The Judicial Branch now determines immigration policy

[Wyatt earp]

I'm not sure what laws Trump has broken exactly with his temporary immigration ban. Perhaps someone could tell me.


Additionally, it now appears that Progressives have given the courts the duty of deciding what immigrants can enter the country and which can't. Perhaps they could then show me in the Constitution where this is exactly.

But then, just because it is not written in the Constitution does not mean it is not implied to be there, right Progressives? For you see, the Constitution is a living breathing document that allows Progressives to dictate what it really means, or should have said all along had the writers of the Constitution not been slave owners.

Are you saying the courts shouldn't have overturned Obama's EOs?

The “decision marks the 12th time the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against the Obama administration on the issue of executive power,” Heritage Foundation legal expert Elizabeth Slattery explains.​

Unanimous Supreme Court Rules Against the Obama Administration’s Unconstitutional Power Grab | myHeritage

We know that..

To over turn a presidents E. O. Only the Supreme Court or congress can do that..

Guess who is going to stack the books against the left?

It hasn't been overturned. It has been blocked by a Federal court and upheld in an appellate court. It will most likely go to the Supreme Court.

This is how the legal process works.

We have a republic of laws, not a monarchy.

And who will be elected the ninth Supreme Court judge?

Do you really think a left wing?

I assume in the liberal fantasy world..

 

[kaz]

I'm not sure what laws Trump has broken exactly with his temporary immigration ban. Perhaps someone could tell me.


Additionally, it now appears that Progressives have given the courts the duty of deciding what immigrants can enter the country and which can't. Perhaps they could then show me in the Constitution where this is exactly.

But then, just because it is not written in the Constitution does not mean it is not implied to be there, right Progressives? For you see, the Constitution is a living breathing document that allows Progressives to dictate what it really means, or should have said all along had the writers of the Constitution not been slave owners.

Are you saying the courts shouldn't have overturned Obama's EOs?

The “decision marks the 12th time the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against the Obama administration on the issue of executive power,” Heritage Foundation legal expert Elizabeth Slattery explains.​

Unanimous Supreme Court Rules Against the Obama Administration’s Unconstitutional Power Grab | myHeritage

We know that..

To over turn a presidents E. O. Only the Supreme Court or congress can do that..

Guess who is going to stack the books against the left?

It hasn't been overturned. It has been blocked by a Federal court and upheld in an appellate court. It will most likely go to the Supreme Court.

This is how the legal process works.

We have a republic of laws, not a monarchy.

The court is clearly overstepping it's Constitutional bounds. Immigration law is between the Congress and the President

 

[Toro]

I'm not sure what laws Trump has broken exactly with his temporary immigration ban. Perhaps someone could tell me.


Additionally, it now appears that Progressives have given the courts the duty of deciding what immigrants can enter the country and which can't. Perhaps they could then show me in the Constitution where this is exactly.

But then, just because it is not written in the Constitution does not mean it is not implied to be there, right Progressives? For you see, the Constitution is a living breathing document that allows Progressives to dictate what it really means, or should have said all along had the writers of the Constitution not been slave owners.

Are you saying the courts shouldn't have overturned Obama's EOs?

The “decision marks the 12th time the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against the Obama administration on the issue of executive power,” Heritage Foundation legal expert Elizabeth Slattery explains.​

Unanimous Supreme Court Rules Against the Obama Administration’s Unconstitutional Power Grab | myHeritage

We know that..

To over turn a presidents E. O. Only the Supreme Court or congress can do that..

Guess who is going to stack the books against the left?

It hasn't been overturned. It has been blocked by a Federal court and upheld in an appellate court. It will most likely go to the Supreme Court.

This is how the legal process works.

We have a republic of laws, not a monarchy.

And who will be elected the ninth Supreme Court judge?

Do you really think a left wing?

I assume in the liberal fantasy world..

If the SCOTUS upholds it, that's fine.

But we live in a republic with three branches of government, not a monarchy.

 

[Wyatt earp]

We don't need immigration any longer, as a nation; at least not at the rates and numbers that we experienced in the past.

YOU don't need immigration any longer. I don't need immigration any longer. But the Democrat party does for political reasons. Their goal is to make whites a minority in our very own country. People of color heavily vote Democrat. So by bringing in all these people, they will eventually secure a one-party government with no real opposition.

