Is John Roberts’ Clash With Trump An Ominous Warning Of Things To Come?

[endicom]

Townhall
Scott Morefield
Nov. 23, 2018

After yet another liberal California judge earlier this week blocked one of President Trump’s policies - this time a new asylum rule that would have required applicants to arrive at a designated port of entry (a lot to ask, I know) - the understandably frustrated president lashed out at liberal courts in general.

“I think it’s a disgrace when every case gets filed in the 9th Circuit,” said Trump. “That’s not law, that’s not what this country stands for. Every case that gets filed in the 9th Circuit, we get beaten and then we end up having to go to the Supreme Court, like the travel ban, and we won.”

The president was referring to the fact that, as ‘luck’ has it, the decision would need to be appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Known affectionately as the ‘9th Circus Court’ or ‘The Nutty 9th,’ this wackadoodle collection of Birkenstock-wearing hippies who call themselves ‘judges’ - the same group that famously ruled the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because it contains the words “under God’ - seems to take delight in foiling literally everything Trump-related that comes before them on the basis of the firm legal precedent that Trump’s a meanie.

More... https://townhall.com/columnists/scottmorefield/2018/11/23/is-john-roberts-clash-with-trump-an-ominous-warning-of-things-to-come-n2536395

[endicom]

If nothing else, we may learn more about Roberts.

[Oceander]

The president cannot limit asylum applications to just those individuals who apply at a port of entry.  8 USC 1158 expressly permits individuals present in the US to apply for asylum without regard to their immigration status. 

Apparently, the rule of law means as little to these self-proclaimed conservatives as it does to your typical liberal, which is to say, not at all. 

[skeeter]

If nothing else, we may learn more about Roberts.

Its long past time the corrupt practice of judge shopping was brought front & center. Just the fact that it exists is an indictment of our modern judicial system.

[Oceander]

Its long past time the corrupt practice of judge shopping was brought front & center. Just the fact that it exists is an indictment of our modern judicial system.

What does that have to do with the article in question?

[skeeter]

What does that have to do with the article in question?

Dont you have something else to do this morning?

[Wingnut]

Dont you have something else to do this morning?

I think he's late for his  La Raza meeting.

[dfwgator]

He sang a different tune when Obama was in the WH:

John Roberts | March 2010:
"Some people, I think, have an obligation to criticize what we do, given their office, if they think we've done something wrong."

[skeeter]

I think he's late for his  La Raza meeting.

The legislative and judicial branches routinely exceed their strict constitutional mandates, too. Not a peep from certain quarters. I guess that makes them hypocrites, too.

Of course there is no other way to test constitutional limits than to challenge them. Be that as it may some folks around here will never pass up a chance to throw crap at their fellow briefers.

[Oceander]

Dont you have something else to do this morning?

In other words, it has nothing to do with the article; it’s just more flatulence. 

[skeeter]

In other words, it has nothing to do with the article; it’s just more flatulence.

And that takes more effort than I'm willing to spare arguing with you, believe me.

[Oceander]

And that takes more effort than I'm willing to spare arguing with you, believe me.

Since you have yet to present an argument, that’s hard to judge.

[skeeter]

Since you have yet to present an argument, that’s hard to judge.

Now you got it.

I'm here to learn and sometimes briefly comment. Your provocations do not interest me in the least.

[Oceander]

Now you got it.

I'm here to learn and sometimes briefly comment. Your provocations do not interest me in the least.

If you’re here to learn, youre not doing a very good job of it.

[Right_in_Virginia]

The president cannot limit asylum applications to just those individuals who apply at a port of entry.  8 USC 1158 expressly permits individuals present in the US to apply for asylum without regard to their immigration status.   

Hence, they're waiting in Mexico.

[Fishrrman]

skeeter wrote ('bout that member named "O"):
"I'm here to learn and sometimes briefly comment. Your provocations do not interest me in the least."

Me, neither.
I've tolerated him for quite a while, but no longer.
One more on the ignore list, as of this moment.
So long, O !