Can Anti-Trump So-Called Judges Stop ALL of His Major Projects?

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Shhhh...

Don't be naughty and trigger anyone.

originally posted by: GreyScale
a reply to: theantediluvian

Why do you keep posting things that are not true?

Trump, as President of the United States, can actually ban whomever he wants as far as immigration goes, for any means whatsoever. Period. Not Constitutional? Please link to me the rights of non-citizens in the Constitution.

I'm surprised that as a Progressive you don't understand the term Plenary power. Or maybe you do, for Progressive presidents.

The ability to shut down the refugee program was specifically delegated to the president under 8 U.S.C. §1157(a)(2) — the same authority Obama used to ratchet up refugee intake. However, the glue that binds Trump’s authority to shut off all or any category of immigrant and non-immigrant visas comes from INA 212(f), which is at-will plenary authority expressed in the strongest terms:

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.

This is not the type of provision that a court can demand evidence that the condition of “detrimental to interests” was met. The delegation of authority was designed as plenary power under the broad auspices of “detrimental interests.” The courts have absolutely no authority to second-guess the president’s determination. That is up to Congress and the electorate. As a recent CRS report observes from the House Report on the 1952 immigration bill that granted this authority: “The bill vests in the President the authority to suspend the entry of all aliens if he finds that their entry would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, for such period as he shall deem necessary.” [H.R.RPT.1365, 82d Cong.,2d Sess., at 53 (Feb. 14, 1952)]

These judges have no jurisdiction in the matter, as anyone with a lick of common sense can ascertain.

As far as anti-American, that would be a Progressive, since it is their goal to remake America into a statist Utopia.

That would be you.

So at least get your terms straight.

Actually you are wrong the judicial branch has jurisdiction on all matter. Its how it keeps congress and the President on check. Once the Supreme court invalidates Trump its all over. Unless he tries to push an amendment which wont happen.

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: Milehigh

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
a reply to: SBMcG

1950s: McCarran-Walter Act, 1952

Not the Constitution....

Jesus...

As I told you before, under Article I Congress has absolute power over immigration.

The 1952 Act extended that CONSTITUTIONAL grant of power to the President.

In this case, your president -- Donald J. Trump.

Except the court of law has overuled the President and there is nothing he can do against it thanks to the judicial branch of the government.

He can go to supreme court and be overuled again if he wishes to and it will put an end to the debate.

He can then choose to ignore it and be held in contempt of court and we can send the US marshalls over to the white house.

The ruling will be overturned by the Trump Supreme Court. The Constitution and law is with your president -- Donald J. Trump, 100%.

The Left is powerless to stop the Trump agenda.

THIS PARTICULAR Supreme Court has dealt a couple of nasty (for conservatives) surprises. Judge Roberts comes to mind, and his siding with the Obama administration twice, regarding ObamaCare.

It's not a fake / weak reason. Trump and the people around him have shown throughout their campaign that they are anti Muslim. This is a Constitutional option of checks and balances against the President overstepping their bounds to enact a law that will ultimately hurt someone just based on their religion, which is a violation of the Constitution.

If Donald Trump wants his Travel Ban, then the best way he could give it legitimacy is to pass it through Congress rather than trying to enact it through an Executive Action.

A bill passed in Congress would have much more of a chance of passing a court challenge, as lawmakers would amend it until it made sense.

Donald Trump was unable to prove his case in regards to the need for this ban.

The left and right paradigm does not apply to a situation where appointed and tenured judges can subvert the elected leadership, and the law of the country. Anybody, regardless of politics should be concerned.

The man being used as a political tool is suing the government,, obstructing the government, because of sadness, because he won't be able to see his mother-in-law. And worse, the judges are in on it.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
The left and right paradigm does not apply to a situation where appointed and tenured judges can subvert the elected leadership, and the law of the country. Anybody, regardless of politics should be concerned.

The man being used as a political tool is suing the government,, obstructing the government, because of sadness, because he won't be able to see his mother-in-law. And worse, the judges are in on it.

Actually, courts these days, including SCOTUS, are highly political. For anyone to think that any court decision isn't political is laughable.

SCOTUS itself has right and left wing judges that always vote with their respective parties (mostly) on every issue. Justice Roberts was the one hold out on Obamacare, but mostly, they rule the expected way every time along party lines.

A non political court is a pipe dream.

originally posted by: babybunnies

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
The left and right paradigm does not apply to a situation where appointed and tenured judges can subvert the elected leadership, and the law of the country. Anybody, regardless of politics should be concerned.

The man being used as a political tool is suing the government,, obstructing the government, because of sadness, because he won't be able to see his mother-in-law. And worse, the judges are in on it.

Actually, courts these days, including SCOTUS, are highly political. For anyone to think that any court decision isn't political is laughable.

SCOTUS itself has right and left wing judges that always vote with their respective parties (mostly) on every issue. Justice Roberts was the one hold out on Obamacare, but mostly, they rule the expected way every time along party lines.

