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.
There is when those opinions are clearly in disagreement with what the legislature voted on.Judge's are to interpret the law. That does not mean that there cannot be multiple interpretations. Which is why we have what are called appellate courts. When appellate courts disagree, the Supreme Court makes the final decision. Nothing insidious about differing opinions.But the legislative branch, at the will of the people, is supposed to make the law. Not judges’ (mis)interpretations of existing law.Your confused, Flash in the pan. The issue is not the 9Th Circuit it is Trump's assault on the independence of the judiciary. You may want a compliant judiciary that follows only what you believe, but fortunately we still live in nation where the rule of law still controls. As I said, you Trumpers do not want a free society, you want a uniform, meek and submissive one.Trumpers do not want a democracy or a republic they want an autocracy. The more like the Republic of North Korea the better to the Trumper. Trumpers want no dissent. They hate the voting franchise. They want total adherence to a supreme leader. That is who they ate and why Trump and Trumpers are such a danger to our democratic institutions and the Constitution. It is no accident that they don't have a bad word for Putin or why Trump admires Kim.
You are confused Moon Bat.
The courts should be trustworthy arbiters but thanks to the Liberal asshole activist judges, mostly appointed by that Obama piece of shit, they have destroyed the integrity of the Judiciary. Just look at how many times that Libtard 9th Circus is overturned if you have any doubts.
.,l..
Trump did something unconstitutional. If he was a black guy, the pseuedocons would have added that to their growing List O'Reasons To Impeach they used to copy and paste on this forum a few years ago.
A federal judge placed an injunction on Trump's action.
So, as predictable as the sun rising in the east (thanks to Emperor Trump!), our President whined about the judge being an "Obama judge".
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court normally keeps himself above the fray, but I guess yet another criticism of a judge by Perpetual Defendant Donald got to him. So he told Trump to knock it off.
Which means, of course. that John Roberts is a fucking homo muslim democrat America hater.
In rare rebuke, Chief Justice Roberts slams Trump for comment about 'Obama judge'
"Roberts said Wednesday the U.S. doesn't have "Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges." He commented in a statement released by the Supreme Court after a query by The Associated Press."
With all respect to Roberts, who does he think he's kidding?
So you think judges are incapable of ruling without partisanship?
The stupid judge in SF violated the latest SCOTUS ruling on travel limitations, so partisanship is the only explanation.
.
So you got anything other than your giggles?????????????It is therefore unsurprising that we have previously observed that §1182(f) vests the President with “ample power” to impose entry restrictions in addition to those elsewhere enumerated in the INA. Sale, 509 U. S., at 187 (finding it “perfectly clear” that the President could “establish a naval blockade” to prevent illegal migrants from entering the United States); see also Abourezk v. Reagan, 785 F. 2d 1043, 1049, n. 2 (CADC 1986) (describing the “sweeping proclamation power” in §1182(f) as enabling the President to supplement the other grounds of inadmissibility in the INA).
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf
LMAO the SCOTUS routinely overturns the liberal 9th circuit court of appeals decisions proving Trump correct. The judiciary may not like hearing they are corrupt and biased, too bad we elected Trump to set them straight.
This is the misconception you right wingers all have. It's because you've been brainwashed by FOX NEWS to believe it.
Judges, all judges, regardless of which side of the isle appoints them are dutifuly sworn to abide by the U.S Constitution. PERIOD
They are Apolitical, meaning not political, nor will it ever cross their minds, that since R or D appointed me, that's where my decision will go.
You don't have enough fingers and toes on the number of times that a Justice has gone against the party or President that has appointed them.
ROFL! You believe judges appointed by Democrats "abide by the Constitution?" That they are "apolitical?" Are you a complete fool?
.,l..
Trump did something unconstitutional. If he was a black guy, the pseuedocons would have added that to their growing List O'Reasons To Impeach they used to copy and paste on this forum a few years ago.
A federal judge placed an injunction on Trump's action.
So, as predictable as the sun rising in the east (thanks to Emperor Trump!), our President whined about the judge being an "Obama judge".
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court normally keeps himself above the fray, but I guess yet another criticism of a judge by Perpetual Defendant Donald got to him. So he told Trump to knock it off.
Which means, of course. that John Roberts is a fucking homo muslim democrat America hater.
