Federal Judges Versus Constitution and U.S. Law

[Syriusly]

Can someone explain to me how it is possible for a federal judge to stay an executive order by the president,!

Because federal judges have the responsibility to rule on Constitutional matters.

Ultimately his or her decision may or may not be overturned- but at this level it is his responsibility to decide on the constitutionality of something- not yours.

which he didn't do, thanks for playing.

Which is exactly what he did.

because federal judges have the responsibility to rule on Constitutional matters.

Ultimately his or her decision may or may not be overturned- but at this level it is his responsibility to decide on the constitutionality of something- not yours.

 

[Hossfly]

Let's see . His stupid ban affected a number of people who have visas and greencards . They have rights .

Trump is not king, he can't just change shit on a whim . His claims of safety are not based on any facts .

When the first person is killed by a terrorist posing as a refugee or when they commit a terrorist act, I know a few people who are going hunting without a license.

 

[jc456]

Can someone explain to me how it is possible for a federal judge to stay an executive order by the president,!

Because federal judges have the responsibility to rule on Constitutional matters.

Ultimately his or her decision may or may not be overturned- but at this level it is his responsibility to decide on the constitutionality of something- not yours.

which he didn't do, thanks for playing.

Which is exactly what he did.

because federal judges have the responsibility to rule on Constitutional matters.

Ultimately his or her decision may or may not be overturned- but at this level it is his responsibility to decide on the constitutionality of something- not yours.

no, no he didn't use the constitution.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

I am all for killing Islamic terrorists who threaten the United States.
Just not anyone who happens to attend a Mosque.

HAHAHA. What an ignorant argument. When did anyone say we should KILL anyone who attends a mosgue??? Trump merely wants to stop muslims from entering america.

 

[jc456]

I am all for killing Islamic terrorists who threaten the United States.
Just not anyone who happens to attend a Mosque.

HAHAHA. What an ignorant argument. When did anyone say we should KILL anyone who attends a mosgue??? Trump merely wants to stop muslims from entering america.

^^^^^^^^^^^EXACTLY^^^^^^^^^^

 

[The Irish Ram]

Let's see . His stupid ban affected a number of people who have visas and greencards . They have rights .

Trump is not king, he can't just change shit on a whim . His claims of safety are not based on any facts .

He can just change shit. He doesn't have to be a KIng to do it, just president.
And no they don't have rights. They have visas and green cards for a reason. Both are temporary and can be pulled at any time.
Keep America safe again. We have children and grandchildren that deserve to be safe, and they DO have rights.

 

[S.J.]

His stupid ban affected a number of people who have visas and greencards .

And they were allowed in, were they not?

Because the courts stopped the Don .

They were letting them in before the judge issued his ruling. Doesn't matter anyway, the ruling will be overturned. In the meantime, how many terrorists will take advantage of the green light to slip in because of this judge's ruling?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

I see where DoJ attorneys said the judge ruled on emotion and not factual evidence.

And?

Judges aren't supposed to do that. Judges look at the law. Congress can be guided by morals but not judges. THINK

 

[jc456]

I see where DoJ attorneys said the judge ruled on emotion and not factual evidence.

And?

Judges aren't supposed to do that. Judges look at the law. Congress can be guided by morals but not judges. THINK

ahh there you go asking a libturd to think.

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

President Trumps EO was lawful and will be reinstated.

 

[The Irish Ram]

I am all for killing Islamic terrorists who threaten the United States.
Just not anyone who happens to attend a Mosque

Pick out the terrorist....

 

[ShootSpeeders]

President Trumps EO was lawful and will be reinstated.

And by the time that happens more thousands of muslims will have invaded us and gone on welfare for life.

 

[jillian]

Can someone explain to me how it is possible for a federal judge to stay an executive order by the president, when the immigration law clearly give the POTUS the authority to impose a travel ban on any group of aliens for and period of time they deem necessary to protect U.S. interests? Whether or not you agree with Trump's travel ban, this isn't a conservative or liberal question, it is a question about whether or not we the people and Congress or going to continue to allow federal judges to make rulings based on their personal opinion, or interpret the constitution and U.S. laws passed by Congress. Either we are still a nation of laws, or we are not!

I'm sorry that you don't understand the job of the courts and the limits on executive power. These things are based on precedent and on the interpretation of the constitution.

While there is discretion the president can't do whatever he wants and does not have carte blanche to discriminate and treat people disparately because of their religion.

Either way, defending the constitution is not an affront to the executive branch. And if the Donald and his minions think it is, he's free to leave the position.

