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

Skip to comments.

Laws and oaths: Making the case for why POTUS Trump should IGNORE Fed judge’s asylum ruling
The National Sentinel ^ | 11/20/18 | USA Features

Posted on 11/20/2018 12:13:40 PM PST by SleeperCatcher

Conflicted: Because the presidents who nominate them are political, federal judges who are appointed to the bench are political as well, which is why our country gets so many rulings from that conflict — or appear to conflict — with U.S. law.

We got another one on Monday: A federal judge in California, appointed to the bench by President Obama, ruled that POTUS Donald Trump has no authority to issue an executive order changing asylum rules that are clearly being abused by hordes of migrants.

The Associated Press reported:

…U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar agreed with legal groups that immediately sued, arguing that U.S. immigration law clearly allows someone to seek asylum even if they enter the country between official ports of entry and temporarily barred the ruling from going into place while the case is heard.

“Whatever the scope of the President’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden,” said Tigar, a nominee of former President Barack Obama.

Except, of course, when Obama changed immigration law by claiming authority to stop the deportation process for so-called “Dreamers.”

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: asylum; constitution; executiveorder; federalcourts
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-47 next last

1 posted on 11/20/2018 12:13:40 PM PST by SleeperCatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SleeperCatcher

Trump’s response to the rogue judge should be to tell him to try to enfirce his ruling.

The ban would stay. A federal judge has no authority and no power to order the President not to execute the laws and to protect our borders.

Thant’s his constitutional duty whatever the idiot Tagar may opine to the contrary.


2 posted on 11/20/2018 12:18:10 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SleeperCatcher

No,
Trump should appeal the ruling, all the way to SCOTUS if necessary.
And if he doesn’t win there, Congress needs to act to change the law.
And Congress needs to consider impeaching the judge.


3 posted on 11/20/2018 12:22:05 PM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SleeperCatcher

No,
Trump should appeal the ruling, all the way to SCOTUS if necessary.
And if he doesn’t win there, Congress needs to act to change the law.
And Congress needs to consider impeaching the judge.


4 posted on 11/20/2018 12:22:05 PM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SleeperCatcher

No,
Trump should appeal the ruling, all the way to SCOTUS if necessary.
And if he doesn’t win there, Congress needs to act to change the law.
And Congress needs to consider impeaching the judge.


5 posted on 11/20/2018 12:22:05 PM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SleeperCatcher

Ignore? That should’ve been done years ago. We’re at the point where they need to be rounded up and sent to gitmo. I’m dead serious.


6 posted on 11/20/2018 12:23:53 PM PST by Electric Graffiti (Cocked, locked and ready to ROCK!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

If this border invasion is not stopped, the future will be unreal....

This is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg....


7 posted on 11/20/2018 12:28:45 PM PST by JBW1949 (I'm really PC....PATRIOTICALLY CORRECT!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

If it becomes necessary to change the law. The laws not going to get changed until 2020 and we take the House back (If we do!). It would just go into the new House and get screeched at!


8 posted on 11/20/2018 12:29:35 PM PST by Reily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SleeperCatcher
This is the law:

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

8 U.S.C. §1182(f) of United States Code

From: The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

The Act was vetoed by Truman.

Truman's veto was overturned by more than a two thirds vote in the House and Senate.

The INA Act is still the law of the land.

9 posted on 11/20/2018 12:32:58 PM PST by zeestephen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

I was thinking of President Lincoln’s famous response to a ruling by Judge Taney.

Courts have no independent enforcement powers. Part of the system of checks and balances.

Judges aren’t tyrants in black robes.


10 posted on 11/20/2018 12:33:38 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SleeperCatcher

If Trump just closes down the border, things will get fixed in a hurry.

Democrats and Never Trumpers will be subjected to the pressure of every type of constituant.


11 posted on 11/20/2018 12:37:34 PM PST by amihow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop; Reily

The system has an appeal process for a reason.

If you ignore the process that has been set up, you undermine the rule of law.