In rare rebuke, Chief Justice Roberts slams Trump for comment about 'Obama judge'
"Roberts said Wednesday the U.S. doesn't have "Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges." He commented in a statement released by the Supreme Court after a query by The Associated Press."
With all respect to Roberts, who does he think he's kidding?
So you think judges are incapable of ruling without partisanship?
The stupid judge in SF violated the latest SCOTUS ruling on travel limitations, so partisanship is the only explanation.
.
So you got nothing to rebut what I said?
Contrast this, to what the SF Judge said:
So you got anything other than your giggles?????????????It is therefore unsurprising that we have previously observed that §1182(f) vests the President with “ample power” to impose entry restrictions in addition to those elsewhere enumerated in the INA. Sale, 509 U. S., at 187 (finding it “perfectly clear” that the President could “establish a naval blockade” to prevent illegal migrants from entering the United States); see also Abourezk v. Reagan, 785 F. 2d 1043, 1049, n. 2 (CADC 1986) (describing the “sweeping proclamation power” in §1182(f) as enabling the President to supplement the other grounds of inadmissibility in the INA).
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf
.
LMAO the SCOTUS routinely overturns the liberal 9th circuit court of appeals decisions proving Trump correct. The judiciary may not like hearing they are corrupt and biased, too bad we elected Trump to set them straight.
This is the misconception you right wingers all have. It's because you've been brainwashed by FOX NEWS to believe it.
Judges, all judges, regardless of which side of the isle appoints them are dutifuly sworn to abide by the U.S Constitution. PERIOD
They are Apolitical, meaning not political, nor will it ever cross their minds, that since R or D appointed me, that's where my decision will go.
You don't have enough fingers and toes on the number of times that a Justice has gone against the party or President that has appointed them.
The problem, dumbass, is that leftwing judges rule against laws all the time that clearly do meet the muster of the US constitution.There is when those opinions are clearly in disagreement with what the legislature voted on.Judge's are to interpret the law. That does not mean that there cannot be multiple interpretations. Which is why we have what are called appellate courts. When appellate courts disagree, the Supreme Court makes the final decision. Nothing insidious about differing opinions.But the legislative branch, at the will of the people, is supposed to make the law. Not judges’ (mis)interpretations of existing law.Your confused, Flash in the pan. The issue is not the 9Th Circuit it is Trump's assault on the independence of the judiciary. You may want a compliant judiciary that follows only what you believe, but fortunately we still live in nation where the rule of law still controls. As I said, you Trumpers do not want a free society, you want a uniform, meek and submissive one.You are confused Moon Bat.
The courts should be trustworthy arbiters but thanks to the Liberal asshole activist judges, mostly appointed by that Obama piece of shit, they have destroyed the integrity of the Judiciary. Just look at how many times that Libtard 9th Circus is overturned if you have any doubts.
That's why there are 3 branches of Government. The legislature can vote and pass laws all day long, but if it doesn't meet the muster of the US constitution those laws will go down in a ball of flames.
Look at all the state abortion laws that have been overruled by higher federal courts.
Presidents don't "get to do what they want"No one judge alone should be able to do this. The wrong power is in the wrong hands. Over 60 million people voted for Trump. He is who gets to do what he wanted to do here and one piss ass judge should not be making policy for the USA
There is when those opinions are clearly in disagreement with what the legislature voted on.Judge's are to interpret the law. That does not mean that there cannot be multiple interpretations. Which is why we have what are called appellate courts. When appellate courts disagree, the Supreme Court makes the final decision. Nothing insidious about differing opinions.But the legislative branch, at the will of the people, is supposed to make the law. Not judges’ (mis)interpretations of existing law.Your confused, Flash in the pan. The issue is not the 9Th Circuit it is Trump's assault on the independence of the judiciary. You may want a compliant judiciary that follows only what you believe, but fortunately we still live in nation where the rule of law still controls. As I said, you Trumpers do not want a free society, you want a uniform, meek and submissive one.You are confused Moon Bat.
The courts should be trustworthy arbiters but thanks to the Liberal asshole activist judges, mostly appointed by that Obama piece of shit, they have destroyed the integrity of the Judiciary. Just look at how many times that Libtard 9th Circus is overturned if you have any doubts.
That's why there are 3 branches of Government. The legislature can vote and pass laws all day long, but if it doesn't meet the muster of the US constitution those laws will go down in a ball of flames.
Look at all the state abortion laws that have been overruled by higher federal courts.