A non political court is a pipe dream.

So was going to the moon. Ingenuity sometimes prevails.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: Milehigh

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
a reply to: SBMcG

1950s: McCarran-Walter Act, 1952

Not the Constitution....

Jesus...

As I told you before, under Article I Congress has absolute power over immigration.

The 1952 Act extended that CONSTITUTIONAL grant of power to the President.

In this case, your president -- Donald J. Trump.

Except the court of law has overuled the President and there is nothing he can do against it thanks to the judicial branch of the government.

He can go to supreme court and be overuled again if he wishes to and it will put an end to the debate.

He can then choose to ignore it and be held in contempt of court and we can send the US marshalls over to the white house.

The ruling will be overturned by the Trump Supreme Court. The Constitution and law is with your president -- Donald J. Trump, 100%.

The Left is powerless to stop the Trump agenda.

THIS PARTICULAR Supreme Court has dealt a couple of nasty (for conservatives) surprises. Judge Roberts comes to mind, and his siding with the Obama administration twice, regarding ObamaCare.

This might shock you, but I agreed with the Obamacare ruling.

Obama was a world-class liar and spent a year promising Americans that his now-collapsing scheme was NOT a tax, but in the end, it had to be passed as such by Congress.

Obamacare is a tax. Per the Constitution, Congress has the absolute power to levy taxes.

I have ZERO doubt the SCOTUS will reverse this idiot leftist ruling.

Trump has absolute power to stop ANY group from entering this country. The law is clear.

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: Milehigh

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
a reply to: SBMcG

1950s: McCarran-Walter Act, 1952

Not the Constitution....

Jesus...

As I told you before, under Article I Congress has absolute power over immigration.

The 1952 Act extended that CONSTITUTIONAL grant of power to the President.

In this case, your president -- Donald J. Trump.

Except the court of law has overuled the President and there is nothing he can do against it thanks to the judicial branch of the government.

He can go to supreme court and be overuled again if he wishes to and it will put an end to the debate.

He can then choose to ignore it and be held in contempt of court and we can send the US marshalls over to the white house.

The ruling will be overturned by the Trump Supreme Court. The Constitution and law is with your president -- Donald J. Trump, 100%.

The Left is powerless to stop the Trump agenda.

THIS PARTICULAR Supreme Court has dealt a couple of nasty (for conservatives) surprises. Judge Roberts comes to mind, and his siding with the Obama administration twice, regarding ObamaCare.

I have ZERO doubt the SCOTUS will reverse this idiot leftist ruling.

Trump has absolute power to stop ANY group from entering this country. The law is clear.

How will we know when the "Travel Ban" case is in the Supreme Court's In-Box, and how will we be able to follow its progress? Will government lawyers have to argue Trump's position before the Supreme Court? I hope not. Government lawyers seem to go weak-kneed before the mighty Supremes.

a reply to: Milehigh

Actually you also do not understand the term Plenary power.

I'm sure you also think that Hillary is up by 4 points.

The judicial branch has no check on plenary power, only Congress and we the people do.

This matter has already been gone over by the Supreme court in the late 1940's. Their decision was later codified into law by Congress. It is called the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. The Supreme court found that, in matters of immigration, the President has plenary powers. The judicial system has no authority over them.

I'm going to stop responding to people such as yourself because it is beginning to be the same thing as talking to my cat. It serves no real purpose because at the end of the day you have no idea what I'm talking about. You have an internet connection and a brain. Please use both.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: Milehigh

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
a reply to: SBMcG

1950s: McCarran-Walter Act, 1952

Not the Constitution....

Jesus...

As I told you before, under Article I Congress has absolute power over immigration.

The 1952 Act extended that CONSTITUTIONAL grant of power to the President.

In this case, your president -- Donald J. Trump.

Except the court of law has overuled the President and there is nothing he can do against it thanks to the judicial branch of the government.

He can go to supreme court and be overuled again if he wishes to and it will put an end to the debate.

He can then choose to ignore it and be held in contempt of court and we can send the US marshalls over to the white house.

The ruling will be overturned by the Trump Supreme Court. The Constitution and law is with your president -- Donald J. Trump, 100%.

The Left is powerless to stop the Trump agenda.

THIS PARTICULAR Supreme Court has dealt a couple of nasty (for conservatives) surprises. Judge Roberts comes to mind, and his siding with the Obama administration twice, regarding ObamaCare.

I have ZERO doubt the SCOTUS will reverse this idiot leftist ruling.

Trump has absolute power to stop ANY group from entering this country. The law is clear.

How will we know when the "Travel Ban" case is in the Supreme Court's In-Box, and how will we be able to follow its progress? Will government lawyers have to argue Trump's position before the Supreme Court? I hope not. Government lawyers seem to go weak-kneed before the mighty Supremes.

