- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Federal Judge Decrees Trump Must Reunify Families
Posted on 6/27/18 at 9:05 am to rsbd
Posted on 6/27/18 at 9:05 am to rsbd
quote:
SCOTUS says frick state courts, know your roll and shut your mouth
This was a federal circuit court judge who is in California, not a state judge. Educate yourself before commenting please.
1
Posted on 6/27/18 at 9:07 am to germandawg
quote:
Do we imprison them for life, adopt them out or just shoot them humanely?
Whichever of those choices comes that the lowest cost to the taxpayers. That's the one we go with.
Posted on 6/27/18 at 9:40 am to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
Every judge appointed to a state court may be categorized as a federal judge; such positions include the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, Circuit Judges of the courts of appeals, and district judges of the United States district courts.
Learn to know what you are talking about cuckboy
Learn to know what you are talking about cuckboy
Posted on 6/27/18 at 9:44 am to bhtigerfan
quote:
I'm so sick of these judges legislating from the bench. You don't make the laws frickstick! That's the job of the Congress. Read the fricking constitution dickhead. Trump needs to tell these judges to frick off.
Please don't be upset with me, but, if I may, I'd like to lay a little Truth on you. Here it is:
The men and women in the US Congress LOVE IT when SCOTUS legislates Left from the bench because that takes the monkey off of the Congressional back. People in Congress want to focus on getting re-elected and passing legislation that might be controversial is NOT the way to get re-elected.
That's why they LOVE IT when SCOTUS does their job for them.
Don't believe me? Then why did Congress create a host of Executive Agencies that are authorized to pass FedGov Regs that have the force of law? Congress did this to get some Executive Agencies TO DO THEIR WORK FOR THEM.
Cheers, dude! Have a good day.
This post was edited on 6/27/18 at 9:47 am
Posted on 6/27/18 at 9:56 am to celltech1981
quote:
lay out how the judges interpretation is an abuse of power? all i said is not to call for disbarring based on a ruling. what's his logic behind it? it could very well stand up in the supreme court
First of all, it just got shot down by the Supreme Court. That was the entire purpose of the other SCOTUS ruling thread... the SCOTUS ruling overturns the 9th and 4th district’s “universal injunctions” on Trump’s travel ban EO, and reaffirmed the fact that the Constitution specifically grants the Executive Branch authority to enact action over immigration and national security.
Second, I explained a page back why the district judges were abusing their article III powers in this situation.
The scope of article III ends before it reaches authority specifically granted by the Constitution itself.
In other words, the judges can’t decide if “The Constitution” is “Constitutional”.
But “universal injunctions” that infringe on enumerated powers of the Executive are trying to do exactly that... strip the President of his Constitutionally granted authority.
These are Liberal judges who are attempting this out of pure political partisanship (they didn’t say a word when Obama enacted the exact same travel bans). And it’s impossible to argue that passing judgements outside the scope of your powers due to spiteful partisanship isn’t an abuse of power.
This post was edited on 6/27/18 at 11:03 am
Posted on 6/27/18 at 7:11 pm to TigerNAtux
quote:
We seperated them?
We have no obligation to these people. They entered illegally.
They are subject to our laws the same as you are subject to
Mexico’s laws when you cross their border.
If you crossed into Mexico at other than a port of entry, sought a law enforcement officer and announced you were seeking asylum you wouldn’t be violating any law my friend. Any more than swimm8ng ashore from a ship or flying into the US from abroad.
And we do have an obligation...we have agreed to treaties that oblige us to treat people humanely. We also have the obligation of decency....but the right for the most part knows nothing about decency.....
Posted on 6/27/18 at 7:14 pm to BugAC
quote:
Do we not separate native criminals from their children?
For the first time offense of a minor misdemeanor? No, we don’t....not generally speaking, no we don’t. The crime in question is on par with exceeding the speed limit on a federal road or installation by 10 MPH. I’ll guarantee you that has never resulted in immediate separation of families.....but nice try.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News