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

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court To Have Closed-Door Meeting On DACA
thehill.com ^ | 02/16/18

Posted on 02/16/2018 7:46:10 AM PST by Helicondelta

The Supreme Court will hold a closed-door meeting to decide whether to take up a lower court opinion that blocked the White House plan to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, a program at the forefront of the debate on illegal immigration.

In an unusual move, the nation's highest court will consider the possibility of reviewing the opinion without a ruling from a federal appeals court

(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aliens; braking; daca; dacascotus; scotus; scotusdaca; trump
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-94 next last
To: Lurkinanloomin
-- However, the Supreme Court is not above making illegal things legal. --

Heheheh. That is SCOTUS primary function. To transmogrify the illegal into the legal, and the unconstitutional into the constitutional. It is a CHANGE agent, and endeavors only to pace the change so as to not upset the social applecart.

61 posted on 02/16/2018 9:30:15 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Allen In Texas Hill Country

DACA never passed. It was dictated by the dictator obozo and undictated by OUR PRESIDENT Trump. It has no foundation in legislation what so ever.It has been rejected more times than a fat red headed girl at a high school dance. All matters dealing with immigration are within the prerogative of the president ( See Arizona Vs The United States ). Scotus will slap these wild hair judges silly.


62 posted on 02/16/2018 9:34:06 AM PST by raiderboy ( "...if we have to close down our government, weÂ’re building that wall" DJTwe hav)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Helicondelta

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/united-states-v-texas/


63 posted on 02/16/2018 9:38:34 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fhios

If it’s a smack down on judicial misbehavior they don’t need a closed meeting for it.

This sounds more to me like they’re debating taking up the appeals process directly - bypassing procedure so they can jump in emotionally.


64 posted on 02/16/2018 9:41:14 AM PST by Skywise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Lurkinanloomin

DACA was never legal.

So why meet? I smell a rat.


65 posted on 02/16/2018 9:44:16 AM PST by wardamneagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: alternatives?

A non constitutionally qualified pResident issued an EO so it was meaningless from the get-go.


66 posted on 02/16/2018 9:47:17 AM PST by Beautiful_Gracious_Skies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Helicondelta

It should be a no brainer. A sitting president absolutely DOES have the power to rescind a previous presidents EOs.


67 posted on 02/16/2018 9:52:55 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Conservatives love America for what it is. Liberals hate America for the same reason.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Helicondelta; All

The law is clear. Illegals are by definition illegal just like 2+2=4, just like men who never married are bachelors. Tautology.

The President has an obligation to enforce the law (see: Article II). Should SCOTUS find any other conclusion, it should be corrected.


68 posted on 02/16/2018 9:54:26 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Skywise

“If the court intervenes - they’re taking a political action and declaring their bias.”

On the other hand, they could be stopping political activist judges from doing something that is wrong and trying to fix it in a timely manner before damage is done.


69 posted on 02/16/2018 10:02:06 AM PST by CottonBall (Thank you, Julian!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: alternatives?
IF the rule of law means anything in this country, the Obama EO should be immediately declared unconstitutional in a 9 to 0 vote.

Agree. Obama himself said in public speeches 22 times that he could not do this constitutionally. Then he eventually went ahead and did it anyway, never explaining how it suddenly, magically became constitutional. So this should be a 9-0 slapdown if there ever was one.

70 posted on 02/16/2018 10:02:48 AM PST by SFConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Skywise

They’re not bypassing procedure. They were directly petitioned by the DOJ to intercede. A petitioner is all that’s needed for the SCOTUS to weigh in on. Set procedures aren’t relevant. SCOTUS has jurisdiction of all the inferior courts.

I think what we’re seeing is the SCOTUS saving face for the Judges so as not to further damage judicial standings.

It’s only a matter of time before the Executive branch in support or not from Congress flat out tells the inferior court to bugger off. I’ll do my thing and we’ll let Scotus decide afterwords. ‘Staying’ in effect any judicial ruling lower than SCOTUS.