The problem, dumbass, is that leftwing judges rule against laws all the time that clearly do meet the muster of the US constitution.
According to that dumbass theory, any of 2 billion people from any location on the globe could request asylum and the courts would have to give them a hearing. You have to be a special kind of stupid to believe that..,l..
Trump did something unconstitutional. If he was a black guy, the pseuedocons would have added that to their growing List O'Reasons To Impeach they used to copy and paste on this forum a few years ago.
A federal judge placed an injunction on Trump's action.
So, as predictable as the sun rising in the east (thanks to Emperor Trump!), our President whined about the judge being an "Obama judge".
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court normally keeps himself above the fray, but I guess yet another criticism of a judge by Perpetual Defendant Donald got to him. So he told Trump to knock it off.
Which means, of course. that John Roberts is a fucking homo muslim democrat America hater.
In rare rebuke, Chief Justice Roberts slams Trump for comment about 'Obama judge'
"Roberts said Wednesday the U.S. doesn't have "Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges." He commented in a statement released by the Supreme Court after a query by The Associated Press."
With all respect to Roberts, who does he think he's kidding?
So you think judges are incapable of ruling without partisanship?
The stupid judge in SF violated the latest SCOTUS ruling on travel limitations, so partisanship is the only explanation.
.
So you got nothing to rebut what I said?
Contrast this, to what the SF Judge said:
So you got anything other than your giggles?????????????It is therefore unsurprising that we have previously observed that §1182(f) vests the President with “ample power” to impose entry restrictions in addition to those elsewhere enumerated in the INA. Sale, 509 U. S., at 187 (finding it “perfectly clear” that the President could “establish a naval blockade” to prevent illegal migrants from entering the United States); see also Abourezk v. Reagan, 785 F. 2d 1043, 1049, n. 2 (CADC 1986) (describing the “sweeping proclamation power” in §1182(f) as enabling the President to supplement the other grounds of inadmissibility in the INA).
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf
.
The difference is refugees or immigrants. If they're claiming they're refugees and seeking
Asylum in this country they have to be heard out in a court of law, and the Ass Clown has no authority over that.
According to that dumbass theory, any of 2 billion people from any location on the globe could request asylum and the courts would have to give them a hearing
.,l..
Trump did something unconstitutional. If he was a black guy, the pseuedocons would have added that to their growing List O'Reasons To Impeach they used to copy and paste on this forum a few years ago.
A federal judge placed an injunction on Trump's action.
So, as predictable as the sun rising in the east (thanks to Emperor Trump!), our President whined about the judge being an "Obama judge".
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court normally keeps himself above the fray, but I guess yet another criticism of a judge by Perpetual Defendant Donald got to him. So he told Trump to knock it off.
Which means, of course. that John Roberts is a fucking homo muslim democrat America hater.
In rare rebuke, Chief Justice Roberts slams Trump for comment about 'Obama judge'
"Roberts said Wednesday the U.S. doesn't have "Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges." He commented in a statement released by the Supreme Court after a query by The Associated Press."
With all respect to Roberts, who does he think he's kidding?
So you think judges are incapable of ruling without partisanship?
The stupid judge in SF violated the latest SCOTUS ruling on travel limitations, so partisanship is the only explanation.
.
So you got nothing to rebut what I said?
Contrast this, to what the SF Judge said:
So you got anything other than your giggles?????????????It is therefore unsurprising that we have previously observed that §1182(f) vests the President with “ample power” to impose entry restrictions in addition to those elsewhere enumerated in the INA. Sale, 509 U. S., at 187 (finding it “perfectly clear” that the President could “establish a naval blockade” to prevent illegal migrants from entering the United States); see also Abourezk v. Reagan, 785 F. 2d 1043, 1049, n. 2 (CADC 1986) (describing the “sweeping proclamation power” in §1182(f) as enabling the President to supplement the other grounds of inadmissibility in the INA).
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf
.
The difference is refugees or immigrants. If they're claiming they're refugees and seeking
Asylum in this country they have to be heard out in a court of law, and the Ass Clown has no authority over that.
