Posted on 04/18/2016 11:23:08 AM PDT by Elderberry
“Dont you see it ???”
I saw a lot of things beyond this single issue. Didn’t even need to wear my glasses!
Exactly.
>
a two-word phrase: lawful presence....the phrase carries enormous meaning...The Obama administrations lawyer [says] it stands for nothing whatsoever
This is what we’re up against, folks.
>
ONLY to a lawyer can words mean NOTHING....when it suits them/with caveats/in certain conditions/etc.
Just like ‘shall not be infringed’, ‘no property shall be taken’, ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof, or ‘State exchanges’ to name a few....
Yep, these ass-clowns can remain on the bench for their terms for BLATANT mis-reading, referencing FOREIGN law and the like. What a county (we once had), no?
>One of the judges should of asked the lawyer to define ‘unlawful presence.’
Ah, but that would be the LOGICAL and blow the whole house-of-cards....can’t be having that now, can we?
Following up on swaying Roberts, here’s the gist of it:
Yesterday evening, I heard on FNC that Kagan is trying to give Roberts something to hang his hat on because he likes to “preserve things”!
She asked the government lawyer if some language could be “tweaked” to help the (gov) case
Tweak? Preserve things, aka, unconstitutional EOs?
The commies are playing with language again. They’re trying to frame the argument to become:
The president HAS the constitutional right to deal with immigration.
Rather than:
The president DOESN’T HAVE the constitutional right to ALTER laws passed by congress or MAKE new laws.
Roberts must be struggling with how he would vote with liberals and MAKE THIS SETTLED LAW!
If it’s 5 to 3, I don’t think a president Trump can reverse it. He could cancel 0b0z0’s EO and issue his OWN IMMIGRATION LAWS through a new EO under this ruling, though.
I’m not a lawyer. FReeper lawyers are welcome to help.
Ping to #25.
PING!!
Thanks, melancholy - Post 25
6:15 min mark
Supreme Court Hears Arguments On President’s Immigration Plan today - The Kelly File
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9UFrAsalpE
Yesterday evening, I heard on FNC that Kagan is trying to give Roberts something to hang his hat on because he likes to preserve things!
She asked the government lawyer if some language could be tweaked to help the (gov) case — Tweak? Preserve things, aka, unconstitutional EOs?
The commies are playing with language again. Theyre trying to frame the argument to become: “The president HAS the constitutional right to deal with immigration.”
Rather than: “The president DOESNT HAVE the constitutional right to ALTER laws passed by congress or MAKE new laws.”
Roberts must be struggling with how he would vote with liberals and MAKE THIS SETTLED LAW!
If its 5 to 3, I dont think a president Trump can reverse it. He could cancel 0b0z0s EO and issue his OWN IMMIGRATION LAWS through a new EO under this ruling, though.
related
Fox News is reporting SCOTUS split on immigration, Roberts says he may approve!!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3422437/posts
Just reported that Roberts supports Obama’s immigration plan.
Thanks to Bush and Cruz
“If its 5 to 3, I dont think a president Trump can reverse it. He could cancel 0b0z0s EO and issue his OWN IMMIGRATION LAWS through a new EO under this ruling, though.”
Trump: “ OK, so we are now a lawless whorehouse country? Fine!
I TOO will make my own laws! “
“Trump: OK, so we are now a lawless whorehouse country? Fine!
I TOO will make my own laws!
I always maintained that 0b0z0’s re-election damaged the constitutional republic irreparably. No matter who becomes president, roughly 50% of the voters will demand IMMEDIATE RESULTS to fix the damage and “cancel unconstitutional laws. We can’t abide by the law, courts, the constitution, etc. because that will take years, even if successful. Meanwhile, the other side are making IMMEDIATE LAWS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY at a breakneck pace when they’re in power.
Best case scenario is that our side has a president for eight years and the court battles in front of progressive judges will consume most of it with negligible success. Then comes a progressive president who starts more lasting crap, even if it’s for only 4 years of creating changes and laws that are insurmountable. The gap will widen and the beat goes on.
Conclusion: I believe we’re going to be living in a PERPETUAL DICTATORSHIP, with each side racing to erase the other side’s “accomplishments” with EOs.
That’s the definition of dictatorship. Sad, but true.
The “Turncoat” is same man or men who got a “visit” = intimidation at SCOTUS on January 14th, 2009, one week before the W’Hut was illegally stolen!
On that same day, January 14th, 2009, the whole United States of America was “castrated” into silence on certain issue, even before some shot point blank, Bill Gwatney!!
Just see/look how lower courts, 535 CONmen/CONwomen, follows John Roberts “lead” after he, John Roberts and Co., rules in “favor” of illegal Soetoro. Remember THEY were publicly scolded/intimidated at a SOTU with the RATS standing ovation, so “turncoat” is NOT the right word, but rather INTIMIDATION or bribery!!!
The “Turncoat” is same man or men who got a “visit” = intimidation at SCOTUS on January 14th, 2009, one week before the W’Hut was illegally stolen!
On that same day, January 14th, 2009, the whole United States of America was “castrated” into silence on certain issue, even before some shot point blank, Bill Gwatney!!
Just see/look how lower courts, 535 CONmen/CONwomen, follows John Roberts “lead” after he, John Roberts and Co., rules in “favor” of illegal Soetoro. Remember THEY were publicly scolded/intimidated at a SOTU with the RATS standing ovation, so “turncoat” is NOT the right word, but rather INTIMIDATION or bribery!!!
“The Turncoat is same man or men who got a visit = intimidation at SCOTUS on January 14th, 2009, one week before the WHut was illegally stolen!...........
.......... THEY were publicly scolded/intimidated at a SOTU with the RATS standing ovation, so turncoat is NOT the right word, but rather INTIMIDATION or bribery!!!”
During that SOTU, Alito shook his head in defiance and said (reading lips here) no, not true.
Alito, Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy did not TURN under 0b0z0’s intimidation and scolding. Most likely, Roberts TURNED AND SUCCUMBED under a particular threat of taking away his “illegally” adopted kids.
Interesting as far as I know Alito was NOT present at the 1/14-2009 meeting !!!
Just wonder WHY all lower courts has throwing out every single suits since 2008 starting with a Democrat, Mr. Berg on its merits. Makes absolutely NO sense unless intimidation involved, and again Bill Gwatney was also covered up, likewise Judge Scalia ???
“Interesting as far as I know Alito was NOT present at the 1/14-2009 meeting !!!.......
Just wonder WHY all lower courts has throwing out every single suits since 2008 starting with a Democrat, Mr. Berg on its merits.”
OK Mr. Knowitall, KEEP WONDERING!
It seems that you’re interested in one subject that is futile to talk about. Why don’t you chase Cruz who doesn’t even claim that he was born in the USA? A new rabbit to chase all the way down the proverbial rabbit hole!
I was referring to the 2010 SOTU WHEN 0b0z0 chided SCOTUS for the Citizens United decision, which apparently you DIDN’t connect to what I was talking about.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/28/AR2010012802893.html
No more bantering, get it?
OK just keep anchoring your head in the sand or some place else and let all these things pass you by, or really better YOU not interesting but certainly approves of it!!!
So if you want to see what I’m doing with the Canadian born citizen, the Anchor Baby, also from Cuba, or stateless, and part of the Cuban Sandwich, you are welcome to follow the Mr. “Knowitall” on Facebook ???
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.