Leftist Supreme Court

[oilfieldace]

Rules Clown Biden can end King Trumps remain in Mexico Policy. Commie leftest morons

[HedonistForever]

Gotta take the good with the bad. The SC wasn't there to decide whether the policy was good or bad, they were there to decide if the Executive branch had the Constitutional authority to decide immigration matters.


But the good news is that most Americans were in favor of this policy and the fact that Biden will continue this clown show will only help Republicans in the mid-terms and especially in 2024

[dilbert firestorm]

what did the SC say regarding it?

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

what did the SC say regarding it?

They said “The Idiot Biden” can cancel Trump’s executive order saying that illegals have to remain in Mexico while their case was being heard.

[HedonistForever]

But remember when "we" wanted to reverse Obama's EO on DACA and the SC said NO!

• The U.S. Supreme Court has decided to uphold the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which was created through an executive order during President Barack Obama’s time in office. This comes after the President Donald Trump administration has tried to do away with the program.

And all of "us" were screaming, that's not fair, not right, a new President can reverse any EO by the previous President and of course "we" were right but that SC on that issue, disagreed.


And now we have a Supreme Court that just said YES, a new President can reverse and EO by a previous President.


So come on guys, this is the SC decision "we" were asking for not that long ago.


I don't give a damn about politics and "favored" topics. I want the Constitution and the SC to work like they are supposed to and I don't give a flying fuck who it helps or who it hurts.


That is the absolute beauty of the SC, a body that does not make law, it only reminds us of what government and people, can and can not do under the Constitution.


Any power not enumerated in the Constitution to the Federal government, shall be left up to the people in each State through their Representatives.


What is so fucking hard to understand about that? I get that many people don't want to be governed by anyone, any law, they are Anarchists and both parties have them.


And if you don't want the entire country to look like Portland and Seattle, you better wake the fuck up!

[Tsmokies]

The gop love children fucking moron. They want the women to breed and give birth and shut the fuck if they have no healthcare or education

Dah...gop love the uneducated
Stack the ignorant and cheat cheat cheat so we win

If you don't believe me just watch ...the uneducated racist clueless redneck fucking morons post on here lol they are in another tantrum mode. Poor little whiney biotches

[Yssup Rider]

There has been a collective meltdown for the past few days.

Must be their collective time of the month.

[bb1961]

Originally Posted by Tsmokies

The gop love children fucking moron. They want the women to breed and give birth and shut the fuck if they have no healthcare or education

Dah...gop love the uneducated
Stack the ignorant and cheat cheat cheat so we win

If you don't believe me just watch ...the uneducated racist clueless redneck fucking morons post on here lol they are in another tantrum mode. Poor little whiney biotches

What's a woman?????

[nevergaveitathought]

oilfieldace

you might want conservatives to decide things in the same manner leftists do. that might make you feel better and maybe is a better outcome, in a case before them, if they would

but they dont and shouldnt, for it is not a societal good to do so

leftists decide by policy and desire

conservatives are principled and the law is the thing

with leftist judges, you do not have a secure and true plumb line to follow, nor an expectation of protection by the law

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

It centered on the word "may", detain them, not that they are necessarily free to roam about the country, nor are they required to have a speedy trial or else they default. However, Border Patrol is up to their eyeballs in illegals. Typical Saul Alynski cheap trick to overwhelm the system. I've read elsewhere (can't find it ATM) that the States may have more broad authority to managing their border with Mexico. As such, Texas cannot be stopped on finishing the wall in Texas.

So unless F Joe Biden supporters are ID-10-Ts, they would know that these do not make illegals legal. Though they make go goo-goo over O'Biden agreeing with Trump.

Supreme Court Says Illegal Immigrants Can Be Detained Indefinitely

The Supreme Court ruled that illegal immigrants can be detained indefinitely without a bond hearing and federal judges cannot grant immigrants class-wide relief in a pair of opinions issued Monday.

In Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez, the Supreme Court held that federal immigration law does not require immigration judges to hold bond hearings after six months to determine an immigrant’s eligibility for release. That decision overruled a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruling that upheld a lower court’s order granting the immigrant’s request for a bond hearing.

Bond hearings are when the immigration judge determines if the immigrant is eligible for bond and can be released while their asylum or deportation cases are pending.

Attorneys for the immigrant plaintiffs argued the federal law’s use of the word “may” indicated discretion on behalf of the judge to hold a bond hearing. However, federal government lawyers argued that immigrants are not entitled to a bond hearing.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the majority opinion for a near-unanimous decision where the Court agreed with federal government attorneys.

In the 8-1 decision, Sotomayor said the Supreme Court has never “authorized prolonged detention without an individualized hearing, before a neutral adjudicator, at which the detainee has a meaningful opportunity to participate,” except in national security cases.

In a similar case, the Supreme Court overruled a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision that extended the right to a bond hearing to every member of the class action lawsuit.

The Court’s decision in Garland v. Gonzalez means that if immigrants want to assert their right to a bond hearing, they will have to do it on an individual basis, unlike the plaintiffs in the case who filed a class action on behalf of all similarly detained immigrants.

Writing for the 6-3 majority, Justice Samuel Alito said federal law “generally prohibits lower courts from entering injunctions that order federal officials to take or to refrain from taking actions to enforce, implement, or otherwise carry out the specified statutory provisions.”

Both cases were brought by illegal immigrants challenging their detention by U.S immigration officials. As the San Francisco Chronicle noted, “The Biden administration has taken the same position as President Donald Trump’s administration in both cases.”

Biden’s adherence to federal immigration law and his alignment with former President Donald Trump’s judicial arguments has pitted him against his progressive allies on the issue.

The cases are Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez, No. 19-896, and Garland v. Gonzalez, No. 20-322 in the Supreme Court of the United States.

[dilbert firestorm]

biden.... hes flip flopping on this immigration issue.


he lets them in, and then carries out trumps policy of denying them asylum.


I'm getting dizzy.

[ICU 812]

For the first time in a long time we have a SCOTUS whose majority believe that their job is to rule on points of law, not to make policy.

[oilfieldace]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

For the first time in a long time we have a SCOTUS whose majority believe that their job is to rule on points of law, not to make policy.

Well said

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

For the first time in a long time we have a SCOTUS whose majority believe that their job is to rule on points of law, not to make policy.

Yet policy making is exactly what they’re doing.

This is the very definition of judicial activism…the very same thing that the conservatives have failed against for decades.

Striking down laws that form the basis of longstanding legal precedent ring a bell?

Clarence Thomas’s recent comments must have escaped you.

[Austin Ellen]

What's sad is that only a few know this.

Originally Posted by ICU 812

For the first time in a long time we have a SCOTUS whose majority believe that their job is to rule on points of law, not to make policy.