SCOTUS Upholds Trump Amnesty Policy

Horns

Senior Member
I’m not up to par on the SCOTUS, but why is it temporary? Seems like the ruling is from the highest court 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️
 
I’m not up to par on the SCOTUS, but why is it temporary? Seems like the ruling is from the highest court 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️
The High Court has vacated a lower court order stopping the Trump administration from enforcing the rule pending final adjudication of the lawsuit. A US District Court ordered the administration to NOT enforce the law until it's validity is ruled upon by the court, 9th Circuit limited that order to CA and AZ only. The Supreme Court said the administration can enforce the rule unless and until a court determines the rule is unconstitutional. The actual lawsuit is yet to be heard in court.
 

Horns

Senior Member
The High Court has vacated a lower court order stopping the Trump administration from enforcing the rule pending final adjudication of the lawsuit. A US District Court ordered the administration to NOT enforce the law until it's validity is ruled upon by the court, 9th Circuit limited that order to CA and AZ only. The Supreme Court said the administration can enforce the rule unless and until a court determines the rule is unconstitutional. The actual lawsuit is yet to be heard in court.
So which court actually has to hear it for a final decision? Seems like it’s just run around for lawyers to make stupid money
 
So which court actually has to hear it for a final decision? Seems like it’s just run around for lawyers to make stupid money
Federal Judges were lawyers before Presidents picked them to sit in courtrooms - and those judges designed the system!:devilish:

Attorneys, on behalf of asylum seekers, filed suit in San Fransisco Federal Court to stop the Trump administration from enforcing a new rule that says the US does NOT have to consider an asylum request from someone who crossed another country to seek asylum in the US, without first seeking asylum there. The new rule places the US in compliance with international law and UN policy, but the San Fran liberal judge ordered the administration to NOT enforce the law. I am not sure that trial on the case is even scheduled, yet. It will be heard first in San Francisco. No matter the decision in San Fran, you can bet it will be appealed to the 9th. And whatever happens in the 9th, an appeal to the US Supreme Court is likely.

Yes, run around for attorneys. Lots of stupid big paychecks for attorneys. And major big news every time Trump loses a round. But on the other hand, if Trump wins, the only way you'll know is if you read Trump's tweets or this forum. Clearly it is NOT headline news anywhere!
 
What is really important about this action is that SCOTUS has been warning these lower courts to stop engaging in political stunts. They vacated this nationwide order in record time.
 
Last edited:
Great news and about time.

Sotomayor showed her colors with the quote below. She is not at all interested in or constrained by what the law is but only in what results she wishes to produce.

“Once again, the Executive Branch has issued a rule that seeks to upend longstanding practices regarding refugees who seek shelter from persecution,” Sotomayor wrote.
Long standing practices that are wrong should be changed. She and RBG both know that the law gives POTUS almost complete authority over immigration practices and that the Courts have been trying to deny him the use of that authority since his inauguration.
 
Great news and about time.

Sotomayor showed her colors with the quote below. She is not at all interested in or constrained by what the law is but only in what results she wishes to produce.



Long standing practices that are wrong should be changed. She and RBG both know that the law gives POTUS almost complete authority over immigration practices and that the Courts have been trying to deny him the use of that authority since his inauguration.
Long standing as in since Obummer got elected.

All Trump did was to initiate the standard rules practiced around the world and which he was allowed to do by statute.
 
Great news and about time.

Sotomayor showed her colors with the quote below. She is not at all interested in or constrained by what the law is but only in what results she wishes to produce.



Long standing practices that are wrong should be changed. She and RBG both know that the law gives POTUS almost complete authority over immigration practices and that the Courts have been trying to deny him the use of that authority since his inauguration.
It's "funny" how they're not opposed to overturning other long standing laws and precedents, like, oh, I don't know, the 2A.
 
Oh and I don't think Sotomayor has a copy of the Constitution. It would be too inconvenient for her to read.
 
Thread starter #18
Oh and I don't think Sotomayor has a copy of the Constitution. It would be too inconvenient for her to read.
She don't need one. She's got X Ray vision so she can see all those emanating penumbras Sandra Day O'Connor always talked about and that's the really important stuff. We're lucky to have her or we wouldn't know about all the supernatural stuff that's in the Constn. John Adams, James Madison, Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson were some real tricksters hiding that stuff from us like that.
 
She don't need one. She's got X Ray vision so she can see all those emanating penumbras Sandra Day O'Connor always talked about and that's the really important stuff. We're lucky to have her or we wouldn't know about all the supernatural stuff that's in the Constn. John Adams, James Madison, Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson were some real tricksters hiding that stuff from us like that.
Lucky ... isn't that the name of that one eyed, three legged dog that lost a testicle in a car chase?
 
Top