If he does this after his pretzel logic over Obamacare it should be evidentto all that he is hopelessly compromised.
Should a Republican win in November that is not a Cheap Labor Express stooge, the first order of business should be impeachment of Roberts.
I didn’t see the story, and you don’t quote it. To whom did Roberts say that he might vote to support the constitutionality of Obama’s immigration executive orders? It would be odd to hear of a justice making comments about a pending case.
Right. It’s Bush and Cruz’s fault that Roberts is making ideological 180s.
If true, this is sickening! In any event, it points up how badly we need Trump!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3422096/posts
Thanks Whenifhow.
I posted this on another thread:
“Following up on swaying Roberts, here’s the gist of it:
Yesterday evening, I heard on FNC that Kagan is trying to give Roberts something to hang his hat on because he likes to “preserve things”!
She asked the government lawyer if some language could be “tweaked” to help the (gov) case
Tweak? Preserve things, aka, unconstitutional EOs?
The commies are playing with language again. They’re trying to frame the argument to become:
The president HAS the constitutional right to deal with immigration.
Rather than:
The president DOESN’T HAVE the constitutional right to ALTER laws passed by congress or MAKE new laws.
Roberts must be struggling with how he would vote with liberals and MAKE THIS SETTLED LAW!
If it’s 5 to 3, I don’t think a president Trump can reverse it. He could cancel 0b0z0’s EO and issue his OWN IMMIGRATION LAWS through a new EO under this ruling, though.
I’m not a lawyer. FReeper lawyers are welcome to help.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3422167/posts?page=25#25
How about fixing that link?
There is no way Roberts says he approves of anything at this stage of the case. No link, no source,no quote . Calling BS on this one
Amazing how so many FReepers get spun up about a BS posting with no link.
Hey drive-by.. where’s the link?
Where is the source on this? Link please.
[Roberts entered private law practice in 1986 as an associate at the Washington, D.C.-based law firm of Hogan & Hartson, now known as Hogan Lovells.[9] As part of Hogan & Hartson’s pro bono work, he worked behind the scenes for gay rights advocates, reviewing filings and preparing arguments for the Supreme Court case Romer v. Evans (1996), which was described in 2005 as “the movement’s most important legal victory”]
Don’t be surprised on how he will rule 0’s immigration issue.
You should explain how Cruz and Bush are responsible for Obama’said plann, or are you just spewing waste from your bottom?
Here’s my shocked face: :-0
Much of what Obama has done lacks lawful authority. The Democrats tried to pass a law but failed. The Senate Gang of Eight’s “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act” bill, S. 744 (2013) https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/744/text has not become law.
SEC. 2106 - funds community organizations to help enroll illegal aliens
SEC. 2538 - funds state and local governments or “other qualifying entities” to establish “New Immigrant Councils”. New Immigrant Councils fund a laundry list of governmental agencies, organizations, schools, etc to provide “workforce training programs”, and to develop programs to “build meaningful connections between newer immigrants and long-time residents”, and other things.
SEC. 2521 - Task Force on New Americans, “The Task Force shall work with executive branch agencies to provide... (A) access to youth and adult education programming; (B) workforce training; (C) health care policy; (D) access to naturalization; and (E) community development challenges”
Having failed to achieve the agenda legislatively Obama just goes ahead and does it anyway. This bill shows that the Democrats and Obama know that his actions are illegal, they tried to pass a bill and failed.
Can Roberts figure it out? Ginsberg? I doubt it.
More proof that the SCOTUS needs term limits.
I read through oral arguments. They could go either way on this. THe biggest question IMO is the matter of ‘standing’. Seems there were a lot of questions about that. One problem though, is you can’t really make any assumptions from what people ask during oral arguments.
No such opinion has come out. Someone was merely speculating.