easyt65
Diamond Member
- Aug 4, 2015
- 90,307
- 61,137
"The Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared sharply divided over President Trump's move to end Obama-era protections for undocumented immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children, as the justices heard oral arguments in one of the most closely watched cases of the term."
WHY?
The division is obviously along POLIICALLY PARTISAN and IDEOLOGICAL lines, not anything to do with the CONSTITUTION or actual LAW.
"The justices’ questions during oral arguments suggested that the court may break down along familiar ideological lines in the case."
1. NO ADMITTED CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY
President Obama ADMITTED he did not have the Constitutional authority to alter / amend / change existing US Immigration Law, that frustration over the difference in opinion between the 2 parties and their inability to pass proposed DACA was NOT - NOT - justification for him to impose it on his own....then the SOB did it anyway.
2. OBAMA'S DACA WAS A PRESIDENTIAL EDICT NOT LEGISDLATION PASSED INTO LAW
Much like his personal TREATY with Iran, 'DACA' was a product of Obama's own personal Presidential pen with which he used to violate the Constitution's Separation of Powers to impose his own personal law pushing his own personal ideology that was not supported by actual existing law.
President Trump took an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution, uphold and enforce the Law and EXISTING LAWS. He did not take an oath to uphold and enforce a former President's Un-Constitutional Presidential Edict. Unlike actual laws passed by Congress, the former President's own personal 'edicts' created and imposed by him and his personal Presidential pen can be voided / wiped away by the new President's own Presidential pen. (President Trump has all but wiped out President Obama's 'Legacy' 'edicts' without this level of epic liberal butt-hurt and whining.)
3. IS THE USSC WILLING TO SET PRECEDENCE BY DECLARING ALL PRESIDENTIAL 'EDICTS' FROM THIS DAY FORWARD WILL BE TREATED / PROTECTED AS IF THEY WERE LAW PASSED BY CONGRESS?!
Unless the USSC is going to set precedence by declaring ALL such Presidential 'edicts' penciled into existence by a Temp (4/8 years) President can NOT be edited or repealed / deleted, they are declaring political parties / Presidents can cherry-pick specific 'edicts' penned into law by a 'Temp President' that support / push their own specific ideology and declare THESE can NOT be eliminated...AND that the next President / country is BOUND by them...forever.
Divided Supreme Court leans toward allowing Trump to end DACA
WHY?
The division is obviously along POLIICALLY PARTISAN and IDEOLOGICAL lines, not anything to do with the CONSTITUTION or actual LAW.
"The justices’ questions during oral arguments suggested that the court may break down along familiar ideological lines in the case."
1. NO ADMITTED CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY
President Obama ADMITTED he did not have the Constitutional authority to alter / amend / change existing US Immigration Law, that frustration over the difference in opinion between the 2 parties and their inability to pass proposed DACA was NOT - NOT - justification for him to impose it on his own....then the SOB did it anyway.
2. OBAMA'S DACA WAS A PRESIDENTIAL EDICT NOT LEGISDLATION PASSED INTO LAW
Much like his personal TREATY with Iran, 'DACA' was a product of Obama's own personal Presidential pen with which he used to violate the Constitution's Separation of Powers to impose his own personal law pushing his own personal ideology that was not supported by actual existing law.
President Trump took an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution, uphold and enforce the Law and EXISTING LAWS. He did not take an oath to uphold and enforce a former President's Un-Constitutional Presidential Edict. Unlike actual laws passed by Congress, the former President's own personal 'edicts' created and imposed by him and his personal Presidential pen can be voided / wiped away by the new President's own Presidential pen. (President Trump has all but wiped out President Obama's 'Legacy' 'edicts' without this level of epic liberal butt-hurt and whining.)
3. IS THE USSC WILLING TO SET PRECEDENCE BY DECLARING ALL PRESIDENTIAL 'EDICTS' FROM THIS DAY FORWARD WILL BE TREATED / PROTECTED AS IF THEY WERE LAW PASSED BY CONGRESS?!
Unless the USSC is going to set precedence by declaring ALL such Presidential 'edicts' penciled into existence by a Temp (4/8 years) President can NOT be edited or repealed / deleted, they are declaring political parties / Presidents can cherry-pick specific 'edicts' penned into law by a 'Temp President' that support / push their own specific ideology and declare THESE can NOT be eliminated...AND that the next President / country is BOUND by them...forever.
Divided Supreme Court leans toward allowing Trump to end DACA