EPIC: Customs Agents Stick with Trump’s Travel Ban, Tells Obama-Appointed Judge to Take a Hike

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Complete unadulterated bullshit.

Then answer the question yourself.

[Fishrrman]

Weird wrote above:
"If a judge says it's unconstitutional, then it's unconstitutional"

Nonsense.

No individual judge, nor can any group of judges (such as Federal Appellate Judges) can rule that a law is "unconstitutional" with finality.
They can issue an -opinion- to that effect.
An opinion which can be appealed and overruled.

The only jurists who actually -can- rule a law as being unconstitutional are those comprising a majority decision of the U.S. Supreme Court.

And even then, their opinion can be overruled as well -- by Constitutional Amendment.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Weird wrote above:
"If a judge says it's unconstitutional, then it's unconstitutional"

Nonsense.

No individual judge, nor can any group of judges (such as Federal Appellate Judges) can rule that a law is "unconstitutional" with finality.
They can issue an -opinion- to that effect.
An opinion which can be appealed and overruled.

The only jurists who actually -can- rule a law as being unconstitutional are those comprising a majority decision of the U.S. Supreme Court.

And even then, their opinion can be overruled as well -- by Constitutional Amendment.

Ok fair enough, but going back to the original argument if the USSC were to decare something unconstitutional and the Executive were to do it anyway, in my eyes that simply grounds for impeachment. Otherwise we have a dictatorship.

[Cripplecreek]

Good answer in theory, but if we've gone down the road of the USSC (appointed by President and confirmed by Senate, remember) and declaring the Constitution "unconstitutional" would you really have any more faith in the states than in the federal government? The same people in the states would have elected the federal government. Not to mention that a rogue USSC would try to declare the states "unconstitutional" as well.

I kind of like the idea of letting the state legislatures picking supreme court judges with those judges being up for review every 10 years or so. They certainly wouldn't be so willing to step on the states like they did with gay marriage.

I would also like to see the attorney general picked by other means. Far too many simpletons already think the AG is supposed to be the president's personal prosecutor/defense attorney and worse yet, AGs act like it now. I like our elected state AG in Michigan because he is so solidly constitutional and has no problem opposing the Governor of the same party.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I kind of like the idea of letting the state legislatures picking supreme court judges with those judges being up for review every 10 years or so. They certainly wouldn't be so willing to step on the states like they did with gay marriage.

I would also like to see the attorney general picked by other means. Far too many simpletons already think the AG is supposed to be the president's personal prosecutor/defense attorney and worse yet, AGs act like it now. I like our elected state AG in Michigan because he is so solidly constitutional and has no problem opposing the Governor of the same party.

An independent elected AG might be a good idea, actually. As we saw with Nixon and Obama it seems to be a weak point of the checks and balances system.

[Hoodat]

Then answer the question yourself.

It doesn't matter what the question was.  Your statement is complete bullshit.

If some judge declares that citizens have a 'constitutional' right to feel secure from gun violence, and that anyone caught with a gun in their house would have that gun confiscated and replaced with having a US Soldier live in their house for a year, would that be constitutional?

The answer to that question is a resounding "HELL NO!"  Yet you would have us believe that the fiat of any judge trumps the Constitution itself.  Which begs the question, why do we need to even have a Constitution?

[Wingnut]

An independent elected AG might be a good idea, actually. As we saw with Nixon and Trump it seems to be a weak point of the checks and balances system.

This would be a non issue if Sessions had been confirmed.  But Turtle boy went squishy and let the rats squeeze him like a puss filled pimple.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

It doesn't matter what the question was.

Because you clearly cannot answer it.

[Cripplecreek]

An independent elected AG might be a good idea, actually. As we saw with Nixon and Obama it seems to be a weak point of the checks and balances system.

I really like Bill Schuette here in Michigan. He has defended even what he personally disagreed with because the state constitution said he must. (we have a good elected GOP SOS here in Michigan who has also opposed the governor on more than a few occasions)

[kevindavis007]

An independent elected AG might be a good idea, actually. As we saw with Nixon and Obama it seems to be a weak point of the checks and balances system.

