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.
"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declaring ALL such Presidential 'edicts' penciled into existence by a Temp (4/8 years) President can NOT be edited or repealed / deleted, they are declaring political parties / Presidents can cherry-pick specific 'edicts' penned into law by a 'Temp President' that support / push their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
Way to keep this long-running GOP scam wedge issue going, super duper. Pass the 2010 Democratic comprehensive immigration bill with an ID card and end it like other modern countries have already done. GOP voters are the stupidest most racist voters in the modern world by far. Thanks to the GOP scumbag propaganda machine! Open borders my butt. The wall is stupid and won't work and is unamerican and of course racist. But anything for the orange clown and b******* propaganda...."At issue is the fate of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which grants deferral from deportation to nearly 700,000 undocumented young adult immigrants."
WHY is the fact that these illegals were dragged as children into the US illegally and have been here for years 'at issue'...WHY does it matter?
1. Sucks to be them. Blame their parents.
2. Living here illegally for decades does not change their illegal status. At any point they could have made an effort to adhere to existing US Immigration law.
3. Obama's own admitted Un-Constitutional act of personally imposing 'DACA' does not change their legal status because DACA is Un-Constitutional / is not LAW.
The USSC is responsible for enforcing / upholding the Constitution / Constitutional Law, NOT to attempt to infuse 'social justice' into the Constitution, NOT reward illegals in this country - illegals whose education / healthcare / etc... legal American citizens were forced to pay for...
'Empathy', what is 'fair' or not, has NOTHING to do with the LIBERAL 'NON-LEGAL' / 'NON-Constitutional' concern for how Illegals will 'FEEL' or what 'hardships' they may face if US Immigration Law was ACTUALLY enforced for a change.
No one should be divided on this as DACA is Illegal. The only way you are divided on this is if you SHIT on THE CONSTITUTION."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
Yes it is an Executive Order Dummy.Then it's a good thing Obama did not alter, amend, or change existing US immigration law.President Obama ADMITTED he did not have the Constitutional authority to alter / amend / change existing US Immigration Law
Have you ever even bothered to read Obama's EO?
Didn't think so.
Hint: It's not an EO.
No one should be divided on this as DACA is Illegal. The only way you are divided on this is if you SHIT on THE CONSTITUTION."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
Since when in The Hell does a President write an EO that can never be undone by another?
Much as it nauseates me, there is a Supreme Court (if not Constitutional) precedent that, when people have justifiably relied on a government program or initiative - even if that initiative was improper or illegal - the Court will sometimes protect those people from arbitrary removal of the benefit.
We all know this is going to be a 5-4 decision, and 8 of the votes are a "lock." Justice Roberts will probably hold for the illegals.
Fuck us very much, please.
See post 11.Yes it is an Executive Order Dummy.Then it's a good thing Obama did not alter, amend, or change existing US immigration law.President Obama ADMITTED he did not have the Constitutional authority to alter / amend / change existing US Immigration Law
Have you ever even bothered to read Obama's EO?
Didn't think so.
Hint: It's not an EO.
But but but … Trump says if the SupCt says he can deport them, he'll make a deal with the dems for the dreamers to stay …..
but but but what about the gop making a law?
Donald J. Trump
✔ @realDonaldTrump
Many of the people in DACA, no longer very young, are far from “angels.” Some are very tough, hardened criminals. President Obama said he had no legal right to sign order, but would anyway. If Supreme Court remedies with overturn, a deal will be made with Dems for them to stay!
58.8K
5:45 AM - Nov 12, 2019
Why can't he just do that now?
He offered, the commies declined.
.
Posted above. Unless you are calling those inside his administration commies. Racist would be more appropriate.
But but but … Trump says if the SupCt says he can deport them, he'll make a deal with the dems for the dreamers to stay …..
but but but what about the gop making a law?
Donald J. Trump
✔ @realDonaldTrump
Many of the people in DACA, no longer very young, are far from “angels.” Some are very tough, hardened criminals. President Obama said he had no legal right to sign order, but would anyway. If Supreme Court remedies with overturn, a deal will be made with Dems for them to stay!
58.8K
5:45 AM - Nov 12, 2019
Why can't he just do that now?
He offered, the commies declined.
.
Posted above. Unless you are calling those inside his administration commies. Racist would be more appropriate.
No, I'm talking about palousey and shumker.
.
Heres an actual paycheck from a paid message board shill.He's getting paid to......What do you even participate in the thread? Should you not be hosting your "open borders for USA" thread?
Way to keep this long-running GOP scam wedge issue going, super duper. Pass the 2010 Democratic comprehensive immigration bill with an ID card and end it like other modern countries have already done. GOP voters are the stupidest most racist voters in the modern world by far. Thanks to the GOP scumbag propaganda machine! Open borders my butt. The wall is stupid and won't work and is unamerican and of course racist. But anything for the orange clown and b******* propaganda...."At issue is the fate of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which grants deferral from deportation to nearly 700,000 undocumented young adult immigrants."
WHY is the fact that these illegals were dragged as children into the US illegally and have been here for years 'at issue'...WHY does it matter?
