Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

BREAKING NEWS:Supreme Court temporarily blocks appeals court ruling that limits Trump's refugee ban
Reuters ^ | 11 Sep 2017

Posted on 09/11/2017 11:36:57 AM PDT by mandaladon

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-74 last
To: mandaladon; Red Badger; Vigilanteman; IllumiNaughtyByNature; rightwingcrazy; robroys woman; ...
Can we all agree: "Trump’s order is NOT a 'TRAVEL BAN'. It is an INVASION BAN order.

This issue is not "travel". The issue is invasion. This is a most basic constitutional issue that mandates the federal government stop invasion.

The United States...shall protect each [state] against invasion
U.S. Const. art. IV, sec. 4.

Trump's argument is first and foremost a Constitutional argument, not a federal statute argument. Illegal immigration and immigration of our enemies are INVASION which the Constitution specifically mandates the federal government to prevent. Don't repeat the Lying Leftists Labels. This and related articles should be posted as an Invasion Ban Order.

It’s fine that on 9-11, SCOTUS apparently agreed with this constitutional mandate that Trump is enforcing, but either way, Trump should be (and I think is) proceeding on the basis of the Rule of law of the Constitution which is the Supreme Law of the Land over the federal government including the courts and SCOTUS (U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 4).

61 posted on 09/12/2017 8:34:11 AM PDT by Jim W N
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216

Yep. To rule against him, the SCOTUS would lose any semblence of credibility they still have. The 9th has nothing to lose so they can do what they want. The SCOTUS is a bit more restrained from such foolishness.


62 posted on 09/12/2017 8:37:41 AM PDT by robroys woman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216

Yep

Travel ban is a perversion of the language. The users of the term are perverts


63 posted on 09/12/2017 8:44:31 AM PDT by bert (K.E.; N.P.; GOPc;WASP .... The Fourth Estate is the Fifth Column)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216

I personally would agree with that on a conceptual level.

I am not anti-immigration. I am simply opposed to immigration the way we are currently doing it. (who is given priority, methods of determining suitability, etc.)


64 posted on 09/12/2017 9:41:48 AM PDT by rlmorel (Those who sit on the picket fence are impaled by it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon

It seems to me that for a lower court judge, whose opinion is reversed by the Supreme Court, there should be some serious consequences - i.e. he should be held in contempt or at least given a stern warning.

A lower court judge whose opinions need to be reversed by SCOTUS more than once should lose standing.

These lower court judges are wasting the people’s time, obstructing executive branch authority, and violating the equal powers doctrine.

The apparent lack of negative consequences seems to encourage “judge shopping” - where opponents of the administration are able to simply shop around until they find a judge wacky enough and shameless enough to challenge any executive branch decision.

It’s great that this ruling got “slapped back”, but will the lower court judge be in anyway deterred from doing it all over again?


65 posted on 09/12/2017 9:50:07 AM PDT by enumerated
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: enumerated

I think an occasional overrule is ok and to be expected. the 9th circuit needs to be fumigated however. a pattern of overturns might require some review and removal of judges.

Here’s a question if a conservative judge was constantly overturned by a liberal corrupt then would you want removal?


66 posted on 09/12/2017 9:52:39 AM PDT by morphing libertarian (Imprison Obama, Clintons, Holder, lynch now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: morphing libertarian

That’s a good point. What if the shoe was on the other foot?

However, I think that is unlikely due to the nature of conservatism, which accepts the co-equal branches and the separation of powers doctrine.

The issue here is not one court overruling another. The issue is that the courts (in this case the lower courts) are overstepping the limits of the judicial branch and venturing into the domain of the executive branch. It’s kind of like “legislating from the bench” - except in this case they are “executing from the bench”.

This overstepping behavior is a liberal MO, not a conservative MO. Luckily, the SCOTUS is behaving appropriately and disciplining liberals within its own branch. I’d like to see more discipline in this regard.


67 posted on 09/12/2017 4:34:14 PM PDT by enumerated
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon

This means nothing. Case will be argued October 8 to decide if the Court writes statutes or congress does. This case is ludicrous. It is beyond legal comprehension. That statute says the President decides all issues ( as does the Constitution) but they are trying to decide if the Court can write the statue, Beyond surreal.Insanity!!


68 posted on 09/12/2017 5:05:48 PM PDT by raiderboy ( "...if we have to close down our government, we’re building that wall.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Lol lol lol. I watched that at least ten times and yes, my thoughts exactly when it comes to this SCOTUS decision.


69 posted on 09/12/2017 5:19:22 PM PDT by hawkaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: hawkaw

LOL. That’s gotta be my favorite hockey GIF.


70 posted on 09/12/2017 5:36:14 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris." -- President Trump, 6/1/2017)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216

I agree.


71 posted on 09/12/2017 8:48:53 PM PDT by Flaming Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: SgtHooper

It’s time for Kennedy to retire so we can assure somebody young takes his place why we still have a majority in the senate.


72 posted on 09/13/2017 4:56:43 AM PDT by MSF BU (Support the troops: Join Them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: enumerated

The president has to push the issue. It is his power which is being diminished and in this case it is dangerous for the country. We can’t have judges responsible for national defense.


73 posted on 09/13/2017 4:52:19 PM PDT by morphing libertarian (Imprison Obama, Clintons, Holder, lynch now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: morphing libertarian

“The president has to push the issue. It is his power which is being diminished and in this case it is dangerous for the country. We can’t have judges responsible for national defense.”

The president’s best opportunity to push this is by appointing “originalist” justices whose opinions are objectively informed by the constitution, rather than construing subjective nterpretations in order to justify a “progressive” agenda.

I think Trump has already proven to be a Godsend in this regard.


74 posted on 09/13/2017 10:43:13 PM PDT by enumerated
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-74 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson