Big Win – Supreme Court Upholds Trump Asylum Policy “First Safe Nation”…

The supreme court has upheld President Trump’s immigration enforcement policy that denies asylum claims to migrants who travel through safe nations to reach the U.S.

(Via AP) […] The justices’ order late Wednesday undoes a lower-court ruling that had blocked the new asylum policy in some states along the southern border. The policy is meant to deny asylum to anyone who passes through another country on the way to the U.S. without seeking protection there. (more)

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Donald Trump, Illegal Aliens, media bias, Mexico, President Trump, Supreme Court, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

193 Responses to Big Win – Supreme Court Upholds Trump Asylum Policy “First Safe Nation”…

  1. GB Bari says:

    YUGE win!

    Liked by 52 people

  2. I’m not tired of Winning yet…

    Liked by 26 people

    • Dave Kohler says:

      Neither am I !!!!!!

      FOUR MORE YEARS !!!!!

      GO MR. TRUMP, GO !!!!!

      FOUR MORE YEARS !!!!!

      Now, let’s keep the Senate, and take back the House!

      And down with the brown-nosing swamp dwellers!!!!

      (I didn’t think I would ever live long enough to see anything like this!)

      Liked by 11 people

      • Remington says:

        Why settle for four more years. I’m thinking eight at a min.

        Liked by 8 people

        • jessetmims says:

          @ Remington… Re “Why settle for four more years. I’m thinking eight at a min.

          That would be in violation of the 22nd Amendment. A president can only serve a total of ten years; i.e., if a president has to step down, his/her vice president can serve the last two years of that president’s 4 year term plus serve two full terms won on his/her own. If a vice president serves more than two years of a president’s term, that vice president can only run for and serve a single term so as to not exceed the ten year limit.

          See: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/amendments-11-27

          Also, just so you know… if anyone is thinking of handing off the presidency to one of Trump’s offspring, Tiffany is the only Trump child who is a natural born citizen and therefore is the only one Constitutionally eligible to legally serve as president.

          Ivana Trump, mother of Donald Jr, Eric, and Ivanka, did not become a US citizen until after any of them were born. Melania Trump, the current First Lady and mother of Baron, did not become a US citizen until after he was born. Therefore, neither Don Jr, Eric, Ivanka nor Baron are Constitutionally eligible to serve as president. Sad; but, true…

          To keep the presidency ‘in the family’ any time soon would require electing the spouse of one of Trump’s children…

          Like

          • Ironclaw says:

            While I agree, the communists have no leg to stand on trying to block any of Mr. Trump’s children from running. Their hero Barry Soetoro’s father never became a citizen.

            Liked by 2 people

          • Dave Kohler says:

            Well….
            Yes, amendments can be repealed….
            But great caution should always be exercised, both in ratification or repeal!
            Changes to anything, policies, the Constitution, etc., are not always easily reversed!
            Put on your knee support. Never let your knee jerk!
            -D

            Liked by 1 person

          • franuche says:

            2024 ticket will be Pence / Trump. Problem solved.

            Liked by 1 person

          • WRB says:

            Chester Arthur (21st president, 1881-85) – His father was born and raised in Ireland, moved to Quebec, Canada, and there married an American Malvina Stone in 1821. A year or so later they moved to Vermont. Chester was born in Vermont in 1829.

            Like

          • mortgagesforthemasses says:

            Nonsense! The president is a natural born citizen and his children are as well. The citizenship of the mother doesn’t matter. Also, if the wives were legally here, living under the jurisdiction of the US, the children are natural born.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Alligator Gar says:

              By your logic, Obama’s American mother didn’t matter, but his foreign father did? Why do you privilege the father over the mother? Just b/c it’s your President and not Odumbles? One foreign born non-citizen parent at the time of birth makes the offspring not native born. Sorry.

              Like

          • JeffP says:

            If any of them was born on US soil, they are a US Citizen and therefore eligible to run for Any office of the the land Including the presidency.

            Eric Frederick Trump is an American businessman, philanthropist, and former reality television personality. He is the third child and second son of President Donald Trump and his first wife, Ivana Trump.Wikipedia
            Born:
            Eric Frederick Trump, Jan 6, 1984, New York City, New York, U.S.

            Donald John Trump Jr. is an American businessman and former reality television personality. He is the eldest child of the 45th President of the United States, Donald Trump, and his first wife, Ivana.Wikipedia
            Born:
            Donald John Trump Jr, Dec 31, 1977, New York City, New

            Ivana Marie “Ivanka” Trump is an American businesswoman, fashion designer, author and reality television personality. She is the daughter of the President of the United States, Donald Trump, and former model Ivana Trump.Wikipedia
            Born:
            Ivana Marie Trump, Oct 30, 1981, New York City, New York, U.S.

            all 3 are US citizens.
            This is the SCOTUS definition of Natural Born Citizen.

            https://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/

            I am pretty sure you are incorrect in your analysis @ jessetmims.

            Like

        • WSB says:

          Indeed. Repeal the 22nd.

          Liked by 2 people

          • czarowniczy says:

            Careful of what you wish for, that could boomerang and we could get more Obama. Trump can do fine with 8 and as soon as he’s reelected he should start developing his replacement.

            Liked by 5 people

          • lemmus1 says:

            …the only President to serve more than 2 terms was FDR …his socialist economic programs extended the Great Depression by almost a full decade until WWII finally moved us to a war economy …had he not died during his 4th term, it’s anyone’s guess how long his run would have been …which is why the pubbies pushed the 22nd Amendment through to ensure no one could ever again become a defacto President-for-Life.

            Much as I admire Trump, I’d never support a repeal of the 22nd …without it, I firmly believe the Obamessiah would still be President today.

            Liked by 5 people

  3. littleanniefannie says:

    Hey Judge Tigar, who’s roaring now? Our Lion!!

    Liked by 23 people

  4. huecowacko says:

    That Paul Ryan is in the group picture says a lot about Paul Ryan’s tenure as Speaker and who Paul Ryan is.

    Liked by 19 people

  5. Rachel Guess says:

    BOOM YA’ BABY!

    Not tired of winning yet!

    #KAG! TRUMP/PENCE 2020!

    Liked by 12 people

  6. DaughterofLiberty says:

    I haven’t seen a photo of, nor thought about, her for months!

    And she thought she was soooo clever…..She never recovered after the “Only Rosie O’Donnell” quip. All downhill from there. Hahahahahahaha.

    Liked by 9 people

  7. Magabear says:

    Seems to me there’s been alot of winning going on lately in MAGA land. 😎👍

    Liked by 12 people

  8. This is just a temporary order until the case can work its way through the courts. But, hopefully, that will take a long time.

    Liked by 5 people

  9. Patience says:

    Sundance, LOOOOoooooove your photo=story-telling. Great sense of humor as well !

    Liked by 10 people

  10. sundance says:

    Liked by 23 people

  11. NC Patriot says:

    Apparently this ruling will hold–but lower rulings are still perculating through lower courts. This case may be the one that will be fully heard if DOJ asks them to rule on the constitutionality of the whole question of “Nationwide injunctions” made by one judge somewhere.

    Liked by 12 people

  12. California Joe says:

    The same two Communists Bolshevik justices….Ginsberger and Sotomayer ruled against President Trump. How unusual! LOL

    Liked by 11 people

    • Magabear says:

      The sooner Ginsberg is replaced by another PDJT selection, the better.

      Liked by 7 people

      • SHV says:

        Ginsberg doesn’t bother me, she is kinda a distraction and has had minimal impact as a judge. Any one of the “four”, however, needs to be replaced inorder to take Justice Roberts out of the “equation”. He is really the dangerous member of the Court.

        Liked by 18 people

        • I agree. Roberts is seriously compromised and should be removed from the court.

          Liked by 11 people

        • RBG bothers me.

          She can no longer do the work.

          And when she leaves PDJT will appoint a Constitutionalist. Roberts’ vote will then be meaningless.

          Liked by 5 people

          • SHV says:

            “She can no longer do the work.”
            ******
            That what I thought until I saw her in person about a week ago. Physically she looked suprisingly good considering her recent health issues and walked across a stage and up 1/2 flight of stairs with minimal assistance. She stood up from prolonged sitting in a soft chair unaided which isn’t always easy for us old folks. She was interviewed for an hour and her mental function seemed to be excellent. (Of course after Hillary and Biden……..) That said, the life expectancy for someone receiving palliative care for Pancreatic Cancer is not good.

            Liked by 2 people

            • nimrodman says:

              “Physically she looked suprisingly good considering her recent health issues and walked across a stage and up 1/2 flight of stairs with minimal assistance. “

              So – if I interpret you correctly – you’re kinda saying her ambulatory ability is a bit better than this:

              Liked by 2 people

        • ristvan says:

          Lurking Lawyer here.
          I strongly disagree about CJ Roberts. If you read the entirety of his ACA opinion, it is sheer judicial and political genius. SCOTUS should not decide mainly political issues if there is another avenue, so he didn’t. But opinion part two sets a clear new congressional constraint on the infamous interstate commerce clause, (ACA justification would have been unconstitutional), AND part 4 set as yet unbounded limits on fed/state subsidy coercion.
          Sometimes you win long term by ‘losing’ short term. In history, ACA will go down with Marbury v Madison. In my opinion, anyway. Learn to love the precedential logic, not the short term result.

          Liked by 14 people

          • Sentient says:

            Non-lawyer here. What do you think of the argument (which the opponents of Obamacare didn’t make in court) that the individual mandate was an unconstitutional “capitation tax” (a “head tax”)?

            Like

            • ristvan says:

              No such thing is unconstitutional after 14A in light of 1A§9.4
              All income taxes are by definition ‘capitation’ taxes, as they relate to a ‘capita’ income. Is just another weird semi-literate objection to a brilliant Roberts opinion that will have legs far beyond ACA.

              Liked by 2 people

          • jx says:

            That opinion says that the government can force you to contract with a private company. That is obnoxious

            Liked by 2 people

            • Dad's son says:

              I wholehearted agree. I respect and avidly read Ristvan’s detailed opinions, but in my opinion it is an abomination, wholly against founding American principles of liberty, to force an American to buy a “preventative” service.

              Make no mistake: forcing Americans to buy “health insurance” before any possible medical charges are incurred, is akin to forcing them to paying a penalty for a crime not yet committed.

              0bamacare is so un-American that it’s Soviet.
              I don;t need finely filetted opinions from Justice Roberts to sensitize my mind to the urbanity of tyrannical legalisms.

              Liked by 1 person

          • SHV says:

            IANAL so I’ll defer to your opinion. I must say, however, at the time when ACA was pending before the SCOTUS, there were a lot of Prog./Obama thug threats against the court and what would happen if they declared the law unconstitutional. After Roberts voter “for”, I immediately thought he was repeating the behavior of another Justice Roberts, with his vote in “West Coast Hotel,”,….. “The Switch in Time that Saved Nine”.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Dutchman says:

            Too bad the limitation to commerce clause couldn’t apply to National gun free zone law.
            Thats where they REALLY stretched the Commerce clause all out of shape!

            Liked by 1 person

        • Sentient says:

          It’d be a damn shame if all four liberal women had a hot tub accident.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Remington says:

          Maybe it’s just me, but I could have sworn I heard McCain calling for RBG from the gates of hell.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Tl Howard says:

          I’m also worried that Kavanaugh has a lot of Kennedy in him.

          Liked by 1 person

    • Sotomayer was a really weak choice; she is not very bright. The few opinions she has written were really embarrassing. Ginsburg is no dummy, she is just an ideologue. So, I am surprised 2 of the liberals went along with the majority.

      Liked by 9 people

      • GB Bari says:

        Tonight’s decision is only against the lower court’s injunction. And it is temporary, so as to allow the Administration to enforce the EO while the lawsuit against the EO proceeds (which is the REAL enchilada).

