. The SCOTUS has no authority to review an act of Congress to repeal a law. Such an act to get rid of a law is not subject to judicial review.
Are we on the same page now?
The scope of what actions the judiciary is authorised to review is so clear and well settled that there can be no excuse for this judge's actions. It was deliberate misconduct for political reasons, calling into question this judge's ability to ever act in an impartial fashion, or his ability to put aside his personal opinions and political views, and make decisions based on the law.
This is such a law school 101 issue, this judge is completely unfit and should be impeached and removed.
Get it?
Only you would call complete ignorance of the law "a win for sanity."Another win for sanity. Another loss for this impotent prez
That's your argument? Ain't gonna win the day when it matters.So some fucking regressive judge thinks he has the power to prop up a clearly unconstitutional program. Anyone with half a brain should be demanding that SOBs impeachment and removal from office.
.
I'm sure plenty of RWNJs with half a brain are doing just that.
You can bet I will. DAPA an identical program to DACA, it just applied to a different subset of illegals, has already been declared unconstitutional. A judge has no authority to tell anyone they must continue to violate the law.
.
Of course you will. All you RWNJs with half a brain will.
What's wrong child, not enough balls to address the remainder of my post?
.
I try not to address RWNJs much other than to laugh at you.
A decision you disagree with does not = judicial misconduct.
Crybaby
Yeah we get it: you’re a constitutional scholarDo you understand what I have been complaining about?Off point? Lmao
You said it was unconstitutional. I posted what legal scholars said about it. That’s as ON POINT as anyone can be.
You a legal scholar or just think you are?
A judge cannot prevent the executive from recending one of the executive's policies. The SCOTUS has no authority to review an act of Congress to repeal a law. Such an act to get rid of a law is not subject to judicial review.
Are we on the same page now?
The scope of what actions the judiciary is authorised to review is so clear and well settled that there can be no excuse for this judge's actions. It was deliberate misconduct for political reasons, calling into question this judge's ability to ever act in an impartial fashion, or his ability to put aside his personal opinions and political views, and make decisions based on the law.
This is such a law school 101 issue, this judge is completely unfit and should be impeached and removed.
Get it?
Oh really?Another win for sanity. Another loss for this impotent prez
SCOTUS will overrule it in a couple of months. You snowflakes have lost every single court battle. Obama drone judges always get overruled.
Is gay marriage the law of the land? Yes or no?
EW.Yeah we get it: you’re a constitutional scholarDo you understand what I have been complaining about?Off point? Lmao
You said it was unconstitutional. I posted what legal scholars said about it. That’s as ON POINT as anyone can be.
You a legal scholar or just think you are?
A judge cannot prevent the executive from recending one of the executive's policies. The SCOTUS has no authority to review an act of Congress to repeal a law. Such an act to get rid of a law is not subject to judicial review.
Are we on the same page now?
The scope of what actions the judiciary is authorised to review is so clear and well settled that there can be no excuse for this judge's actions. It was deliberate misconduct for political reasons, calling into question this judge's ability to ever act in an impartial fashion, or his ability to put aside his personal opinions and political views, and make decisions based on the law.
This is such a law school 101 issue, this judge is completely unfit and should be impeached and removed.
Get it?
I don’t like either decision but I didn’t cry foul and say the judges acted inappropriately.A decision you disagree with does not = judicial misconduct.
Crybaby
Ahem...
I wonder how you reacted to the Hobby Lobby ruling, or Citizens United? It's only fair and just if the judge rules in your favor...
You’re both full of shit.Great. Awesome.DACA is immensely popular with the American people. Actually 86% approve of them.
The lowly 14% disapprove. Half seem to be on this forum.
Once again the knuckle dragging Trump whores are on the wrong side of history.
Poll: 86 percent support Dreamers staying in the country
Should judges make decisions based on public opinion or based on the law? Even the most hardcore supporter of DACA has to admit that the judge acted improperly.
Is DACA unconstitutional?
The short answer is, the Supreme Court has yet to rule on its constitutionality, so calling it “unconstitutional” is presumptive. And while the program has vocal opponents, legal experts largely argue that the program is not only constitutional but based on commonplace practices.
Is DACA really unconstitutional, as the Trump administration claims?
And?...Yeah we get it: you’re a constitutional scholarDo you understand what I have been complaining about?Off point? Lmao
You said it was unconstitutional. I posted what legal scholars said about it. That’s as ON POINT as anyone can be.
You a legal scholar or just think you are?
A judge cannot prevent the executive from recending one of the executive's policies. The SCOTUS has no authority to review an act of Congress to repeal a law. Such an act to get rid of a law is not subject to judicial review.
Are we on the same page now?
The scope of what actions the judiciary is authorised to review is so clear and well settled that there can be no excuse for this judge's actions. It was deliberate misconduct for political reasons, calling into question this judge's ability to ever act in an impartial fashion, or his ability to put aside his personal opinions and political views, and make decisions based on the law.
This is such a law school 101 issue, this judge is completely unfit and should be impeached and removed.
Get it?
I don’t like either decision but I didn’t cry foul and say the judges acted inappropriately.A decision you disagree with does not = judicial misconduct.
Crybaby
Ahem...
I wonder how you reacted to the Hobby Lobby ruling, or Citizens United? It's only fair and just if the judge rules in your favor...
Anything else, kid?