You actually believe that shit? My suggestion to you is, MOVE. Where I live everyone's white and everyone speaks English. You'd be happy as a clam. Let the more advanced members of society get on with it.

Of course I believe it. Why do you think Democrats fight so hard for immigration? Why do you think they pander to them like getting them on social programs, allowing them to attend our schools, sanctuary cites, and even give them drivers licenses?

For crying out loud, the Democrats stopped Kate's Law which would have imprisoned illegals who are felons and keep coming back.

You realize the only thing she saw in your post was "color."

You can say you're against poor and uneducated dragging down our system, the rise of crime as criminals come here fill our jails and just keep coming back, coming here are disproportionately poor and uneducated driving up our taxes and debts, we should be able to check who is coming here to ensure they are not criminals, are not carrying diseases and can support themselves, no one should come here then go on welfare whatever color they are before even becoming a citizen and we need to secure our borders.

Now you if you read that probably didn't notice I said the word "color."

And yet if she read it, that was the ONLY word she saw

When it comes to the left, race is always a default position.

If these groups of people were known to vote Republican, you'd see how fast that wall would have been built years ago and how Trump's EO would have looked like a warm up act. For crying out loud, Obama had food stamp commercials running in Mexico.

Yes we know Obama was giving them a signed and sealed hallmark card..

That's why Hillary won the popular vote..

.

 

[kaz]

We don't need immigration any longer, as a nation; at least not at the rates and numbers that we experienced in the past.

YOU don't need immigration any longer. I don't need immigration any longer. But the Democrat party does for political reasons. Their goal is to make whites a minority in our very own country. People of color heavily vote Democrat. So by bringing in all these people, they will eventually secure a one-party government with no real opposition.

You actually believe that shit? My suggestion to you is, MOVE. Where I live everyone's white and everyone speaks English. You'd be happy as a clam. Let the more advanced members of society get on with it.

Of course I believe it. Why do you think Democrats fight so hard for immigration? Why do you think they pander to them like getting them on social programs, allowing them to attend our schools, sanctuary cites, and even give them drivers licenses?

For crying out loud, the Democrats stopped Kate's Law which would have imprisoned illegals who are felons and keep coming back.

You realize the only thing she saw in your post was "color."

You can say you're against poor and uneducated dragging down our system, the rise of crime as criminals come here fill our jails and just keep coming back, coming here are disproportionately poor and uneducated driving up our taxes and debts, we should be able to check who is coming here to ensure they are not criminals, are not carrying diseases and can support themselves, no one should come here then go on welfare whatever color they are before even becoming a citizen and we need to secure our borders.

Now you if you read that probably didn't notice I said the word "color."

And yet if she read it, that was the ONLY word she saw

When it comes to the left, race is always a default position.

If these groups of people were known to vote Republican, you'd see how fast that wall would have been built years ago and how Trump's EO would have looked like a warm up act. For crying out loud, Obama had food stamp commercials running in Mexico.

Yep. And you actually see that now. The left complain that too many people come in who are educated and can support themselves because they are supposedly taking American jobs. They don't, they grow the economy. That while they try to flood in the poor who go on welfare and actually do take jobs from our poor and drive down wages for the poor. Liberals are not good people

 

[Toro]

I'm not sure what laws Trump has broken exactly with his temporary immigration ban. Perhaps someone could tell me.


Additionally, it now appears that Progressives have given the courts the duty of deciding what immigrants can enter the country and which can't. Perhaps they could then show me in the Constitution where this is exactly.

But then, just because it is not written in the Constitution does not mean it is not implied to be there, right Progressives? For you see, the Constitution is a living breathing document that allows Progressives to dictate what it really means, or should have said all along had the writers of the Constitution not been slave owners.

Are you saying the courts shouldn't have overturned Obama's EOs?

The “decision marks the 12th time the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against the Obama administration on the issue of executive power,” Heritage Foundation legal expert Elizabeth Slattery explains.​

Unanimous Supreme Court Rules Against the Obama Administration’s Unconstitutional Power Grab | myHeritage

We know that..

To over turn a presidents E. O. Only the Supreme Court or congress can do that..

Guess who is going to stack the books against the left?

It hasn't been overturned. It has been blocked by a Federal court and upheld in an appellate court. It will most likely go to the Supreme Court.

This is how the legal process works.

We have a republic of laws, not a monarchy.

