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

Skip to comments.

Breaking: Supreme Court refuses to hear Trump challenge on DACA
The Hill ^ | 02/26/2018 | Lydia Wheeler and Rafael Bernal

Posted on 02/26/2018 6:40:20 AM PST by GIdget2004

The Supreme Court on Monday delivered a blow to the Trump administration by refusing to hear the government's challenge to a lower court ruling that has temporarily blocked the administration from winding down the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

The Department of Justice’s request was rare in that it asked the Supreme Court to jump ahead of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in reviewing the case.

The court typically will only bypass an appellate court when there’s an emergency involving foreign affairs, a serious separation of powers concerns or when it has already agreed to hear another case dealing with the same question.

(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2018election; 2020election; 9thcircuit; 9thcircus; aliens; buildthefence; daca; dreamact; dreamers; election2018; election2020; immigration; lawsuit; ruling; scotus; trumpillegals; trumpscotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-199 next last
To: GIdget2004

“The Department of Justice’s request was rare in that it asked the Supreme Court to jump ahead of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in reviewing the case.”

Request made. Request denied. Wait till the 9th CCA does its thing, then resubmit. Next Case...


21 posted on 02/26/2018 6:47:25 AM PST by MrZippy2k (Was ready for a HUGE change - - now happy to see it happening)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kenmcg

Chief Justice ultimately decides what case will be reviewed - Bloody John Roberts strikes again?


22 posted on 02/26/2018 6:47:43 AM PST by Psalm 73 ("Gentlemen, you can't fight in here - this is the War Room".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: robroys woman

And since when has that stopped them? I mean there was a date when we crowned our black robed tyrants.

Jackson temporarily stopped them but at some point they assumed power.


23 posted on 02/26/2018 6:48:10 AM PST by mindburglar (I have an above average brain stem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: kenmcg
"The court said the government's request for the court to hear its case is denied without prejudice. "It is assumed that the court of appeals will proceed expeditiously to decide this case," the court said. The justices provided no further explanation for their decision. It takes four justices to agree to hear a case."

Four is hard to reach when it's been shown that the nation's highest courts have been corrupted! 3 for = Thomas, Gorsuch and Alito; 5 against = Roberts, Ginsburg, Kennedy (retiring?), Kagan & the "wise latina" (presumably)
24 posted on 02/26/2018 6:48:11 AM PST by Steven W.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mindburglar
Well, he could follow the "Obama precedent" and just start ignoring these unconstitutional rulings.

What are they going to do... threaten to impeach him?😏

25 posted on 02/26/2018 6:48:23 AM PST by daler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: kenmcg

We have our hands full with our own terrorists.


26 posted on 02/26/2018 6:48:53 AM PST by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

OK,so will the 9th Circus now rule or has this decision made that unnecessary? If they do rule they’ll clearly rule against Trump and,if that happens can the government take it to SCOTUS once again?


27 posted on 02/26/2018 6:49:27 AM PST by Gay State Conservative (Obama & Hillary: The Two Most Corrupt Politicians of My Lifetime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kenmcg

The article stated that it takes the acceptance of four justices to hear a case, so I want to know who didn’t accept and what their reasons for doing so were.


28 posted on 02/26/2018 6:49:36 AM PST by Robert DeLong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

This all comes back to no state challenging the original clearly illegal DACA edict in the first place.

Now both sides have the pressure lifted for at least the next year. Trump will have to be creative to get the wall funded now.


29 posted on 02/26/2018 6:49:38 AM PST by phoneman08 (qwiyrqweopigradfdzcm,.dadfjl,dz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robroys woman

Their decision certainly SHOULD be ignored. Time to go full Andrew Jackson on ‘em & see if they can enforce it.


30 posted on 02/26/2018 6:50:07 AM PST by Twotone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

This stinks to the max and a major miscalculation by Trump. He should have let those ten states attorneys general proceed with their anti-DACA lawsuit http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/30/republican-state-ags-threaten-lawsuit-if-trump-doesnt-end-daca.html

Wiseguy Trump was going to trade DACA for The Wall but now he has no DACA to trade or bargain with


31 posted on 02/26/2018 6:50:09 AM PST by dennisw (The strong take from the weak, but the smart take from the strong)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA

Exactly. Everyone her is overreacting. They sound like CNN saying Trump lost.


32 posted on 02/26/2018 6:50:53 AM PST by KMG365
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: mindburglar

I mean ignore them. The court may have the power to say the constitution prevents one from cutting a time frame short, but if a law or EO says a certain thing will be in force until a specific date, the court has no constitutional authority to decide the date should be moved to a later date.

It’s completely outside the scope of their authority and can be ignored.


33 posted on 02/26/2018 6:51:11 AM PST by robroys woman (So you're not confused, I'm male.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

It’s understood that the Sotomayor judge has diabetes and it’s affecting her job. Maybe her and Kennedy will be the first to leave.


34 posted on 02/26/2018 6:51:32 AM PST by kenmcg (tHE WHOLE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

Their decision certainly SHOULD be ignored. Time to go full Andrew Jackson on ‘em & see if they can enforce it.


This is why I like Trump. I think he’s the only one that would actually ignore it. The rest are a bunch of politicians.


35 posted on 02/26/2018 6:52:12 AM PST by robroys woman (So you're not confused, I'm male.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA

So the SCOTUS simply refused to jump in until the appeals court has had its say
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
That is the way I read it...

Better make sure it is done correctly rather than give ‘them’ automatic outs and arguments.

What I have ‘trouble’ comprehending is it was done by EO and even the signer said it probably wouldn’t last, why can’t it be taken down the same way THEN go after it legally to ensure it lasting.

Sort of like Roe-Wade.. Since it followed all the procedures, it makes it almost impossible to upend.

Sometimes we have to be careful what we wish for...Get RvW upended and what do the libs do to counter it?

THEY spent every waking hour for 8 years trying to impeach W for ‘payback’ for Clintoon and that quest is till on going...

Until they get a ‘head on a stake’, this crap will continue. A waste of time, money and effort YET, these so called Representatives damn sure are NOT representing the ‘masses’.


36 posted on 02/26/2018 6:52:43 AM PST by xrmusn ((6/98)""Assume this is preceded by 'there is somebody somewhere who will say'")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TTFlyer

The “supreme” court became a laughing stock the day Roberts decided to make up his own set of rules that the government can force we-the-people to pay anything it wants as long as it calls it a “tax.”


37 posted on 02/26/2018 6:53:17 AM PST by Pravious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: blueyon

...How can a court say an EO can not end..............it was never a law...

The court ruled essentially that they would allow the Trump appeal to be refiled after it goes through the normal appeal process, that being going to the 9th Circuit first.
Of course the 9th will uphold the Circuit Judge, and then it’s on to SCOTUS.
It’s a procedural matter.


38 posted on 02/26/2018 6:53:43 AM PST by Sasparilla ( I'm Not Tired of Winning)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: daler

You’re not wrong. Force Congress to side with a soon to be stacked court. It’ll be like Kirk winning an argument with a computer.


39 posted on 02/26/2018 6:54:07 AM PST by mindburglar (I have an above average brain stem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: KMG365

Executive Order Will Stop DACCA.


40 posted on 02/26/2018 6:54:09 AM PST by mplc51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-199 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