        Liked by 4 people

      • berniekopell says:

        Leave it to Sotomayor and RGB to cite to a to-be-published Harvard law review article as authority. The second to last sentence of the dissent — this looks like a swipe at one or more justices that changed their position. Here is who would have stayed an asylum case in 2018:

        TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL. V. E. BAY SANCTUARY COV., ET AL.
        Dec 21 2018 Application (18A615) denied by the Court. Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Kavanaugh would grant the application for stay.

        That’s four. Just needed one more from these three. Roberts, Kagan, or Breyer.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Rileytrips says:

        Sotomayor is a 65 yr old with Diabetes. She is not doing so well health wise. She is one of the three justices that could possibly be replaced in the next few years: Ginsberg, Breyer, and Sotomayor.

        Liked by 4 people

  13. Elric VIII says:

    Excellent. If we send all of them home – or back to Mexico where they are already wearing out their welcome – they will stop coming. Next step: Rooting out the peop[le who hire them and rent to them and sign them up for taxpayer-provided benefits. Once the benefits are stopped, the few who remain after that should be easy to locate and deport.

    Liked by 16 people

  14. cboldt says:

    Technically, it didn;t uphold the policy. It said that the courts don;t have the power to deny the policy until (if at all) after the courts decide the issue on the merits.
    The courts still have the issue in front of them, on the merits. Meanwhile, while the courts poner, the administration can implement this policy.
    It’s possible the courts decide to strike the policy on some constitutional or statutory grounds, but the courts haven’t gotten to that point yet.

    Liked by 13 people

  15. GB Bari says:

    Some gems from the AP (always propaganda) article”
    Most people crossing the southern border are Central Americans fleeing violence and poverty.
    Uhh, no. Most are coming up after being promised free healthcare, subsidized or free housing and food, jobs with fake ID and stolen SSDA numbers, and free legal assistance to beat our laws that were written trying to prevent a lot of this.

    Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the high-court’s order. “Once again, the Executive Branch has issued a rule that seeks to upend longstanding practices regarding refugees who seek shelter from persecution,” Sotomayor wrote.
    Refugees? Persecution? Not the hordes who our trying to crash our southern border for the past few years. They’re just after free stuff and willing to thumb their noses at our laws to get it.

    Liked by 22 people

  16. MicD says:

    Wait just a second…
    This is a Big Win because it affirms the historical norm?
    Think “Bact to the Future”.

    Liked by 2 people

  17. BigTalkers says:

    I believe this decision essentially codifies the “Dublin Convention” as US law, at least until the Congress or the Courts futher define “asylum” eligibility itself.

    Like

  18. Considering Mexico’s murder rate, and the cartel activity, I can foresee a legal argument that claims Mexico does NOT meet the “Safe Nation” standard.

    Like

    • California Joe says:

      …..compared to Chicago and Baltimore it’s probably not too bad! LOL

      Liked by 11 people

    • law4lifeblog says:

      Letjysticeorevail, that’s not what “Safe Nation” is about in this context. No country is completely safe in a general sense, crime can be found anywhere. The issue is whether in that country the individual applicant is likely to face PERSECUTION on account of one or more of the statutory 5 protected grounds. For example, a Christian convert from Islam flees Iran (where apostasy is punishable by death) and passes through Turkey before arriving in Greece, where he seeks asylum. The Iranian Christian convert is not expected to have filed for asylum in Turkey – the first country he reached – because it’s also a Muslim country hostile to apostates from Islam….therefore not a “safe nation” in the asylum context. They would, however, be expected to have filed in Greece.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Many Central American “Asylum Seekers” claim to be fleeing criminal crime organizations, some of which are associated with the Mexican cartels.

        Besides, in a Justice system that has been pervertedby the likes of the ACLU, and has actually debated what the definition of “Is”, is, you can rest assured that the concern I mention WILL be raised. But, thanks for “Man ‘Splaining” it to me.