I'm open to that idea but it requires a Constitutional Amendment.

[Hoodat]

Ok fair enough, but going back to the original argument if the USSC were to decare something unconstitutional and the Executive were to do it anyway, in my eyes that simply grounds for impeachment. Otherwise we have a dictatorship.

Grounds for impeachment?  Good idea.  Get the Legislative branch involved.  Now we can celebrate the balance of powers our forefathers gave us and let the chips fall where they may.

President Andrew Jackson openly defied a Supreme Court order when he forced the Creeks and Cherokees off their land.  Was the order Constitutional?  Absolutely.  Not because the Supreme Court said so, but because the Constitution itself stated it.  Was Jackson impeached?  No.  Mainly because Congress didn't have a lot of sympathy for Native Americans, nor the treaties their own members passed.

Plessy v Ferguson.  The Supreme Court ruled against the 14th Amendment, granting the State of Louisiana the right to enact different rules for different people.  Woodrow Wilson would take it a step further by federalizing segregation nationwide.  The vote was 7-1 with Judge Harlan dissenting.  So was it Constitutional?  According to the 1954 Supreme Court, it was not.  They agreed with Harlan's dissent a half century earlier.

The one thing that did not change was the 14th Amendment.  Same words in 1896 as in 1954.  Yet one group of Judges says 'Constitutional' while another group says 'unconstitutional'.

If we are going to yield to the tyranny of men and women in black robes, then we have no need for a Constitution in the first place.

[Hoodat]

Because you clearly cannot answer it.

No question was asked.  I am simply calling your statement for what it is - pure unadulterated bullshit.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

No question was asked.  I am simply calling your statement for what it is - pure unadulterated bullshit.

I may have spoken too simply. The USSC gets a lot of flack, unfairly IMO, from conservatives. Obama was supposedly the President who set the record for unanimous decisions against him, even from judges he himself appointed.


The USSC is a good check on Executive and Legislative power, IMO.


http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/06/obama-has-lost-in-the-supreme-court-more-than-any-modern-president/

[geronl]

Just remember that if the judge was appointed by the other party, you don't have to obey them.

I am sure the next Dem President will love that precedent.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

And if obama ignored a court order?

IF?

http://gov.texas.gov/news/press-release/20856

Texas Governor Greg Abbott today issued the following statement after the U.S. Department of Justice admitted to violating a federal court order by granting approximately 2,000 extended work permits to undocumented immigrants under President Obama’s expanded executive amnesty:

“After months of obfuscation and stall tactics by the Obama Administration, the President’s lawyers have been forced to admit that they acted outside the law by implementing President’s executive amnesty - even after a federal judge had ordered them to stop. Not only did President Obama’s executive action violate the U.S. Constitution; his lawyers’ actions show a blatant disregard for the Rule of Law that has become typical of this Administration and directly violates one of the fundamental principles upon which our nation was founded.”

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

IF?

http://gov.texas.gov/news/press-release/20856

Texas Governor Greg Abbott today issued the following statement after the U.S. Department of Justice admitted to violating a federal court order by granting approximately 2,000 extended work permits to undocumented immigrants under President Obama’s expanded executive amnesty:

“After months of obfuscation and stall tactics by the Obama Administration, the President’s lawyers have been forced to admit that they acted outside the law by implementing President’s executive amnesty - even after a federal judge had ordered them to stop. Not only did President Obama’s executive action violate the U.S. Constitution; his lawyers’ actions show a blatant disregard for the Rule of Law that has become typical of this Administration and directly violates one of the fundamental principles upon which our nation was founded.”

Yes I know this.


Do two wrong make a right? Why wasn't Obama found in contempt of court if he didn't obey this order?


I think the Obama administration at least did finally stop right? There was another case too, with the EPA.

[libertybele]

This would be a non issue if Sessions had been confirmed.  But Turtle boy went squishy and let the rats squeeze him like a puss filled pimple.

   ...and yet 'they' kept the puss-filled pimpled turtle as their majority leader!