The court is clearly overstepping it's Constitutional bounds. Immigration law is between the Congress and the President

The EO is not "between" the President and Congress.

One court made a ruling, a higher court upheld it. Let it go to the SCOTUS. If the SCOTUS over-rules the lower court, fine.

 

[kaz]

I'm not sure what laws Trump has broken exactly with his temporary immigration ban. Perhaps someone could tell me.


Additionally, it now appears that Progressives have given the courts the duty of deciding what immigrants can enter the country and which can't. Perhaps they could then show me in the Constitution where this is exactly.

But then, just because it is not written in the Constitution does not mean it is not implied to be there, right Progressives? For you see, the Constitution is a living breathing document that allows Progressives to dictate what it really means, or should have said all along had the writers of the Constitution not been slave owners.

Are you saying the courts shouldn't have overturned Obama's EOs?

The “decision marks the 12th time the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against the Obama administration on the issue of executive power,” Heritage Foundation legal expert Elizabeth Slattery explains.​

Unanimous Supreme Court Rules Against the Obama Administration’s Unconstitutional Power Grab | myHeritage

We know that..

To over turn a presidents E. O. Only the Supreme Court or congress can do that..

Guess who is going to stack the books against the left?

It hasn't been overturned. It has been blocked by a Federal court and upheld in an appellate court. It will most likely go to the Supreme Court.

This is how the legal process works.

We have a republic of laws, not a monarchy.

The court is clearly overstepping it's Constitutional bounds. Immigration law is between the Congress and the President

The EO is not "between" the President and Congress.

One court made a ruling, a higher court upheld it. Let it go to the SCOTUS. If the SCOTUS over-rules the lower court, fine.

That is what is going to happen, but it's courts legislating from the bench. It is up to the Congress to clarify the law if they disagree with how it is being implemented

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

YOU don't need immigration any longer. I don't need immigration any longer. But the Democrat party does for political reasons. Their goal is to make whites a minority in our very own country. People of color heavily vote Democrat. So by bringing in all these people, they will eventually secure a one-party government with no real opposition.

You actually believe that shit? My suggestion to you is, MOVE. Where I live everyone's white and everyone speaks English. You'd be happy as a clam. Let the more advanced members of society get on with it.

Of course I believe it. Why do you think Democrats fight so hard for immigration? Why do you think they pander to them like getting them on social programs, allowing them to attend our schools, sanctuary cites, and even give them drivers licenses?

For crying out loud, the Democrats stopped Kate's Law which would have imprisoned illegals who are felons and keep coming back.

You realize the only thing she saw in your post was "color."

You can say you're against poor and uneducated dragging down our system, the rise of crime as criminals come here fill our jails and just keep coming back, coming here are disproportionately poor and uneducated driving up our taxes and debts, we should be able to check who is coming here to ensure they are not criminals, are not carrying diseases and can support themselves, no one should come here then go on welfare whatever color they are before even becoming a citizen and we need to secure our borders.

Now you if you read that probably didn't notice I said the word "color."

And yet if she read it, that was the ONLY word she saw

When it comes to the left, race is always a default position.

If these groups of people were known to vote Republican, you'd see how fast that wall would have been built years ago and how Trump's EO would have looked like a warm up act. For crying out loud, Obama had food stamp commercials running in Mexico.

Yep. And you actually see that now. The left complain that too many people come in who are educated and can support themselves because they are supposedly taking American jobs. They don't, they grow the economy. That while they try to flood in the poor who go on welfare and actually do take jobs from our poor and drive down wages for the poor. Liberals are not good people

They drive down wages for everybody, not just the poor.

I'm a truck driver and our industry is hurting for workers. They can't find Americans to take these jobs so now we have people here that can't read or speak English driving on our roads next to your family van in a 75,000 lbs tractor-trailer.

Those jobs will never pay anything as long as they can import people to do the job for next to nothing.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I'm not sure what laws Trump has broken exactly with his temporary immigration ban. Perhaps someone could tell me.


Additionally, it now appears that Progressives have given the courts the duty of deciding what immigrants can enter the country and which can't. Perhaps they could then show me in the Constitution where this is exactly.

But then, just because it is not written in the Constitution does not mean it is not implied to be there, right Progressives? For you see, the Constitution is a living breathing document that allows Progressives to dictate what it really means, or should have said all along had the writers of the Constitution not been slave owners.

