Posted on 11/11/2019 6:48:27 AM PST by Java4Jay
The long-running battle over the Trump administration’s bid to end the Obama-era program for young undocumented immigrants known as “Dreamers” will land before the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
thats what the illegals are -A TAX
The edict implemented by the memo was clearly unConstitutional. But relying again on our cowardly Pubes to challenge this, it went into force without even a peep. As much as I despise the traitorous Rats, they know how to run over the competition. By giving this edict life, they flooded our country with all these little sumbitches, knowing full well that it’d be highly controversial to kick these scum out of our country at a later date, should that arrive. Well, it has arrived, and we are about to find out how it ends. Trump is right in going to the Supremes for backing on this rather than an outright counter memo to kick these little scum out.
Let’s say a President does something like DACA by executive order and in the next election an opponent of the action runs promising to rescind it by executive order and then wins the election. Can the vote of the people be overruled? Wouldn’t that be a limitation of power on the POTUS by the Judicial branch?
Did the original program go through the federal rulemaking process with commentary period? Nope.
Are there still lawsuits from numerous states objecting to the original program? Yep.
I honestly think this will be a SCOTUS slapdown about national injunctions and will vacate the injunction and return it to the lower court to proceed with trial. With 3 descenting votes and a long drawn out opinion by Sotomayer about the whole dreamer program, and a concurrent descent by the other two about how national injunctions are good.
Drop kick them over the wall with a MAGA boot.
I don’t either. I worry about Kavanaugh who worries about trying not to appear biased due to his witch hunt investigation during his confirmation hearing.
We said the same about another ACA and the obviously compromised Chief Justice of the United States found a way to hang it on us forever instead.
How do you know this?
LOL! Sic ‘em Alberta!
If it was legal to create it by executive order it is legal to remove it. If the court rules he can’t remove a prior executive order that would make the original order invalid as well.
“Justice David Souter quoted the British jurist William Blackstone...”
Blackstone was very widely read in the English speaking world. The Founders surely absorbed his every word.
My school teacher great aunt used Blackstone as government 101 in her one room schoolhouse.
Agree, but that was a very different and twisted argument. This is pretty clear cut constitutionally. No congressionally passed law. DACA already ruled unconstitutional by lower court. I see this more as an exercise in frustrating the POTUS but not one that can win in the end.
I detest the ACA but this is factually incorrect.
The U.S. Supreme Court did not uphold the ACA in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius in its 2012 ruling. What it did was uphold the individual mandate as a legitimate exercise of Congress's power to impose taxes.
The ACA is far more vulnerable to constitutional challenges on the basis of its usurpation of state regulatory authority over the insurance industry. The only problem is that such a legal challenge would have to be initiated by: (1) state governments, and/or (2) insurance companies. But as far as I know, none of them have filed any such challenges. WHY NOT?
LOL.
I hope so, but Roberts making it a point to publicly respond to President Trump concerning the political orientation of judges makes me immensely distrust him especially when it’s a case directly related to the President. I guess we’ll find out next June.
As to why no challenges, the only thing I can offer is anecdotal: Here in the People's Republic of New York we have this horrible firearms law called the Safe Act which is obviously unconstitutional, but remains in place five years later with no court challenges that anyone knows of. Meanwhile, the second something contrary to any liberal policy gets passed, there is an immediate court challenge and the law is suspended. Again this is anecdotal, but that's how it seems to me and what comes to mind when you ask why no court challenges to Obamacare.
With limited knowledge I have always felt government unions were a conflict of interest. JFK with a stroke of the pen created a voting block....
I don’t even think Gubmint Employee’s should have a right to vote.
Name a Business in America that allows their employee’s an equal Vote on their own Salary and Benefits package.
ANY Sane world this was laughed out of court. 1 President cannot simply issue a dikta that must be obeyed by everyone forever. There MUST be limits to the power of the Executive, the Congress and the Judiciary.
If not, we no longer live in a Republic but an Judaical Fascist Dictatorship where any Judge can simply issue any ruling they feel like to overturn any Executive or Legislative action.
This is not complicated at all. This was a EO not a legislative action.
Expecially when the same scum Roberts was utterly silent when O was trashing Thomas
He is scum
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.