        Like

  19. You know, “unless and until we move beyond these wretched official euphemisms (“The Peculiar Institution™” comes to mind …), we’re never going to make any progress where we should be: “fighting against human trafficking.

    It is: not only “an international(!) crime,” but also (IMHO) genuinely “a crime against humanity.”

    Most unfortunately for all of us, America’s own laws, including the “loopholes” and “asylum provisions” that you read so much about … as you read once again that the US Congress has no will to change them … are in fact a purposeful enabler(!!) of these abuses that have gone on for so many decades. (I’m quite sure that the international crime cartels who have been doing this have plenty of cash.)

    “These wretched people are not ‘immigrants.'” They have nothing to do with Ellis Island.

    They’re cattle. Dear God, look what they’ve been through. And, once they arrive here, they have no hope: they’re slaves.

    Likewise the people who come here on “non-immigrant visas.” What are these programs, really? You guessed it: indentured servants.

    “So much for the 13th Amendment … guess there’s nothing any of us can really do about it … too bad, too bad, guess (channel Bruce Hornsby now …):

    “That’s just the Way It Is™ … some things never change” … aww, but don’t you believe it!

    I say these things because I haven’t given up yet . . .

    Liked by 4 people

    • dawg says:

      These people are not coming here against their will.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Judith says:

        “These people are not coming here against their will.” Neither did the indentured servants in my Irish ancestry. They came here willingly, but they weren’t told of the harsh conditions that awaited them, and many died of disease and neglect. I see the parallels, especially for illegal border jumpers who live like squatters in disease-ridden tent cities, like LA.

        Liked by 1 person

        • law4lifeblog says:

          Judith, are you really asking us to equate illegal alien criminals with Irish indentured servants in the last 2 centuries? Really? Communication worldwide is such that everybody now knows what they’re getting into…heck, they’re already coached with fake asylum stories!! They are all free to return to their native hellholes anytime, or they can stay there and avoid our horrible conditions altogether.

          Liked by 3 people

    • Dutchman says:

      Mike Robinson,
      I agree, I am all for calling it what it is;
      SLAVERY
      Its accurate, factual, and punches you right in the gut. And it sure as heck AIN’T
      “Irregular Migration”
      As they recently tried to insert, in liue og ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.

      Since the Globalist shamers are so fond of word play, lets throw it right BACK at them; SLAVES and SLAVERS.

      Liked by 1 person

    • law4lifeblog says:

      No, non-immigrant visa holders are NOT “indentured servants”. They enter into contracts to live and work in the US for a specific employer for a defined period of time. They can leave and return to their home country anytime they want, they are not indebted to their employers. What they cannot do is get here by being sponsored by an employer at great expense, quit and then jump to other higher paying US employers (who have not filed for an available non immigrant visa) so they and their families can remain in the US consuming public benefits.

      Liked by 3 people

  20. alliwantissometruth says:

    Now the Supreme Court needs to rule that one lone local judge cannot make policy that effects the entire country

    The left has relied on totally corrupt radical tyrants in black robes to enact their agenda for decades. It’s time for the top court to put an end to this usurpation and return Constitutional jurisprudence to the country and it’s people

    Liked by 14 people

  21. TwoLaine says:

    Now, END ILLEGAL BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP once and for all!

    Liked by 20 people

  22. LULU says:

    Judge Jon Tigar is the son (via one of four marriages) of Michael Tigar, an activist “human rights” criminal defense attorney who has represented:

    Lynne Stewart, who was charged with conspiracy and providing material support to terrorists
    Terry Nichols, of the Oklahoma City bombing
    Angela Davis, activist charged with murder, kidnapping, and conspiracy for her alleged involvement in the death of Judge Harold Haley[11]
    Kiko Martinez, Chicano activist
    John Demjanjuk, a Ukrainian-born immigrant accused of having been “Ivan the Terrible,” a notorious Nazi concentration camp guard, whose conviction by courts in Israel was overturned but was stripped of U.S. citizenship on other grounds. He was retried by the U.S. Justice department and was convicted. Tiger represented Demjanjuk at the trial and appeal. Demjanjuk was deported to Germany where he died in prison.
    Scott McClellan, former press secretary to President George W. Bush, who testified before Congress regarding the role of the Bush Administration in the leak regarding the identity of former CIA agent Valerie Plame.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Tigar

    To name just a few. So his son should come as no surprise, although Dad looks like a pitbull and sonny looks like a puddycat.