Come on hero, sharpen that pencil and put that little thinking cap on. LMAOBy its terms, §1182(f) exudes deference to the President in every clause. It entrusts to the President the decisions whether and when to suspend entry (“[w]henever [he] finds that the entry” of aliens “would be detrimental” to the national interest); whose entry to suspend (“all aliens or any class of aliens”); for how long (“for such period as he shall deem necessary”); and on what conditions (“any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate”). It is therefore unsurprising that we have previously observed that §1182(f) vests the President with “ample power” to impose entry restrictions in addition to those elsewhere enumerated in the INA.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf
LMAO the SCOTUS routinely overturns the liberal 9th circuit court of appeals decisions proving Trump correct. The judiciary may not like hearing they are corrupt and biased, too bad we elected Trump to set them straight.
This is the misconception you right wingers all have. It's because you've been brainwashed by FOX NEWS to believe it.
Judges, all judges, regardless of which side of the isle appoints them are dutifuly sworn to abide by the U.S Constitution. PERIOD
They are Apolitical, meaning not political, nor will it ever cross their minds, that since R or D appointed me, that's where my decision will go.
You don't have enough fingers and toes on the number of times that a Justice has gone against the party or President that has appointed them.
And like politicians, many judges could give a shit about the oath they took. If judges used the same standards, split decisions would be the exception and not the rule. Also you wouldn't be able to predict how a judge would vote. Rarely are there any surprise votes coming out of the supremes, they're totally predictable.
.
There are always surprises coming out of the U.S. Supreme Court.
The judge who just ruled Trump can't repeal DACA, is one. All the judges who ruled against Trump's travel ban, for anotherLMAO the SCOTUS routinely overturns the liberal 9th circuit court of appeals decisions proving Trump correct. The judiciary may not like hearing they are corrupt and biased, too bad we elected Trump to set them straight.
This is the misconception you right wingers all have. It's because you've been brainwashed by FOX NEWS to believe it.
Judges, all judges, regardless of which side of the isle appoints them are dutifuly sworn to abide by the U.S Constitution. PERIOD
They are Apolitical, meaning not political, nor will it ever cross their minds, that since R or D appointed me, that's where my decision will go.
You don't have enough fingers and toes on the number of times that a Justice has gone against the party or President that has appointed them.
ROFL! You believe judges appointed by Democrats "abide by the Constitution?" That they are "apolitical?" Are you a complete fool?
Of course you can provide verifiable--credible links to that. You show me where they broke U.S. Constitutional law in order to satiate their leanings toward Democrats or Republicans for that matter.
Otherwise STFU.
Not the American will to have an elected President be at the interpretive whim of one judge somewhere.Presidents don't "get to do what they want"No one judge alone should be able to do this. The wrong power is in the wrong hands. Over 60 million people voted for Trump. He is who gets to do what he wanted to do here and one piss ass judge should not be making policy for the USA
That is a dictatorship
According to that dumbass theory, any of 2 billion people from any location on the globe could request asylum and the courts would have to give them a hearing. You have to be a special kind of stupid to believe that..,l..
"Roberts said Wednesday the U.S. doesn't have "Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges." He commented in a statement released by the Supreme Court after a query by The Associated Press."
With all respect to Roberts, who does he think he's kidding?
So you think judges are incapable of ruling without partisanship?
The stupid judge in SF violated the latest SCOTUS ruling on travel limitations, so partisanship is the only explanation.
.
So you got nothing to rebut what I said?
Contrast this, to what the SF Judge said:
So you got anything other than your giggles?????????????It is therefore unsurprising that we have previously observed that §1182(f) vests the President with “ample power” to impose entry restrictions in addition to those elsewhere enumerated in the INA. Sale, 509 U. S., at 187 (finding it “perfectly clear” that the President could “establish a naval blockade” to prevent illegal migrants from entering the United States); see also Abourezk v. Reagan, 785 F. 2d 1043, 1049, n. 2 (CADC 1986) (describing the “sweeping proclamation power” in §1182(f) as enabling the President to supplement the other grounds of inadmissibility in the INA).
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf
.
The difference is refugees or immigrants. If they're claiming they're refugees and seeking
Asylum in this country they have to be heard out in a court of law, and the Ass Clown has no authority over that.
As usual, the snowflake understanding of your laws is defective.
Only idiots believe that's what the law says.According to that dumbass theory, any of 2 billion people from any location on the globe could request asylum and the courts would have to give them a hearing
That's not "dumbass theory"...that's the LAW
And better legal minds than you have noted that
Not the American will to have an elected President be at the interpretive whim of one judge somewhere.
