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 ...
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.
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.
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.
DACA was never legal.
So why meet? I smell a rat.
A non constitutionally qualified pResident issued an EO so it was meaningless from the get-go.
It should be a no brainer. A sitting president absolutely DOES have the power to rescind a previous presidents EOs.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
He may be free at this point.
There’s been changes.
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.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.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."
Then a revolution would be due.
IF the people had the same courage our founding fathers had.
Thanks for the coherent explanation.
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.
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.
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.