I'm not sure because the Gorsuch hearings are beginning.

I'm not sure the court wants to add anything to the docket until they have that seat filled. Also, I'm not sure if this doesn't have to go through the Court of Appeals first.

Either way, it will be a process.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: SBMcG

Supreme court? Like Reagan did? Don't forget Reagan tripped over himself to get Ginsburg in there, big first. Look at the success she was/is.

Wasn't Ginsburg ruling conservatively until she took that fall?

I actually believe Red Ronnie was doing the same thing (i.e.
ruling and behaving conservatively) until the "We're Going
Behind the Barn Moment) with John Hinkley. Hope I spelled
him right the Hinkleys and Bushes were old family friends...

As far as activist judges legislating from the bench, it goes
all the way from county jurisdictions to the SCOTUS... with
the latter engaging in that totally unconstitutional behavior
for over thirty years. That hasn't worked too well at all.

I say three little words that mean everything-- censure pending
impeachment. Judges exist to interpret the law, not create it.

originally posted by: GreyScale
a reply to: Milehigh

Actually you also do not understand the term Plenary power.

I'm sure you also think that Hillary is up by 4 points.

The judicial branch has no check on plenary power, only Congress and we the people do.

This matter has already been gone over by the Supreme court in the late 1940's. Their decision was later codified into law by Congress. It is called the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. The Supreme court found that, in matters of immigration, the President has plenary powers. The judicial system has no authority over them.

I'm going to stop responding to people such as yourself because it is beginning to be the same thing as talking to my cat. It serves no real purpose because at the end of the day you have no idea what I'm talking about. You have an internet connection and a brain. Please use both.

I see you are now left with personal insults and emotional output, it is a good indication that you feel cornered like a rat in your hole of ignorance.

The funniest thing in what you are saying is that although your wiki search on plenary power made you understand it you fail to even understand the dynamic between all branches of the government and how plenary power fits into it.

Whatever your delusions may be, plenary power to execute laws will not help in anything as the judicial system can void them making the autoritharian government you hope for impossible.

I rest my case, now go talk to your cat.

How long will the US administration tolerate judges taking orders, from Brussels, to act against the US government?

They're not anti trump judges. They are pro constitution judges.

a reply to: seasonal

The new appointee replaces Scalia who was also conservative. The balance is still liberal. Until one of the older ones retire. And this new guy can't recall his name but he's respected on both sides and has a reputation for fairness is not going to defy the constitution just because trump appointed him.

a reply to: theantediluvian

This "Muslim ban"seems to leave out the majority of the Muslim world, as it does not apply to Indonesia, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Mauritania, Oman, Algeri, Bahrain, Brunei, Comoros, Djibouti, Morocco, Malaysia, Tunisia, UAE, Bangladesh, Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic??? OMG I almost stopped typing I had no idea there was such a number of majority Muslim countries. This is only the list in where Islam is the state religion.

Come on now, you know you got a good response for me. I know it too, lets hear it

The six countries listed (minus Iran) are absolutely devastated war zones, TODAY and have a very high density of anti-American militants.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: Milehigh

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
a reply to: SBMcG

1950s: McCarran-Walter Act, 1952

Not the Constitution....

Jesus...

As I told you before, under Article I Congress has absolute power over immigration.

The 1952 Act extended that CONSTITUTIONAL grant of power to the President.

In this case, your president -- Donald J. Trump.

Except the court of law has overuled the President and there is nothing he can do against it thanks to the judicial branch of the government.

He can go to supreme court and be overuled again if he wishes to and it will put an end to the debate.

He can then choose to ignore it and be held in contempt of court and we can send the US marshalls over to the white house.

The ruling will be overturned by the Trump Supreme Court. The Constitution and law is with your president -- Donald J. Trump, 100%.

The Left is powerless to stop the Trump agenda.

THIS PARTICULAR Supreme Court has dealt a couple of nasty (for conservatives) surprises. Judge Roberts comes to mind, and his siding with the Obama administration twice, regarding ObamaCare.

I have ZERO doubt the SCOTUS will reverse this idiot leftist ruling.

Trump has absolute power to stop ANY group from entering this country. The law is clear.

How will we know when the "Travel Ban" case is in the Supreme Court's In-Box, and how will we be able to follow its progress? Will government lawyers have to argue Trump's position before the Supreme Court? I hope not. Government lawyers seem to go weak-kneed before the mighty Supremes.

Won't it be Sessions arguing on the side of the Govt?

originally posted by: carewemust
Can Anti-Trump So-Called Judges

No American would call a judge a 'so called judge', much less a sane Amerikkkan president.
A fascist would, one who wants to return to Hitler's good old days!
Demonize anyone who can expose his corruption; news, journalists, scientists, judges...
The signs are all there, for the living and awake.

a reply to: namelesss

Nameless, what does Fascist mean?
No googling, in your own words ok?