    Liked by 8 people

  23. ezpz2 says:

    Awright Awright Awright!

    Liked by 1 person

  24. SHV says:

    “Roberts is seriously compromised and should be removed from the court.”
    *****
    Not going to happen, other than death or retirement but one more PDJT judge will markedly reduce the harm that he can do. The other eight justices, including Ginsberg are basically consistent in their “roles”, The Affordable Care Act decision by Roberts, however, showed that there is a real problem with him, compromised(?) or gutless but something is fishy with him.

    Liked by 5 people

    • I used to think it was gutless, wanting to be part of the DC party crowd, but not anymore. Once you start getting a handle on the depth of the corruption and level of probable black mailing going on, you realize it is more than gutless for him to betray his oath of office and basically denigrate the court with blatantly political decisions.

      When he made the statement that there were no Obama judges, it really blew his cover for impartiality, disregarding how childish and immature the comment was. I think he is partof the coup effort. He appoints the FISA judges…aren’t they all liberals?

      Liked by 5 people

  25. Matthew LeBlanc says:

    They come from socialist countries with strict gun control and no white supremacy. According to fake news and their Democrat mouth pieces that is heaven on earth.

    Liked by 4 people

  26. eatmorebaconcheeseburgers says:

    Bigly win. #JudgesMatter

    Liked by 2 people

  27. Mountain man will says:

    I savor the thought of Ginsburg retiring from court. I really believe she is ready to hand it up and her health will soon mandate that she does. This work load must me brutal at her age. This group of Supremes is already making a difference. Praise God!!

    Liked by 3 people

  28. ms doodlebug says:

    The Courts are not the law-making branch of government. Congress has already defined what circumstances are eligible for asylum to be granted. Poverty is not one of the circumstances and neither is gang violence in the home country.

    If ‘Congress’ doesn’t like the asylum laws they passed, then they should do their jobs and update the laws. The democrats won’t do that because they know open borders will never pass the Senate. Their solution is illegal entry, catch and release, and sanctuary for all, even the criminals.

    It makes one wonder how much money is in it for them under the guise of ‘humanitarianism’ they don’t have for our own citizens. It must be a lot.

    Liked by 8 people

  29. Bendix says:

    Will this apply to the asylum seekers from Africa, will they have to seek asylum in this first country they fly over?

    Liked by 3 people

  30. TradeBait says:

    Keep those confirmations coming. Barkeep, a round for my friend, Mitch.

    Liked by 5 people

  31. Deplorable Canuck says:

    Cant wait for RBG to pack it in and free up another SCOTUS seat!. This is great news!

    Liked by 4 people

  32. If the Court orders the gov’t to turn over all the items Powell requests in her Motion to Compel the gov’t may want to just want to walk away instead of coughing those items up. One problem. The gov’t cannot just say we dismiss, If the gov’t tries to dismiss the Flynn case the Court and/or Powell may not let the gov’t do so without producing the Brady material Powell has requested that the Court has ordered produced. My my my the tables have turned in an instant

    Liked by 2 people

  33. Shyster says:

    The fact that the majority of the court took this up in mere days may be the majority tipping their cards that this case will be the one to address the unlawful and disruptive national injunction rulings that the activist leftist/Obama judges have been issuing to throttle the policies of the executive branch and violate the separation of powers under our beloved constitution. One can only hope!

    Liked by 6 people

  34. Nomadic100 says:

    Wonderful!! But what can be done about decisions by leftist district court judges which purport to bind the entire country? Can a Lurking Lawyer answer this question?

