Posted on 02/16/2018 7:46:10 AM PST by Helicondelta
>
However, the Supreme Court is not above making illegal things legal.
>
That’s the EASY path. They’ve created things from whole cloth w/ nary a whimper from Congress/Executive...
Guess, technically, they usurped the whole of the Constitution and We the People never complained either (’final arbiters’; legislating from the bench, etc.)
Did Roberts get a phone call from Obola?
You are probably right. There is a disturbing trend of politically motivated rulings from federal judges that are being used solely to block executive prerogatives. The USSC likely recognizes that the law is being subverted for politcal ends and will take action to halt these extra legal and intentional blockages.
If they don’t do this, legal and governmental chaos will ensue. They have to restore some semblance of judical restraint. Its been forced on them to do this.
“I learned that in publik education”
DACA was not an EO. It was a policy memorandum issued by Janet Napolitano, Homeland Security Secretary, in June 2012.
DAPA has been found to be illegal -assumption DACA is too- but an act that exists to prohibit unlawful regulations and policies now protects unlawful policies.
An excellent point!
Original Jurisdiction in Constitutional matters.
Separation of Powers is a core Constitutional matter.
ALL other federal judges hate this.
The power of the Executive Branch, of which the President is in charge, regarding the immigration status of non-citizens and other matters dealing with security is pretty much unlimited.
Jimmy Carter basically kicked out all Iranians after the hostage crisis started in November, 1979. I believe that it was challenged (by one of those being kicked out), and Carter was backed (again, if I remember correctly) unanimously by the Supreme Court.
I think that the Court pretty much HAS to rule that Trump has this authority.
BTW, if I was Trump and the administration loses this case, there is still a very powerful weapon that he has. About 600,000 illegals registered under Obama’s (unconstitutional) DACA program...but about 1.2 million that were eligible did not. Even if the administration loses, those 1.2 million are not protected by ANYTHING. Round them up, stat. Take 10,000 of them on Day One and toss them out immediately, and let the rest know that they have 30 days to leave the country or they’ll face a very long time in the klink, before being unceremoniously tossed out on their asses, after having been fined to the full extent of the law for all of their crimes (including tax evasion, of which many of them are undoubtedly guilty). Oh, and those 1.2 million got here as minors...find their illegal parents, and do the same to them.
What I think is likely to happen is that Trump wins in the USSC. After that, the Dems HAVE to deal with him to settle DACA...and if Trump really wants to press his advantage, remove the “path to citizenship” from the compromise bill. Let them stay for life - provided they pay taxes and otherwise obey the law - but no voting rights, EVER. Let’s then see if the Dems actually care about these people, or only votes (and, yes, we all know that it is the latter). Oh, and chain migration and the visa lottery end, and the wall gets paid for in its entirety. I’d also like to see an end to birthright citizenship for the children of 2 non-citizens without permanent resident status, but that’s a bit of a stretch. Either the Dems compromise, or the deportations begin.
Exposed?
The entire troupe has been caught with their pants down for decades now. To find they’ve lost their pants, AND THEIR HIGH POSITIONS (due to their ambiguous rulings) would only bring a smile to the faces of Americans.
“The Peter Principle” in real time. Soon they will be working themselves out of a job, position, and cushy chairs. NO LONGER NEEDED; NO LONGER HEARD.
we know that, but an activist liberal judge states otherwise. The judge should be removed, and the ruling be ignored.
Very good observation. Some of the more rational members must recognize the danger posed by the every increasing activism in the lower courts.
I have long thought Congress should step in and restrict the authority of the lower courts to invalidate any law enacted by Congress, any executive action by the President, or any provision of a State Constitution. Political matters should be left to the political entities.
I have a GREAT idea!
Let’s create a Constitution that not only sets up the country’s way of governance, but also has specific measures and prohibitions on what that government can and can’t do!
It will be the greatest Constitution in the world.
There is, however, one tiny flaw.
What if the men running that government ignore it and do whatever those men—at the time—decide they want to do?
Every Communist must grasp the truth: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.
—Mao Tse-tung
Bump and totally agree. SCOTUS is going to tell all other courts to STFU regarding DACA. Exactly what they need to do.
Wish they’d do the same with President Trump’s orders to halt immigration from certain countries. We’re sitting ducks.
Scotus fixen to bitch slap those commie judges to their knees 5-4
That’s not what the issue is. The issue has more to do with judicial activism and politics coming from the inferior courts despite SCOTUS ruling early on.
This closed door meeting is going to be more about reigning in these rogue judges than it will be about POTUS administration of the immigration system and the protection of our borders.
I understand that Roberts was wire tapped by the Fisa court before he changed to his insane ruling on communist health care. I surmise they have him black mailed.
Yep. And while direct appeals aren't common, they aren't unusual either. Immigration enforcement is a subject where waiting for the circuits to develop splits is going to reveal that the Supreme Court is derelict.
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.