1. Sucks to be them. Blame their parents.
2. Living here illegally for decades does not change their illegal status. At any point they could have made an effort to adhere to existing US Immigration law.
3. Obama's own admitted Un-Constitutional act of personally imposing 'DACA' does not change their legal status because DACA is Un-Constitutional / is not LAW.
The USSC is responsible for enforcing / upholding the Constitution / Constitutional Law, NOT to attempt to infuse 'social justice' into the Constitution, NOT reward illegals in this country - illegals whose education / healthcare / etc... legal American citizens were forced to pay for...
'Empathy', what is 'fair' or not, has NOTHING to do with the LIBERAL 'NON-LEGAL' / 'NON-Constitutional' concern for how Illegals will 'FEEL' or what 'hardships' they may face if US Immigration Law was ACTUALLY enforced for a change.
and pass the damn 2010 Democratic comprehensive immigration bill with an ID card that would end this perpetual GOP scam wedge issue.... The wall is stupid un-American and won't work and neither will harassment of illegals that the GOP basically invited in with their refusal of an ID card or any organization of this problem....No one should be divided on this as DACA is Illegal. The only way you are divided on this is if you SHIT on THE CONSTITUTION."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
Since when in The Hell does a President write an EO that can never be undone by another?
Sorry dude I agree.. just let it be, like Reagan gave amnesty to people from the great country of Mexico.
Unconstitutional my butt, brainwashed functional moron.Way to keep this long-running GOP scam wedge issue going, super duper. Pass the 2010 Democratic comprehensive immigration bill with an ID card and end it like other modern countries have already done. GOP voters are the stupidest most racist voters in the modern world by far. Thanks to the GOP scumbag propaganda machine! Open borders my butt. The wall is stupid and won't work and is unamerican and of course racist. But anything for the orange clown and b******* propaganda...."At issue is the fate of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which grants deferral from deportation to nearly 700,000 undocumented young adult immigrants."
WHY is the fact that these illegals were dragged as children into the US illegally and have been here for years 'at issue'...WHY does it matter?
1. Sucks to be them. Blame their parents.
2. Living here illegally for decades does not change their illegal status. At any point they could have made an effort to adhere to existing US Immigration law.
3. Obama's own admitted Un-Constitutional act of personally imposing 'DACA' does not change their legal status because DACA is Un-Constitutional / is not LAW.
The USSC is responsible for enforcing / upholding the Constitution / Constitutional Law, NOT to attempt to infuse 'social justice' into the Constitution, NOT reward illegals in this country - illegals whose education / healthcare / etc... legal American citizens were forced to pay for...
'Empathy', what is 'fair' or not, has NOTHING to do with the LIBERAL 'NON-LEGAL' / 'NON-Constitutional' concern for how Illegals will 'FEEL' or what 'hardships' they may face if US Immigration Law was ACTUALLY enforced for a change.
Why would anyone want the unconstitutional piece of crap passed? Oh right, you're one that thinks the constitution is irrelevant.
.
Unconstitutional my butt, brainwashed functional moron.Way to keep this long-running GOP scam wedge issue going, super duper. Pass the 2010 Democratic comprehensive immigration bill with an ID card and end it like other modern countries have already done. GOP voters are the stupidest most racist voters in the modern world by far. Thanks to the GOP scumbag propaganda machine! Open borders my butt. The wall is stupid and won't work and is unamerican and of course racist. But anything for the orange clown and b******* propaganda...."At issue is the fate of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which grants deferral from deportation to nearly 700,000 undocumented young adult immigrants."
WHY is the fact that these illegals were dragged as children into the US illegally and have been here for years 'at issue'...WHY does it matter?
1. Sucks to be them. Blame their parents.
2. Living here illegally for decades does not change their illegal status. At any point they could have made an effort to adhere to existing US Immigration law.
3. Obama's own admitted Un-Constitutional act of personally imposing 'DACA' does not change their legal status because DACA is Un-Constitutional / is not LAW.
The USSC is responsible for enforcing / upholding the Constitution / Constitutional Law, NOT to attempt to infuse 'social justice' into the Constitution, NOT reward illegals in this country - illegals whose education / healthcare / etc... legal American citizens were forced to pay for...
'Empathy', what is 'fair' or not, has NOTHING to do with the LIBERAL 'NON-LEGAL' / 'NON-Constitutional' concern for how Illegals will 'FEEL' or what 'hardships' they may face if US Immigration Law was ACTUALLY enforced for a change.
Why would anyone want the unconstitutional piece of crap passed? Oh right, you're one that thinks the constitution is irrelevant.
.
probably. Democrats have to pay for all their bills, while the GOP spend like drunken sailors every time they get in. Ain't GOP propaganda great?Unconstitutional my butt, brainwashed functional moron.Way to keep this long-running GOP scam wedge issue going, super duper. Pass the 2010 Democratic comprehensive immigration bill with an ID card and end it like other modern countries have already done. GOP voters are the stupidest most racist voters in the modern world by far. Thanks to the GOP scumbag propaganda machine! Open borders my butt. The wall is stupid and won't work and is unamerican and of course racist. But anything for the orange clown and b******* propaganda...."At issue is the fate of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which grants deferral from deportation to nearly 700,000 undocumented young adult immigrants."
WHY is the fact that these illegals were dragged as children into the US illegally and have been here for years 'at issue'...WHY does it matter?
1. Sucks to be them. Blame their parents.
2. Living here illegally for decades does not change their illegal status. At any point they could have made an effort to adhere to existing US Immigration law.
3. Obama's own admitted Un-Constitutional act of personally imposing 'DACA' does not change their legal status because DACA is Un-Constitutional / is not LAW.
The USSC is responsible for enforcing / upholding the Constitution / Constitutional Law, NOT to attempt to infuse 'social justice' into the Constitution, NOT reward illegals in this country - illegals whose education / healthcare / etc... legal American citizens were forced to pay for...
'Empathy', what is 'fair' or not, has NOTHING to do with the LIBERAL 'NON-LEGAL' / 'NON-Constitutional' concern for how Illegals will 'FEEL' or what 'hardships' they may face if US Immigration Law was ACTUALLY enforced for a change.
Why would anyone want the unconstitutional piece of crap passed? Oh right, you're one that thinks the constitution is irrelevant.
.
Ok retard, I have two questions, but I will only ask the second one, AFTER you answer the first.
1. Did the bill contain revenue raising provisions, fees, fines, taxes ext?
.
probably. Democrats have to pay for all their bills, while the GOP spend like drunken sailors every time they get in. Ain't GOP propaganda great?Unconstitutional my butt, brainwashed functional moron.Way to keep this long-running GOP scam wedge issue going, super duper. Pass the 2010 Democratic comprehensive immigration bill with an ID card and end it like other modern countries have already done. GOP voters are the stupidest most racist voters in the modern world by far. Thanks to the GOP scumbag propaganda machine! Open borders my butt. The wall is stupid and won't work and is unamerican and of course racist. But anything for the orange clown and b******* propaganda...."At issue is the fate of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which grants deferral from deportation to nearly 700,000 undocumented young adult immigrants."
WHY is the fact that these illegals were dragged as children into the US illegally and have been here for years 'at issue'...WHY does it matter?
1. Sucks to be them. Blame their parents.
2. Living here illegally for decades does not change their illegal status. At any point they could have made an effort to adhere to existing US Immigration law.
3. Obama's own admitted Un-Constitutional act of personally imposing 'DACA' does not change their legal status because DACA is Un-Constitutional / is not LAW.
The USSC is responsible for enforcing / upholding the Constitution / Constitutional Law, NOT to attempt to infuse 'social justice' into the Constitution, NOT reward illegals in this country - illegals whose education / healthcare / etc... legal American citizens were forced to pay for...
'Empathy', what is 'fair' or not, has NOTHING to do with the LIBERAL 'NON-LEGAL' / 'NON-Constitutional' concern for how Illegals will 'FEEL' or what 'hardships' they may face if US Immigration Law was ACTUALLY enforced for a change.
Why would anyone want the unconstitutional piece of crap passed? Oh right, you're one that thinks the constitution is irrelevant.
.
Ok retard, I have two questions, but I will only ask the second one, AFTER you answer the first.
1. Did the bill contain revenue raising provisions, fees, fines, taxes ext?
.
Then it's a good thing Obama did not alter, amend, or change existing US immigration law.President Obama ADMITTED he did not have the Constitutional authority to alter / amend / change existing US Immigration Law
Have you ever even bothered to read Obama's EO?
Didn't think so.
Hint: It's not an EO.
Haha...it’s an “executive action”.
And you dumbmotherfuckers who claim to love the constitution and all it stands for love the clever work around...right?
Then it's a good thing Obama did not alter, amend, or change existing US immigration law.President Obama ADMITTED he did not have the Constitutional authority to alter / amend / change existing US Immigration Law
Have you ever even bothered to read Obama's EO?
Didn't think so.
Hint: It's not an EO.
Haha...it’s an “executive action”.
And you dumbmotherfuckers who claim to love the constitution and all it stands for love the clever work around...right?
SCOTUS decision won't be based on the Constitution.
It'll be based on sympathy as the Rule of Law died and was duly buried in our Country on 7/5/16, when Hillary was not charged by Comey.
SCOTUS will rule that DACA recipients had no willful intent to jump our border illegally!
Embrace your new Banana Republic, muppets!!!
Exactly RightIt's actually illegal to do what the courts did to Trump, in blocking him revoking DACA.
DACA is simply an executive order issued by Obama. Executive orders only live as long as the president who issued them is in office. So DACA should have died the day he left office but it didn't. Yet when Trump issued his on EO ending DACA, all of a sudden a court steps in and stops him. That's illegal. You can't stop an EO that ends an old EO by another president.
This is not about sympathy for dreamers. This is about our nations laws. And DACA was illegal on its face, because no president can issue an EO telling courts to ignore written law. Obama doesn't write law, congress does. All Trump did was end an old EO which he really didn't even need to. But now that it's blocked its in the SCOTUS's hands. This is a no brainer. It should be 9-0 to end DACA.
