Posted on 01/27/2020 1:48:38 PM PST by SeekAndFind
I believe Barr spoke about Federal judges ruling for the entire USA is not right.
There were no immigration laws before 1884. We had all kinds of havens for immigrants...they were called charities....and Poor Houses. But you were expected to work.
If they came in 1740, they were probably indentured. Someone had to pay their fare.
Ya, me too. Those evil Europeans.
A harrowing story no doubt. We discovered the origins of my great-grandfather and it was a sad tale. His whole family perished from disease and starvation and all that remained of his family was him and his half brother. Both became sailors boarded a ship, worked to earn their passage, and immigrated to “America.”
No welfare waiting for him. Just the American dream.
Yeah, I have to dive a little deeper on that. English and N/W European, no Irish.
Enclaves.
Excellent, Liz - as always!
But you're in the minority, hahahaha! Crying into the wind!
The girls on the court are like Collins and Murkowski.
Or even worse. Hardcores. I think Kagan and Sotomayor may have been okay a couple of times, but most decisions BAD. RBG may have been right once, I think. Otherwise, deep in the inferno.
Glad to see that finally a Justice is addressing the issue of lower courts issuing nationwide injunctions. As he said, these are protecting people who are not parties to the case, and negatively affecting others or the entire country. These judges are out of control, and this is the first sign that the supreme court is going to rain these people in. Thank God for Justice Gorsuch.
WINNING!!
“The real problem here is the increasingly common practice of trial courts ordering relief that transcends the cases before them,” Gorsuch wrote. “Whether framed as injunctions of ‘nationwide,’ ‘universal,’ or ‘cosmic’ scope, these orders share the same basic flaw—they direct how the defendant must act toward persons who are not parties to the case.”
He said that nationwide injunctions raise “serious questions” about the scope of the court’s powers under Article III of the Constitution. He added that the equitable remedies and remedies, in general, are meant to redress the harm sustained by a plaintiff in a lawsuit.
“But when a court goes further than that, ordering the government to take (or not take) some action with respect to those who are strangers to the suit, it is hard to see how the court could still be acting in the judicial role of resolving cases and controversies,” he said.
Forgive me, but being Canadian, the situation in the USA puzzles me. Say I’m a border guard, and I catch Wilma and Sanchez 10 meters from the border. Why can’t I just immediately escort back into Mexico? Why do I have to detain them in a detention center?
We need to get at least 2 more on our side. Can’t trust any of them.
How’s that.
I didn’t even need to read the article to know which 4 voted against. It is vital that Trump win in November so that he can replace at least one or two of the Gang of Four with strict constructionists. 4 Leftist ideologues on the Supreme Court is frightening. We really need to whittle that down to secure our rights.
1648 for mine. There were no government handouts in the Jamestown Settlement. There wouldn’t even be a US for over 100 years.....
Ginsberg gives sophistry, but at least it is often good sophistry. Sotomayor is in so far over her head that even if her end judgement (yes/no) were right, judicially she’d still be wrong.
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.