Posted on 06/26/2018 7:20:14 AM PDT by abb
This just in
I disagree, The president was ruled the constitutional authority on immigration WITH OUT the congress. It is clear in the decision.
WINNING!
Wow, no kidding.
Nice to see a victory, but if we’re going to parse something this obvious, then our nation is in serious trouble.
I am however beginning to feel like the next election turns into an absolute blood bath for Democrats. I’m thinking the average American has just about had enough of the psychotic Democrat party. Pure evil, dangerous, stupid, and ....ANTI AMERICAN!
I once heard Newt say POTUS has the authority to vacate a court if the judge is misbehaving. He said Jefferson did it. Suggested GWB do it to some renegade judges. Then reconvene the court with a different judge.
Thanks,Wonder if we are going to get any retirements before the week is out.
Time to remove four activists from this court and replace them with actual judges.
The biggest decision is yet to come. If SCOTUS rules against compulsory union dues for public employees, the Dems will lose a huge revenue stream and the unions will be weakened.
“9th circuit to overrule in 3...2....1...”
Given the 9th is a lower court, they can’t.
But, yes, they will attempt to circumvent.
“When the dog bites”
You’ve got to stop talking about Maxine Waters...
You're right. Those four would rule for or against anything that the anti American, unconstitutional left wants them to rule for or against. They simply make up their justifications from thin air.
You disagree!
How unusual.../S
MAGA!
This issue is not "travel". The issue is invasion. This is a most basic constitutional issue that mandates the federal government stop invasion.
The United States...shall protect each [state] against invasion
U.S. Const. art. IV, sec. 4.
Trump's argument is first and foremost a Constitutional argument, not a federal statute argument. Illegal immigration and immigration of our enemies are INVASION which the Constitution specifically mandates the federal government to prevent. Don't repeat the Lying Leftists Labels. This and related articles should be posted as an Invasion Ban Order.
The best thing Mitch ever did was hold up the supreme court pick of Obama.
5-4
Outrageous
The Rats don’t care about the rule of law not even at the SC. It could not be more clear and it should have been 9-0.
Remember
Rats never recuse
Rats never resign
The upshot of our cases in this context is clear: “Any rule of constitutional law that would inhibit the flexibility” of the President “to respond to changing world conditions should be adopted only with the greatest caution,” and our inquiry into matters of entry and national security is highly constrained. Mathews, 426 U. S., at 81–82. We need not define the precise contours of that inquiry in this case. A conventional application of Mandel, asking only whether the policy is facially legitimate and bona fide, would put an end to our review. But the Government has suggested that it may be appropriate here for the inquiry to extend beyond the facial neutrality of the order. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 16–17, 25–27 (describing Mandel as “the starting point” of the analysis). For our purposes today, we assume that we may look behind the face of the Proclamation to the extent of applying rational basis review. That standard of review considers whether the entry policy is plausibly related to the Government’s stated objective to protect the country and improve vetting processes. See Railroad Retirement Bd. v. Fritz, 449 U. S. 166, 179 (1980). As a result, we may consider plaintiffs’ extrinsic evidence, but will uphold the policy so long as it can reasonably be understood to result from a justification independent of unconstitutional grounds..
And in a footnote to this section writes:
The dissent finds “perplexing” the application of rational basis review in this context. Post, at 15. But what is far more problematic is the dissent’s assumption that courts should review immigration policies, diplomatic sanctions, and military actions under the de novo “reasonable observer” inquiry applicable to cases involving holiday displays and graduation ceremonies. The dissent criticizes application of a more constrained standard of review as “throw[ing] the Establishment Clause out the window.” Post, at 16, n. 6. But as the numerous precedents cited in this section make clear, such a circumscribed inquiry applies to any constitutional claim concerning the entry of foreign nationals.
That was my first thought! Under the umbrella of national security (which it is), he can restrict in-migration from any country, and can boot out any undocumented foreign persons he so chooses.
No more due process for ineligible illegal aliens. Deport on contact with law enforcement!
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.