Supreme Court allows Trump administration to enforce ‘public charge’ immigration restriction

what blows my mind and basic common sense is this.

Lately on alot of laws (not just immigration) the LAW EXISTS and been on the books FOR A GOOD AMOUNT OF TIME.

Some feel the need (ILLEGALLY I might add) not to enforce the law .

when one decides to or REQUIRES those under them to enforce it (this case its PRESIDENT TRUMP) someone files a lawsuit to stop it.

Then a lower court decides to have an injunction to stop enforcing a law that up and until now was constitutional and USUALLY was enforced with no court challenge before (or even when passed) .

then it takes a journey of some time to the supreme court that (as in this case) says ITS CONSTITUTIONAL.

so what we are saying is PREVIOUSLY APPROVED, ENFORCED (be lightly or not) , and WENT UNCHALLENGED you have to go to the supreme court to IMPLEMENT THE LAW

some low level activist judge gives more weight (or more accurately leway) to those claiming it was illegal vs what has to date been established as ok.

notice lately every immigration law must be approved by the supreme court.

even rod sterling writing for the twilght zone would not make # like this up.

scrounger

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I think that if a lower court rules and the SC has to overturn the ruling, then the judges in the lower court that ruled opposite of the SC should be impeached.

That would quickly flush the activists out of the Judicial system.

I disagree. Not every opposing viewpoint is necessarily being an activist. Disgreements and reviews are a natural part of the judicial system.

The Judicial branch is supposed to rule on existing laws, not rule in order to create a law. We have unprecedented levels of lower courts making rulings that effectively create a new law. The Constitution prohibits this. That is activism. Viewpoints don't matter, the law and the Constitution matter. When you let your viewpoint override your duty, it most certainly is activism and is NOT part of the system.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I think that if a lower court rules and the SC has to overturn the ruling, then the judges in the lower court that ruled opposite of the SC should be impeached.

That would quickly flush the activists out of the Judicial system.

I disagree. Not every opposing viewpoint is necessarily being an activist. Disgreements and reviews are a natural part of the judicial system.

The Judicial branch is supposed to rule on existing laws, not rule in order to create a law. We have unprecedented levels of lower courts making rulings that effectively create a new law. The Constitution prohibits this. That is activism. Viewpoints don't matter, the law and the Constitution matter. When you let your viewpoint override your duty, it most certainly is activism and is NOT part of the system.

I understand that. I'm just saying interpretation and reviews are a normal process. Removing every lower Court judge over such instances is overkill. But I do understand. And agree removing activists is a good idea. But it's not a black and white every single time needed action .

a reply to: CrawlingChaos

I agree, that is definitely an overreaction. It's just crazy how a group of people are refusing to following the Constitution because they claim Trump isn't (even though he wins on Constitutional merits every time) and not following the Constitution is just horrible.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Update 6.30.2022

The Supreme Court Rules that Migrants can come into the USA freely from Mexico, since the Biden Administration was letting them enter freely in the first place. (Biden Admin was ignoring the Supreme Court's August 2021 order to keep Trump's "Remain in Mexico" policy intact and enforced.)

SCOTUS ends "Remain in Mexico": www.foxnews.com...