Seems there is a reason for that sentiment...
Posted on 01/19/2016 6:37:18 AM PST by GIdget2004
The Supreme Court announced Tuesday that it will take up a case challenging the legality of President Barack Obama's executive actions aimed at granting quasi-legal status and work permits to up to five million people who entered the U.S. illegally as children or who have children who are American citizens.
The high court's widely-expected move gives Obama a chance to revive a key legacy item that has been in limbo for nearly a year, since a federal judge in Texas issued an order halting immigration moves the president announced just after the 2014 midterm elections.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
I’ve lost all faith in this court.
Maybe they want to place a cap on Obama’s announced plan to paper this last year with endless EOs. Also, libs outside the admin are worried that if Trump wins, then his agenda could benefit from unchecked EO powers.
“...Any executive action will be overturned by President Trump...”
Maybe Trump will also appoint three or more SCOTUS justices with “New York Values” too! I mean, why wouldn’t he?
Merits? Ha!
Based on THAT presumption, O’Care should never have been allowed, as Congress has NO/NONE/ZERO/NADA A1S8 authority to tax for!
Even still, the Court could essentially say, “It’s illegal, but up to Congress to rectify”, which would put Zero on notice and give the People their reasoning. If Congress refuses to do their job (again), the People have the means to fix.
“Any executive action will be overturned by President Trump.’
Why would he?
Trump wants touchback amnesty, he wouldn’t need to waste his time getting a law passed to do it.
I suppose the best case scenario is that you had a bare 4 votes to hear the case, and the liberal justices hope to convince a Roberts or Kennedy to side with them after briefing/argument.
But I wouldn't count on them only having 4 at this point.
Just how does the SC have the authority to force the states to take in illegal immigrants?
She turned out to be a crappy justice, but Reagan had the right idea when he picked Sandra Day O’Connor.
We need to pack the Court with STATE justices who will represent the rights of the STATES and the values of people in those STATES.
Not one more black robe from the Washington establishment.
Roberts will say it is not exactly Constitutional, but they can come in and a tax will be needed to take care of them.
Leaving it up the president to enforce the laws as he see fit runs the risk of taking the SC out of the loop.
If the president can decide what the law means there is no need for a SC to interpret the meaning of the law.
I’m with you, I doubt the SC is going to declare themselves irrelevant.
Interestingly, though, it doesn’t sound like SCOTUS is allowing Obama’s unconstitutional actions to proceed while they’re hearing the case.
Seems there is a reason for that sentiment...
Which one?
Between the two Bush’s, they appointed Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito.
Reagan appointed Antonio Scalia and Anthony Kennedy.
The four communists (Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor) were appointed by Clinton and Obama. OF COURSE, these four will side with Obama no matter WHAT the Constitution says, because they are political hacks.
So, the two we need to worry about are Kennedy and Roberts. They’re compromised. But they were appointed by Bush AND Reagan.
Not a lawyer, so this is purely posted in the spirit of a question. Would it be politically savvy for Trump or Cruz (the only two that I would be crawling over broken glass to vote for in November) to add in to their stump speeches references to the Judiciary Acts of 1801 and 1802?
In the 1801 act, Congress reduced the size of the Supreme Court by one justice. You could have in the Judiciary Act of 2017, that two Supreme Court justices are removed by basis of seniority. That means Sotomayor and Kagan are laid off by act of Congress, not via impeachment, technically giving the conservative wing a 5-2 majority as opposed to the current 5-4 majority. This way Kennedy can flip flop and you still win cases 4-3.
Quote from first link (provided below):
“The Judiciary Act of 1801 reduced the size of the Supreme Court from six justices to five and eliminated the justices’ circuit duties.”
In the 1802 act, the sixteen circuit court judgeships authorized by the 1801 Act were eliminated and the Supreme Court justice slot removed in the 1801 act was reinstated.
Quotes from second link (provided below):
“In the Judiciary Act of 1802, Congress eliminated the Supreme Court’s summer session and provided for one annual session to begin on the first Monday in February. This provision intensified the partisan dispute that began when Congress, in an act of March 8, 1802, revoked the judiciary act of the previous year and restored the structure of the judiciary as it had stood previously, thereby abolishing the sixteen judgeships assigned to the reorganized circuit courts.”
AND
“In March 1803, the Supreme Court in the case of Stuart v. Laird ruled that Congress had authority to transfer a case from a court established by the act of 1801 to one established by the act of 1802, and by implication affirmed the constitutionality of the Judiciary Act of 1802.”
Reference Links:
http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/landmark_03.html
http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/landmark_04.html
So, the question is, maybe we’ve been too focused on impeachment as the route to modify the judiciary and we should be looking at getting a Republican in the White House. Combined with the Republican House and Senate (if we keep control), we send a shot across the bow of the judges by eliminating two Associate Justices and perhaps the entire 9th Circuit? If so, then the Democrats would be wise to write off the White House and spend all efforts to regain control of the US Senate.
Right. The ones Bambi put in there are HORRIBLE.
SCOTUS will be sticking it to the American people, again. These bastards should have to run for office like all other politicians. After all, they are nothing but a bunch of political activists with “compelling life stories.”
This is not good news. If they were going to affirm, they did not even have to take it.
SCROTUS
“The high court’s widely-expected move gives Obama a chance to revive a key legacy item”
Right. Because we all know that obama’s “legacy” is FAR more important to our future than such puny issues as rule of law, unlimited Presidential authority and a country defined by actual borders.
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.