That will be devastating to the judicial system which is why they do no like to engage in political arena. I think it was described by a late Supreme court Justice that the court can only lose relevance when it engages in political contests. and it can never be brought back (paraphrased). It’s somewhere in the Cornell Law Library.


71 posted on 02/16/2018 10:06:29 AM PST by Fhios (1988 - Where's Waldo :: 2018 - Where's Jeff Sessions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Helicondelta

First, get the gov funded for two years, then cut the head off the deep state, next ignore the courts on constitutional separation of powers as plainly stated. Court must now decide to be relevant or be reduced to nothing in regards to the Executive.


72 posted on 02/16/2018 11:25:52 AM PST by Billyv ( Ephesians 6:11 for we battle not against flesh and blood...Pray for our leaders and nation!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PJBankard
"If SCOTUS wasn’t against the Federal Judge Decision on DACA they wouldn’t have taken it up in this manner. They would just let it stand in the court."

Exactly. This is Gorsuch with Alito telling Roberts this can't wait to wind through the Court of Appeals, as it's not just bad precedent, it's not just contrary to all extant stare decisis, but extraconstitutional in that lower courts are substituting judgment for established SCOTUS; and most importantly, these lower court 'decisions' are in direct contravention of Art. 2.

The solution here is to immediately dilute federal court power by doubling the number of courts, and splitting circuits as we are on the precipice of doing with the 9th, thus giving Trump a chance to pack the judiciary.

73 posted on 02/16/2018 12:25:43 PM PST by StAnDeliver (Vive la revolution!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Menehune56

He may be free at this point.

There’s been changes.


74 posted on 02/16/2018 12:29:31 PM PST by RinaseaofDs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: StAnDeliver
Here is the problem. The last bill to split the 9th Circuit was sponsored by Flake and McCrisis, in retrospect, specifically to prevent the bill from going anywhere.

Western senators seek Trump backing to split 9th Circuit

"Western Republicans are hoping to get President Trump behind the long-standing push to split the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals into two appellate courts.

Breaking up the 9th Circuit — the most populous and geographically largest of the 13 federal appellate courts — has been a priority for decades for some Westerners, who say judges on the 9th Circuit are overburdened by the caseload, thereby delaying citizens' access to courts and ultimately justice.

"If you look at every single stat, if you're in the 9th Circuit, you get justice later than anyone else," Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) said in an interview this week."

Sullivan needs to take possession of a similar bill, and sign on Mike Crapo and Orrin Hatch, maybe name it after Hatch as a going-away present. You get Hatch's name on in as a valediction, and you get a chance at bringing along Feinstein. You get Feinstein, you got Trump naming 40 Western judges in 2 years.
75 posted on 02/16/2018 12:35:46 PM PST by StAnDeliver (Vive la revolution!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Alas Babylon!

Then a revolution would be due.

IF the people had the same courage our founding fathers had.


76 posted on 02/16/2018 12:59:01 PM PST by CottonBall (Thank you, Julian!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Fhios

Thanks for the coherent explanation.


77 posted on 02/16/2018 1:01:07 PM PST by CottonBall (Thank you, Julian!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Lurkinanloomin; All
DACA was never legal. However, the Supreme Court is not above making illegal things legal.

Yup, I agree with ya. The USSC has way too many liberals & Rinos!

78 posted on 02/16/2018 5:31:19 PM PST by TheConservativeTejano
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Allen In Texas Hill Country

It wasn’t even an EO. If I remember correctly it was an Executive Action which is basically a memo he sent to the DHS.


79 posted on 02/16/2018 8:28:01 PM PST by Darth Mall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Fhios

The latest judge that ruled on this essentially claimed for himself the powers of the President over this issue - ordering the President to reinstate an Executive Order. That is clearly not acceptable. As far as I’m concerned that is an impeachable offense for a judge to do something like that. Either the judge is corrupt or not competent to practice law - and either way, not qualified to be a judge.


80 posted on 02/16/2018 10:08:03 PM PST by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-94 next 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