    Liked by 1 person

    • meow4me2 says:

      Not a lawyer, but why can’t congress pass a law forbidding nationwide injunctions? Or how about a penalty system for the judiciary? If judges push forward frivolous claims and keep getting overturned, they can be removed as judges. Let them practice law before the bar as lawyers, just not as judges.

      Liked by 1 person

  35. MikeN says:

    Just throwing out the injunction, for now.

    Liked by 2 people

  36. Janie M. says:

    Whenever I see the photo of the frowning Ryan, Pagliacci comes to mind.

    Liked by 3 people

  37. dufrst says:

    MAGAnificent! Our great leader has managed to close all loopholes and build the Wall without Congress!

    What leverage do they have for amnesty? None. Birthright citizenship please. MAGA!!

    Liked by 3 people

  38. Right to reply says:

    Graham, Romney, McConnell, have to be voted out!

    Liked by 2 people

  39. Veronica Clevenger says:

    Great ruling by the Supremes, and no more caravans.

    Liked by 2 people

  40. California Joe says:

    My wife had a medical device malpractice lawsuit in federal court for six years. She was mutilated! There was no urgency by the federal judge to try the case even though there were 20,000 AMERICAN women victims. Yet, one illegal immigrant get picked up by ICE and a federal judge rules within hours of the arrest on a Sunday night to halt the deportation and release the illegal alien. That tells you who is really important in this country.

    Liked by 10 people

  41. PinotNoir says:

    Now disbar the sorry excuse for a Judge that tried to block the EO.

    Liked by 1 person

  42. Serena says:

    I wish we could recall all of these liberal azz judges!

    Like

  43. Mike in a Truck says:

    It should never had gotten this far. How can some hanging judge over in California or friggen Hawaii have the power to stop cold a POUTUS Constitutional powers? Time for PDJT to ignore these ignoramuses. And maybe he should get better counsel?

    Liked by 1 person

    • The US Constitution does not contain the word, “unconstitutional,” and none other than Founder Thomas Jefferson warned us of the danger of what the courts would do:

      Reference: Thomas Jefferson On Jurisdictional Creep & the Danger of Unaccountable Judges https://www.ff.org/thomas-jefferson-on-jurisdictional-creep-the-danger-of-unaccountable-judges/

      It was never contemplated that the Judicial Branch would ever have “power of review” over the other two Branches. And yet, one day the Supreme Court simply began doing so. Now, the Federal District Courts want to do it, too. It won’t be long before a Supreme Court Justice slaps them down – without touching his own Court’s assumed power.

      And the very crazy thing about this case is: “this is what the Law plainly says!” Congress gave these powers and these prerogatives to the President. He is simply using them. If Congress wants the law to be different, it can change the law. And maybe it’ll close a few (heh …) “loopholes” while they’re at it . . . ?

      Liked by 2 people

      • P.S.: Exactly the same thing happened when the President began excluding people from entry. Once again, “that’s exactly what the Law says I can decide and that I can do.” He even cited the sections of the U.S.C. in later text of his executive order. The radical judges still fought to – as it were – rewrite the law to suit themselves.

        Liked by 2 people

  44. Alan Reasin says:

    The question I have had for some time, how can the district courts. on their own, determine they have that power – nationwide injunctions. That is greater power than that held by the courts of appeals.
    https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/02/academic-highlight-debate-nationwide-injunctions/

    Liked by 1 person

  45. gary says:

    breaking the rules. off topic. u.s. attorney jessie liu recommends a mccabe indictment. rut roh.

    Like

  46. Alan Reasin says:

    The natural born qualification, as you (and I) believe, was not applied to Obama. Part of the living constitution concept, as is citizenship for those born on US soil to non-citizens (except for diplomat’s’ children). In the latter case, the word jurisdiction has a different meaning now. Just as the 14th’s liberty for former slaves became privacy and then abortion and gay marriage. And here I didn’t know the view of our Constitution by progressives, a contract between the people and government, meant that all contracts were living documents like my home mortgage. I don’t think my bank would approve of me lowering my interest rate and monthly payment to the present rate.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s