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

Can someone explain to me how it is possible for a federal judge to stay an executive order by the president, when the immigration law clearly give the POTUS the authority to impose a travel ban on any group of aliens for and period of time they deem necessary to protect U.S. interests? Whether or not you agree with Trump's travel ban, this isn't a conservative or liberal question, it is a question about whether or not we the people and Congress or going to continue to allow federal judges to make rulings based on their personal opinion, or interpret the constitution and U.S. laws passed by Congress. Either we are still a nation of laws, or we are not!

I'm sorry that you don't understand the job of the courts and the limits on executive power. These things are based on precedent and on the interpretation of the constitution.

While there is discretion the president can't do whatever he wants and does not have carte blanche to discriminate and treat people disparately because of their religion.

Either way, defending the constitution is not an affront to the executive branch. And if the Donald and his minions think it is, he's free to leave the position.

Would you care to wager if the EO is reinstated or not? You being a lawyer and all...

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Can someone explain to me how it is possible for a federal judge to stay an executive order by the president, when the immigration law clearly give the POTUS the authority to impose a travel ban on any group of aliens for and period of time they deem necessary to protect U.S. interests? Whether or not you agree with Trump's travel ban, this isn't a conservative or liberal question, it is a question about whether or not we the people and Congress or going to continue to allow federal judges to make rulings based on their personal opinion, or interpret the constitution and U.S. laws passed by Congress. Either we are still a nation of laws, or we are not!

Judicial overreach... this is why we work so hard to block activist judges.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Can someone explain to me how it is possible for a federal judge to stay an executive order by the president, when the immigration law clearly give the POTUS the authority to impose a travel ban on any group of aliens for and period of time they deem necessary to protect U.S. interests? Whether or not you agree with Trump's travel ban, this isn't a conservative or liberal question, it is a question about whether or not we the people and Congress or going to continue to allow federal judges to make rulings based on their personal opinion, or interpret the constitution and U.S. laws passed by Congress. Either we are still a nation of laws, or we are not!

I'm sorry that you don't understand the job of the courts and the limits on executive power. These things are based on precedent and on the interpretation of the constitution.

While there is discretion the president can't do whatever he wants and does not have carte blanche to discriminate and treat people disparately because of their religion.

Either way, defending the constitution is not an affront to the executive branch. And if the Donald and his minions think it is, he's free to leave the position.

Oh, yeah.. the "Muslim Ban".

You people have created a new level of stupid never before seen.

 

[danielpalos]

Can someone explain to me how it is possible for a federal judge to stay an executive order by the president, when the immigration law clearly give the POTUS the authority to impose a travel ban on any group of aliens for and period of time they deem necessary to protect U.S. interests? Whether or not you agree with Trump's travel ban, this isn't a conservative or liberal question, it is a question about whether or not we the people and Congress or going to continue to allow federal judges to make rulings based on their personal opinion, or interpret the constitution and U.S. laws passed by Congress. Either we are still a nation of laws, or we are not!

why bother claiming you are a federalist if you are going to appeal to ignorance of the federal Doctrine?

 

[danielpalos]

^ shot across the bow. Thank you for your common sense.

Our whole and entire, supreme law of the land, is not Only, that immigration statute.

 

[yiostheoy]

Can someone explain to me how it is possible for a federal judge to stay an executive order by the president, when the immigration law clearly give the POTUS the authority to impose a travel ban on any group of aliens for and period of time they deem necessary to protect U.S. interests? Whether or not you agree with Trump's travel ban, this isn't a conservative or liberal question, it is a question about whether or not we the people and Congress or going to continue to allow federal judges to make rulings based on their personal opinion, or interpret the constitution and U.S. laws passed by Congress. Either we are still a nation of laws, or we are not!

Federal judges have a lot of power given to them.

They are the first level of defense against Federal tyranny.

Only other Federal judges can overrule them.

The first to overrule them are the Federal circuit courts of appeal.

The next and last to overrule them is the SCOTUS. However right now the SCOTUS is tied 4 to 4 on most issues. Therefore to all intents and purposes the SCOTUS does not exist at the moment.

Therefore the various Federal circuit judges are a defacto irreversible body of extended mini-SCOTUS-es.

Ergo a very progressive, left-leaning Federal judge in a similar progressive, left-leaning circuit is more powerful at the moment than the POTUS.

That's how it works.

 

[danielpalos]

This sort of thing has been going on for decades. Look at roe v wade or plyler v doe. Federal Judges are now unelected legislators and they further claim their laws cannot be changed by anyone except other judges.!!!

The very first words of the constitution after the preamble are "all legislative powers herein granted shall be invested in a congress of the united states".

why do we still have an extra-Constitutional, War on Drugs?