Posted on 10/04/2016 7:40:09 AM PDT by tekrat
Before he was Donald Trump's vice-presidential pick, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) took a politically popular, if legally questionable, stand: There would be no Syrian refugees resettled in his state, not after the attacks in Paris last fall carried out in part by Islamist terrorists who masqueraded as Syrian migrants.
On the day before the vice-presidential debate, his biggest moment as Trump's running mate, Pence's stand on Syrian refugees received a likely fatal blow: A federal appeals court ruled Monday that Pence has no legal authority to stop the resettlement of these refugees in Indiana.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The forces of evil triumphed because they have the power at this time. He didn’t ‘lose’....... Those federal lackey’s who fought his state’s right to refuse them will suffer for this when Trump wins.
How can the supreme court FORCE a state to take refugees?
Tell them to go F themselves
Hopefully the issue will come up tonight, and hopefully Pence will point out that Hillary and Kaine want to increase “refugee” admissions beyond even the huge increases Obama has implemented, and that most Americans oppose such action.
He can also point out that as President, Trump would be in line with most Americans on this issue, and would reduce refugee admissions.
And it goes to the supreme court. Not over.
OOPS this was just a federal appeals court
This should go to the Supreme Court, shouldn’t it?
Welcome to the Feudal States of America.
Our National Government has spoken. Obey!
An Inferior Judge of an Inferior Court, created by Congress, has NO AUTHORITY over ANY STATE!
A recent detailed study of the courts of all 50 states and the District of Columbia determined that 46 states and the District of Columbia adopt the position that the precedents of lower federal courts are not binding in their jurisdictions. Wayne A. Logan, A House Divided: When State and Lower Federal Courts Disagree on Federal Constitutional Rights, 90 Notre Dame L. Rev. 235, 280-81 (2014). The position of three other states is uncertain. Only one state (Delaware) defers to the constitutional decisions of lower federal courts. Id. At 281.
Federal courts have recognized that state-court review of constitutional questions is independent of the same authority lodged in the lower federal courts. “In passing on federal constitutional questions, the state courts and the lower federal courts have the same responsibility and occupy the same position; there is a parallelism but not paramountcy for both sets of courts are governed by the same reviewing authority of the Supreme Court.” United States ex rel.Lawrence v. Woods, 432 F.2d 1072, 1075 (7th Cir. 1970).
Although consistency between state and federal courts is desirable in that it promotes respect for the law and prevents litigants from forum-shopping, there is nothing inherently offensive about two sovereigns reaching different legal conclusions. Indeed, such results were contemplated by our federal system, and neither sovereign is required to, nor expected to, yield to the other.
Surrick v. Killion, 449 F. 3d 520, 535 (3rd Cir. 2006).
The United States Supreme Court has acknowledged that state courts “possess the authority, absent a provision for exclusive federal jurisdiction, to render binding judicial decisions that rest on their own interpretations of federal law.” Asarco Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605, 617 (1989). Two justices of the United States Supreme Court in special writings have elaborated on this principle.
The Supremacy Clause demands that state law yield to federal law, but neither federal supremacy nor any other principle of federal law requires that a state court’s interpretation of federal law give way to a (lower) federal court’s interpretation. In our federal system, a state trial court’s interpretation of federal law is no less authoritative than that of the federal court of appeals in whose circuit the trial court is located.
Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 375-76 (1993) (Thomas, J., concurring). See also Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 482, n. 3 (1974) (Rehnquist, J., concurring) (noting that a lower- federal-court decision “would not be accorded the stare decisis effect in state court that it would have in a subsequent proceeding within the same federal jurisdiction. Although the state court would not be compelled to follow the federal holding, the opinion might, of course, be viewed as highly persuasive.”).
So the concept of “States Rights” is an illusion?
As long as we have (1) a President who favors ever-increasing levels of refugee admissions, and (2) a Congress that refuses to stop the President from indulging this leftwing impulse, and (3) charities/refugee businesses that are eager to grab federal $ and dump refugees on largely unsuspecting communities, there is very little a state can do.
The judicial decision shows again that most judges are demented pawns of the Uniparty. Imagine saying that a Governor must have conclusive proof of an imminent danger before taking any action to protect the public??!! Some Muslim refugees either are now or are likely to turn into jihadists.
The utter subservience of the states to the Federal government was settled with the defeat of the Confederacy in 1865. States are even more powerless now than they were at the time, as the old state militias were federalized in 1903 through the National Guard Act.
“A federal appeals court ruled...”
Keyword - Ruled.
That’s all a court can do is make rulings. Courts have zero constitutional authority to create law or nullify law. The only way a court ruling can become law is if a legislature agrees with a court ruling and passes a law to reflect that ruling. Period.
See tag:
Refugees from Syria: 5,435 Muslims; 28 Christians
From Iraq: 11,086 Muslims; 433 Christians-Ibrahim
Well, it depends.
Under the Supreme Court, a 4-4 tie would automatically accept the lower Court’s ruling...
Yet the FBI intends to falsely mine implicit data for racial bias isn’t there - BASED ON THE FACTS.
There is a lifetime of cleanup coming in the new age. Trump had better get busy on figuring out how to isolate these sappers and remove them from our government.
No, we can’t “prove” that some Syrian refugees will turn out to be terrorists. Neither can the liberals prove that no Syrian refugees will turn out to be terrorists. But the likelihood that SOME Muslims turn out to be terrorists is 100%, and ISIS has proclaimed that it is infiltrating the refugee stream.
Bingo.
Politicians need to help keep the courts on track. The 10th Amendment is there for a reason. The Federal government has no say in the settlement of refugees within a state. It’s cute that the court thinks they can decide this, but the state should “Just say No”.
Why do I bother to read ANYTHING from the Washington Compost?
EVERYTHING in that paper is biased.
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.