- 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
0
Posted on 2/26/18 at 10:08 am to Iosh
So - an executive order from one POTUS is forever?? even if it itself was unconstitutional??
Trump needs to let the damn thing expire - then just start deporting them - simple as that.
Trump needs to let the damn thing expire - then just start deporting them - simple as that.
Posted on 2/26/18 at 10:11 am to HailToTheChiz
quote:
They didn't rule on it but chose not to hear it.
This is key.
What was their reason for declining?
SIAP, at work and can’t search right now.
Posted on 2/26/18 at 10:12 am to Adam Banks
quote:
Not being in the legal field maybe someone else can educate me but this would seem a prime candidate for the ussc as the issue deals with the abilities of the executive/executive orders and not just the political issue at hand? Has far reaching implications not just to this issue
this is what my logical mind cannot escape.
Why the hell are they going to let it simmer in appeals courts - knowing its going to come right back to them from one side or the other.
This shite needs to be cleared up ASAP
Posted on 2/26/18 at 10:34 am to ChineseBandit58
Not understanding this at all.
If they do nothing, the leeches are still deported on March 6th, correct?
There's no way a lower court can write an appeal of the original order now, correct?
I can't fathom how this is good if the SCOTUS has chose not to hear this.
Can anyone clarify?
If they do nothing, the leeches are still deported on March 6th, correct?
There's no way a lower court can write an appeal of the original order now, correct?
I can't fathom how this is good if the SCOTUS has chose not to hear this.
Can anyone clarify?
Posted on 2/26/18 at 10:44 am to hogcard1964
No, they're not deported on march 6th. There is an injunction (meaning status quo stays in place basically) until the litigation is over. This is a very small deal that the media is blowing up into a big deal because it's perceived as a loss for Trump. But really it's very normal.
Posted on 2/26/18 at 10:50 am to LSUTigersVCURams
Not good.
Posted on 2/26/18 at 10:56 am to Iosh
What a stupid ruling
Maybe they will get the union one correct
Maybe they will get the union one correct
Posted on 2/26/18 at 11:03 am to HailToTheChiz
quote:
They didn't rule on it but chose not to hear it.
Which makes the lower court ruling effectively law.
I hate John Roberts more every day
Posted on 2/26/18 at 11:05 am to udtiger
quote:
Trump should ignore it.
He absolutely should!
He should do just like Andrew Jackson did...
"John Marshall has made his decision: now let him enforce it!"
Posted on 2/26/18 at 11:08 am to Loserman
quote:
Which makes the lower court ruling effectively law.
It's just a temporary injunction. Those DACA babies are still going to get deported if Congress doesn't do anything. It's just goint to take a little longer.
This post was edited on 2/26/18 at 11:09 am
Posted on 2/26/18 at 11:09 am to Loserman
quote:
Which makes the lower court ruling effectively law. I hate John Roberts more every day
He's not a good person.
Posted on 2/26/18 at 11:09 am to SDVTiger
quote:
Your team doesn't want to make a deal
your team wants bullshite ideas passed
Posted on 2/26/18 at 11:17 am to SSpaniel
quote:
. If it was put in place by nothing more than an executive order, then it should be able to be "undone" by nothing more than another executive order.
It's not like one executive order is any different, legally, than another one, is it?
And that would be in compliance with the SCOTUS decision to let normal legal channels be followed. An EO put in place by one POTUS can be invalidated by another EO by the next POTUS.
Posted on 2/26/18 at 11:19 am to SoulGlo
quote:
The USSC opts not to take up the issue of an executive order being negated by an executive order? How the frick is this good news?
The Constitution is clear. The POTUS can executive order anything that was executive ordered. WTF is going on?
This may be their point if they provide a reason for not hearing it.
Posted on 2/26/18 at 11:22 am to LSURussian
quote:
The SCOTUS ruling says, "Nope, let the normal process take place" and then we'll hear it.
And the normal process is that any EO issued by a prior POTUS can be canceled by the current POTUS.
Posted on 2/26/18 at 11:27 am to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:
There is an injunction (meaning status quo stays in place basically) until the litigation is over.
So the injunction is on the concept of one POTUS having the power to cancel a prior EO issued by a prior POTUS, and not on what the EO pertains to? That seems unconstitutional.
Posted on 2/26/18 at 11:28 am to Cruiserhog
quote:
your team wants bullshite ideas passed
our team wants to undo the bullshite ideas that your team passed that fricked this country up over the past 8 years...
Posted on 2/26/18 at 11:49 am to LSURulzSEC
Ignore it 
PLease do this and see what happens.
PLease do this and see what happens.
Posted on 2/26/18 at 11:49 am to Usafgiles
quote:What would that be?
PLease do this and see what happens.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News