Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court declines to hear Trump challenge to California sanctuary law
The Washington Times ^ | June 15, 2020 | Stephen Dinan

Posted on 06/15/2020 9:43:32 AM PDT by Anti-Bubba182

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-150 next last
To: Republican Wildcat
This ruling actually made me sick to my stomach.

Leni

101 posted on 06/15/2020 1:41:08 PM PDT by MinuteGal (MAGA !!! MAGA !!! MAGA !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Bubba182

Don’t ever forget that was a Bush appointment.


102 posted on 06/15/2020 1:49:21 PM PDT by Enlightened1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eyeamok; All

NOTHING PREVENTS the Administration from CRIMINALLY CHARGING the Elected Officials for Human Smuggling. FORCE them to Defend themselves in Criminal Court, all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.********

Good plan.


103 posted on 06/15/2020 2:09:15 PM PDT by Syncro ( Facts is Facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Bubba182

It may simply be that one or more of the “conservative” justices weren’t confident they would have five votes, AT THIS TIME, to overturn the 9th CCA’s ruling. Look for this case to return next year after Trump is re-elected and possibly yet another Leftist justice is gone.

Remember, the Supremes didn’t confirm the 9th CCA’s decision, they simply voted not to address the issue at this time.


104 posted on 06/15/2020 2:19:39 PM PDT by House Atreides (It is not a HOAX but it IS CERTAINLY A PRETEXT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Bubba182

Where are the two new Justices, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil M. Gorsuch ?

Add them in and then there are the four required.


105 posted on 06/15/2020 2:24:05 PM PDT by Syncro ( Facts is Facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: House Atreides

Good point.


106 posted on 06/15/2020 2:25:19 PM PDT by Syncro ( Facts is Facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: House Atreides

If the SCOTUS does not review the case and overturn the 9th, that ruling stands. Most of the time where they are now in not taking the case amounts to affirming the original ruling.


107 posted on 06/15/2020 2:26:17 PM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Bubba182; All

Make sure ALL of your Conservative Friends know about this and vote accordingly this Fall.

Secondly, I’m pretty sure President Trump will find another way around Sanctuary Cities/States before his next term is up.

As of now, he can just start arresting the offending cities and states and can make THEM them take their cases to SCOTUS, while they sit in prison, waiting for a trial.

At the very LEAST he can cut off federal funding, and again, make Sanctuaries and their operators SUE for the cash via SCOTUS.

You people give up too easily! President Trump always, ALWAYS has a Plan B. ;)


108 posted on 06/15/2020 2:29:36 PM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin (I don't have 'hobbies.' I'm developing a robust post-Apocalyptic skill set.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Bubba182

“If the SCOTUS does not review the case and overturn the 9th, that ruling stands. Most of the time where they are now in not taking the case amounts to affirming the original ruling.”
*********************************************
Sorry, that’s simply not true. The original ruling does stand FOR NOW. But it has NOT been affirmed...it has simply not yet, perhaps wisely, been addressed.


109 posted on 06/15/2020 2:30:03 PM PDT by House Atreides (It is not a HOAX but it IS CERTAINLY A PRETEXT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: House Atreides

Name a famous case where that happened. If there was such a case was that typical?


110 posted on 06/15/2020 2:36:39 PM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: nbenyo

“What happened to Gorsuch and Kavanaugh?”

Nothing. They are GOPe.


111 posted on 06/15/2020 3:42:45 PM PDT by Armscor38
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Bubba182

I am convinced the rioting has terrified SCOTUS.


112 posted on 06/15/2020 4:06:00 PM PDT by Jeff Chandler (I did not kill George Floyd.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chuckb87

That’s right, force them to hear the case through another executive order. He’ll do it too, I hope.


113 posted on 06/15/2020 4:20:42 PM PDT by jacknhoo (Luke 12:51; Think ye, that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, no; but separation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Bubba182
This means people can come into the country in any number and the immigration laws cannot be enforced.

Oh, would you please stop! It does not mean that at all.

Did you read only of the filed briefs for the Court to take the case? AJ Thomas reasons for why they should? Anything?

Good grief.

114 posted on 06/15/2020 4:22:39 PM PDT by Fury (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler
I am convinced the rioting has terrified SCOTUS.

You beat me to it.

115 posted on 06/15/2020 4:23:13 PM PDT by Fast Moving Angel (The words of the prophets are written on the Facebook walls and tenement halls.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: EC Washington

The leftist brain trust has been arguing for the next democrat president to nominate at least THREE new SC justices to rebalance the Court. Trump should loudly thank them and promise to do exactly that if he’s reelected.


116 posted on 06/15/2020 4:35:11 PM PDT by Sgt_Schultze (When your business model depends on slave labor, you're always going to need more slaves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: House Atreides

You forgot to add the sarcasm tag.


117 posted on 06/15/2020 4:35:29 PM PDT by rollo tomasi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Bubba182

So much for a “conserative majority.”


118 posted on 06/15/2020 4:41:36 PM PDT by fwdude (Never trust a movement whose symbol is a raised fist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dljordan
This is about getting rid of White people.

Many here will cringe at your words but you're 100% correct.

119 posted on 06/15/2020 5:00:30 PM PDT by JonPreston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi

I’m sorry that you’re having difficulty comprehending the possibility here. If THIS group of 9 Supremes heard and decided the case it could have well decided in favor of the 9th CCA’s position by a 5-4 margin. Had that been the outcome, that 9th CCA would have become NATIONAL PRECEDENT and would be very difficult to overcome in the future. That’s a FACT about precedent.

By not hearing the case, AT THIS TIME, the case can now possibly be heard in the next year or two WHEN ONE OR MORE Leftist justices could have been replaced on the Supreme Court by President Trump. The outcome then would be very different.


120 posted on 06/15/2020 5:14:07 PM PDT by House Atreides (It is not a HOAX but it IS CERTAINLY A PRETEXT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-150 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson