Great to see such a high level of 'judicial' reasoning !
/drippingly disgusted sarcasm (in case you were unsure)
spit
Posted on 07/16/2018 11:46:45 AM PDT by BradtotheBone
Yeah but I came back with a quick save:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3671337/posts?page=4#4
Immigrants? Really? Then, let them in!
Oh wait, you mean they they are criminaliens? Oh wait, you mean they didn't apply to be an immigrant at any one of 10 US consolates in Mexico? Oh wait, you mean they just walked up to the border and tried to enter, jumping ahead of legal immigrants that have been waiting years (and waiting extra, due to line cutters)?
Oh well, then, these crimigrants can just turn around and head back south.
I hear ya!
I was just waiting for an Obama appointed federal district judge to order President Trump not to fill Anthony Kennedy’s Supreme Court seat.
U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw is the same judicial tyrant who ordered the little invaders to be reunited with their criminal parents or guardians. A George W. Bush appointee.
“The bus should pull up with the 20 kids, and you tell the twenty parents to climb on board with their kids...with a four-minute drive to the border point to drive them across and dump them with a bottle of water, and a baloney sandwich.”
One can’t deport El Salvadorans and Hondurans to Mexico.
They have to be flown home (or given life jackets and dumped in international waters off the coasts of their countries).
“Women lack the analytical ability to decide these cases”.
Please don’t use that broad and insulting statement to include all of us-I am female and a card-carrying Tejana of Latino ancestry-and any fool can see that these are not “immigrant families”-they are mojados, they are in our country illegally, and their asylum claims are all bulls***-put them in one of la migra’s vans, drive them across the border and drop them off in the nearest town in Mexico, and good riddance...
Only liberal women lack analytical ability-they are ruled by hysteria and feelings, not the facts or legality of the matter in question...
“ACLU hears rumors, Judge orders the executive branch how to operate. And some say we still have a say in how our country runs via elections of public officials.”
I’m getting very tired of this.
This black robed dictator want-to-be needs to go to remedial political education class.
He can’t be removed from the bench, but he can be made to attend class five days a week under a law passed by majorities in both branches of Congress until he demonstrates he understands what a Republican form of government is and what the word “shall” means.
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion”
US Constitution
“The Republican Form of government is one in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated.”
http://www.conservapedia.com/Republican_form_of_government
Post Constitutional America: meet your benevolent rulers, they wear black robs and answer to none.
Merits aside, I write separately to address the remedy that the plaintiffs sought and obtained in this case. The District Court imposed an injunction that barred the Government from enforcing the President’s Proclamation against anyone, not just the plaintiffs. Injunctions that prohibit the Executive Branch from applying a law or policy against anyone—often called “universal” or “na- tionwide” injunctions—have become increasingly com- mon.1 District courts, including the one here, have begun imposing universal injunctions without considering their authority to grant such sweeping relief. These injunctions are beginning to take a toll on the federal court system— preventing legal questions from percolating through the federal courts, encouraging forum shopping, and making every case a national emergency for the courts and for the Executive Branch.
I am skeptical that district courts have the authority to enter universal injunctions. These injunctions did not emerge until a century and a half after the founding. And they appear to be inconsistent with longstanding limits on equitable relief and the power of Article III courts. If their popularity continues, this Court must address their legality.
Unfortunately, this case will be moot before the new term starts in October, but I'm sure we'll have similar cases come along. Perhaps the court could take up Thomas' concerns.
You are right about Big Bend not needing a wall-my 1st hubby and I loved Big Bend-we camped and hiked many times there-even experienced campers need to be careful-otherwise, if a rattlesnake doesn’t nail you, a fall from the canyon walls will-it is a ready-made mojado death trap...
Once when we were there, some state troopers and county deputies came onto the campground where we were, digging all around for 2 murder-for-hire victims believed buried there in the desert-they found them pretty fast, and when we asked what was going on, they said the place is a favorite place for sicarios on both sides to dump bodies-the park did lose a bit of its appeal after that...
Yes.
Every minute they’re still here should be another charge against them.
The Left-Right split used to be about how to run the country.
Now it’s about whether to have a country.
We no longer have a constitutional republic but an oligarchy.
So SICK of these tyrannical district judges trying to bind the President. Justice Thomas has already warned these people, but they can't take a hint.
Great to see such a high level of 'judicial' reasoning !
/drippingly disgusted sarcasm (in case you were unsure)
spit
Now it’s about whether to have a country.
Bravo! Couldn't have been said better.
You beat me to it. Thanks for quoting Thomas’ comments on these upstart judges.
Well stated, ma’am.
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.