Saw the headline and knew it was a female judge.
Just saying.
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. Silly peasants, accountability is for politicians, not for judges!
Why would it require a week after unification to decide upon asylum application? If your nation is not at war, I don’t see how you can for a single moment fill out an asylum application.
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.
I think we might best deport our whole judiciary branch and start all over again.
This judge should be impeached because the ACLU has NO standing in this case.
Also is she basing her decision on rumors and hearsay? She should know better. Kick her off the bench and disbar her!
Where do activist “judges” get the authority to say screw the laws and start making up their own laws? This ‘RAT puppet needs to go to jail.
These “judges” are just making it up as they go along now, not even considering the law.
This “judge” does not have the authority to tell the Executive Branch how to run immigration, which includes deportation.
SCOTUS has already ruled on this. Ignore the judge.
First damn sentence!!!!
When was Fast & Furious carried out by the "Obama Administration"?
When did the "Obama Administration's" IRS attack conservatives?
Was the "Obama Administration" involved in the Bengazi debacle in the media?
I don't recall the "Obama Administration" even being responsible for delivering $150B to Iran in various, unmarked currencies in the dead of night by air freight.
But somehow the media seems to link President Trump (FALSELY) to the intentional separation of Illegal immigrants (Felons) from the children that they dragged into the country with them.
???? So their going to get legal advice about seeking asylum from their minor children? Those poor little 3 years olds crying for mommy?
Women lack the analytical ability to decide these cease. They are ruled by emotion.
How in the flying f*** do these judges have control over the other branches of government?
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 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.
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.
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.