Are you saying the courts shouldn't have overturned Obama's EOs?

The “decision marks the 12th time the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against the Obama administration on the issue of executive power,” Heritage Foundation legal expert Elizabeth Slattery explains.​

Unanimous Supreme Court Rules Against the Obama Administration’s Unconstitutional Power Grab | myHeritage

We know that..

To over turn a presidents E. O. Only the Supreme Court or congress can do that..

Guess who is going to stack the books against the left?

It hasn't been overturned. It has been blocked by a Federal court and upheld in an appellate court. It will most likely go to the Supreme Court.

This is how the legal process works.

We have a republic of laws, not a monarchy.

And who will be elected the ninth Supreme Court judge?

Do you really think a left wing?

I assume in the liberal fantasy world..

If the SCOTUS upholds it, that's fine.

But we live in a republic with three branches of government, not a monarchy.

Obama tried the dictatorship route on domestic policy.. And the people faught back by electing a populist president..

What I am reading now after trumps win a populist woman in France has the same theme..

The world is following America's lead again..

 

[Toro]

Are you saying the courts shouldn't have overturned Obama's EOs?

The “decision marks the 12th time the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against the Obama administration on the issue of executive power,” Heritage Foundation legal expert Elizabeth Slattery explains.​

Unanimous Supreme Court Rules Against the Obama Administration’s Unconstitutional Power Grab | myHeritage

We know that..

To over turn a presidents E. O. Only the Supreme Court or congress can do that..

Guess who is going to stack the books against the left?

It hasn't been overturned. It has been blocked by a Federal court and upheld in an appellate court. It will most likely go to the Supreme Court.

This is how the legal process works.

We have a republic of laws, not a monarchy.

The court is clearly overstepping it's Constitutional bounds. Immigration law is between the Congress and the President

The EO is not "between" the President and Congress.

One court made a ruling, a higher court upheld it. Let it go to the SCOTUS. If the SCOTUS over-rules the lower court, fine.

That is what is going to happen, but it's courts legislating from the bench. It is up to the Congress to clarify the law if they disagree with how it is being implemented

Then let it happen.

The idea that Trump's flurry of EOs wouldn't have been challenged in court is pretty blinkered.

 

[paperview]

World Watcher added this bit - from another thread:

If I understand correctly...

An appeal of the TRO to the SCOTUS would go to Justice Kennedy. He has the option of handling it himself or can refer it to the full court - only 8 because of McConnell's shenanigans. If he does then it could easily end (the TRO appeal, not the whole case) with an 8-8 split and the 9th's rejection would stand.

The TRO would then remain in place pending further action by the courts on the case.

McConnell would then own that decision because of his bull-headed instance that the Senate not to it's job with the Garland nomination.

 

[Toro]

Obama tried the dictatorship route on domestic policy.. And the people faught back by electing a populist president..

What Trump is doing is no different than what Obama did.

The only difference is the political persuasions and rationalizations of the supporters and critics of each President.

 

[Toro]

World Watcher added this bit - from another thread:

If I understand correctly...

An appeal of the TRO to the SCOTUS would go to Justice Kennedy. He has the option of handling it himself or can refer it to the full court - only 8 because of McConnell's shenanigans. If he does then it could easily end (the TRO appeal, not the whole case) with an 8-8 split and the 9th's rejection would stand.

The TRO would then remain in place pending further action by the courts on the case.

McConnell would then own that decision because of his bull-headed instance that the Senate not to it's job with the Garland nomination.

Kind of ironic, isn't it?

 

[Wyatt earp]

We know that..

To over turn a presidents E. O. Only the Supreme Court or congress can do that..

Guess who is going to stack the books against the left?

It hasn't been overturned. It has been blocked by a Federal court and upheld in an appellate court. It will most likely go to the Supreme Court.

This is how the legal process works.

We have a republic of laws, not a monarchy.

The court is clearly overstepping it's Constitutional bounds. Immigration law is between the Congress and the President

The EO is not "between" the President and Congress.

One court made a ruling, a higher court upheld it. Let it go to the SCOTUS. If the SCOTUS over-rules the lower court, fine.

That is what is going to happen, but it's courts legislating from the bench. It is up to the Congress to clarify the law if they disagree with how it is being implemented

Then let it happen.

The idea that Trump's flurry of EOs wouldn't have been challenged in court is pretty blinkered.

