It doesn't say anything about judges having veto power over Article 4 Section 4.
Posted on 06/29/2019 9:57:20 AM PDT by Kaslin
There are currently 127 federal judicial vacancies. Come July 5th there will be 5 more vacancies (federal judges usually announce well ahead of time when they will retire or assume senior status to allow the replacement process to begin) to bring the number up to 132.
There were 112 vacancies when Trump assumed office. Instead of letting the backlog to grow to 132, the REPUBLICAN Senate should have worked this backlog down to about 25 - 30. We need more Trump appointed District Judges hearing these case! But they have to be confirmed first!
An 0bama appointee. Why am I not surprised. I pray that a higher judge overturns him
If I had a son that is what he would look like
I think the USSC will hear a case on an emergency basis if necessary.
I wonder how many other injunctions are sitting in his word processor, just waiting for the relating lawsuits to come round?
Absolutely
The obvious answer is “none.” And that is what makes them democrats.
Declare a National Emergency, SHUT Down ALL Immigration and Border Entry nationwide, U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam has Spoken!!
The Presidency is dead.
What remains is a Ruling Oligarchy of judges.
I just don’t understand how any random judge can stop every move a president makes. Did we do this to Obama? I don’t remember hearing about it.
Time to start ignoring Judicial rulings - at all levels.
************
They are not really judicial rulings; they are clearly politically motivated rulings intended to usurp executive authority and thwart the will of the people.
Such “decisions” should be ignored.
Clarance Thomas has already called for it.
Regarding the sudden surge of universal injunctions, Justice Thomas found that “[n]o persuasive defense has yet been offered for the practice.” Citing to several law review articles, Justice Thomas explained that defenders of universal injunctions simply assert that they ensure “that individuals who did not challenge a law are treated the same as plaintiffs who did, and that universal injunctions give the judiciary a powerful took to check the Executive Branch.” However, Justice Thomas contended that such arguments were unavailing because they “do not explain how these injunctions are consistent with the historical limits on equity and judicial power.” Justice Thomas suggested that the arguments were more akin to a policy argument about how the powers ought to be separated between the branches rather than an analysis of how the framers actually chose to separate the powers.
He’s an obama appointee. Ignore him and get on with the wall building.
No comment.
“Just build the wall, tell the judges to go to hell.”
The Feds don’t want a wall.
I think th wall should be funded by fines for those companies hiring 3 or more undocumented or false documented workers. I don’t know how this judge calls this action interpretation of the constitution.Sham or shame?
No rational person would think that ruining people’s recreating and environmental activism outweighs national security.
It doesn't say anything about judges having veto power over Article 4 Section 4.
He’s an obama appointee. Ignore him and get on with the wall building.
************
Yes, post haste.
Trump should press ahead and dare the corrupt judiciary to do anything about it.
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.