12 posted on 11/20/2018 12:40:00 PM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
"No, Trump should appeal the ruling, all the way to SCOTUS if necessary. And if he doesn’t win there, Congress needs to act to change the law. And Congress needs to consider impeaching the judge."

The refugee law that was enacted by Congress is the problem. Trump ignoring an injunction by a federal judge is just an open invitation to impeach Trump. Obama's behavior non withstanding.

13 posted on 11/20/2018 12:40:36 PM PST by buckalfa (I was so much older then, but I'am younger than that now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
I was thinking of President Lincoln’s famous response to a ruling by Judge Taney.

That was Andrew Jackson, whose portrait is prominently displayed by our current President. But we now have a Constitution respecting majority on the court. I say take it all the way to SCOTUS.

14 posted on 11/20/2018 12:40:43 PM PST by pgkdan (The Silent Majority STILL Stands With TRUMP! WWG1WGA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: buckalfa

I agree with you. I’m not sure if the legislation is as big a problem as the judge made out.

If there is wiggle room, then Trump should appeal the ruling. Because if the ruling stands, Trump can’t fulfill his constitutional duty to defend the borders.

And if the ruling stands, then Trump should be preaching to the Democrats from the Presidential podium about how the law needs to change.


15 posted on 11/20/2018 12:45:32 PM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: buckalfa; DannyTN

“Trump ignoring an injunction by a federal judge is just an open invitation to impeach Trump”

Oh noes...you people a cucks. Trump is going to be impeached regardless of what he does. If Trump allows these black robed tyrants to get away with these injunctions, he does tremendous damage to the office of the presidency. To the executive’s power under the Constitution.

The courts are not the final arbiter of what is constitutional. That should be clear to the dimmest of bulbs


16 posted on 11/20/2018 12:49:10 PM PST by Electric Graffiti (Cocked, locked and ready to ROCK!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Electric Graffiti

>>The courts are not the final arbiter of what is constitutional.
**************************************************
Tom Woods recently wrote an article called “The James Madison Passage They Keep Buried” in which he speaks to this point.

Summary:
“What Madison means in the second paragraph above is that while the judicial branch may be considered the final authority on constitutionality between itself and the executive and legislative branches of the federal government, it is not the final authority between itself and the states. The states, holding the initial repository of power and the architects of the whole system, are of course the ultimate voice.”

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/11/thomas-woods/the-two-paragraphs-the-so-called-legal-experts-are-keeping-from-you/


17 posted on 11/20/2018 12:55:30 PM PST by Kalamata (How to interpret The Revelation: http://bibleresearchtools.com/bible-study-video-series/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

Really? Do you think the democrat house is going to give Pres. Trump anything he wants? Especially when he wants to stem the flow of invaders? Pres. Trump needs to face the fact this democrat congress is going to impeach him over and over and over again, and just do what is right for this country. If the Dems and the Obama judges have their way, we won’t have a country anyway so just ignore them Mr. Trump, they do not want to protect our country so you have to do so.


18 posted on 11/20/2018 12:58:32 PM PST by erkelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: pgkdan

>>But we now have a Constitution respecting majority on the court. I say take it all the way to SCOTUS.
********************************************************
I am not confident that there is a Constitution-respecting SC majority.

Roberts is the deciding vote. He’s already demonstrated that he can be (and was) compromised with his Obamacare vote.

Some say now he is “freed” from Obama’s blackmail. But, there is nothing stopping the commies from releasing what they have on him if he votes against them.

IMO, we need one more SC Justice to seal the deal.


19 posted on 11/20/2018 1:00:09 PM PST by Kalamata (How to interpret The Revelation: http://bibleresearchtools.com/bible-study-video-series/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Kalamata

Jefferson knew the dangers of allowing that...and we’re living it. Judicial tyranny.


20 posted on 11/20/2018 1:01:46 PM PST by Electric Graffiti (Cocked, locked and ready to ROCK!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-47 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