He is not even done yet. It is the ultimate chess strategy .. Confuse everyone..

He could of done just one blanket E. O.

But he decided to make a line items E. O. s

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It hasn't been overturned. It has been blocked by a Federal court and upheld in an appellate court. It will most likely go to the Supreme Court.

This is how the legal process works.

We have a republic of laws, not a monarchy.

The court is clearly overstepping it's Constitutional bounds. Immigration law is between the Congress and the President

The EO is not "between" the President and Congress.

One court made a ruling, a higher court upheld it. Let it go to the SCOTUS. If the SCOTUS over-rules the lower court, fine.

That is what is going to happen, but it's courts legislating from the bench. It is up to the Congress to clarify the law if they disagree with how it is being implemented

Then let it happen.

The idea that Trump's flurry of EOs wouldn't have been challenged in court is pretty blinkered.

He is not even done yet. It is the ultimate chess strategy .. Confuse everyone..

He could of done just one blanket E. O.

But he decided to make a line items E. O. s

And there you have it. If people think that courts will make Trump totally drop this issue, they have another thing coming.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Obama tried the dictatorship route on domestic policy.. And the people faught back by electing a populist president..

What Trump is doing is no different than what Obama did.

The only difference is the political persuasions and rationalizations of the supporters and critics of each President.

It's a huge difference then Obama or any president since Andrew Jackson..

This guy came on fire.. He was a man of his word.. He never forgot the middle class man that the democrats lost behind.

 

[kaz]

We know that..

To over turn a presidents E. O. Only the Supreme Court or congress can do that..

Guess who is going to stack the books against the left?

It hasn't been overturned. It has been blocked by a Federal court and upheld in an appellate court. It will most likely go to the Supreme Court.

This is how the legal process works.

We have a republic of laws, not a monarchy.

The court is clearly overstepping it's Constitutional bounds. Immigration law is between the Congress and the President

The EO is not "between" the President and Congress.

One court made a ruling, a higher court upheld it. Let it go to the SCOTUS. If the SCOTUS over-rules the lower court, fine.

That is what is going to happen, but it's courts legislating from the bench. It is up to the Congress to clarify the law if they disagree with how it is being implemented

Then let it happen.

The idea that Trump's flurry of EOs wouldn't have been challenged in court is pretty blinkered.

Again you're arguing what will happen and I'm arguing what should happen. You gotta take them one by one. Immigration isn't a judicial power as the OP accurately pointed out. The Courts just take whatever cases they want to legislate and declare it a Constitutional issue as a thinly veiled power grab

 

[Tom Horn]

I'm not sure what laws Trump has broken exactly with his temporary immigration ban. Perhaps someone could tell me.


Additionally, it now appears that Progressives have given the courts the duty of deciding what immigrants can enter the country and which can't. Perhaps they could then show me in the Constitution where this is exactly.

But then, just because it is not written in the Constitution does not mean it is not implied to be there, right Progressives? For you see, the Constitution is a living breathing document that allows Progressives to dictate what it really means, or should have said all along had the writers of the Constitution not been slave owners.

The Seattle judge is a moonbat, the 9th Circuit are moonbats and the most overturned circuit in the system. Little relief in sight with a 4-4 USSC. What the Rat party has to consider is if ONE refugee of those let in by their chicanery commits an act of terror, they are SCREWED. So you progs (communists) reading this best keep that in mind....you've bet your future on the likes of ME muslims who have no idea how things work in America and will want sharia law in their neighborhoods. If ONE of the thousands you've let in shoots up a mall or bombs a sports stadium, you won't see another democrat in the WH in your lifetime.

 

[Toro]

Obama tried the dictatorship route on domestic policy.. And the people faught back by electing a populist president..

What Trump is doing is no different than what Obama did.

The only difference is the political persuasions and rationalizations of the supporters and critics of each President.

It's a huge difference then Obama or any president since Andrew Jackson..

This guy came on fire.. He was a man of his word.. He never forgot the middle class man that the democrats lost behind.

That's irrelevant from a legal perspective.

 

[Athanasius68]

You either believe in freedom of religion or you don't. "No religious test" is right in the Constitution. It's not one set of rules to get into the country and another when you get there.

There are actually two sets of rule. There is no right to come to the USA.
Moreover, the religious test clause pertains to holding office, not about immigration.