Chief Justice Roberts Rebukes Trump

[bripat9643]

So you got nothing to rebut what I said?

Contrast this, to what the SF Judge said:
So you got anything other than your giggles?????????????


.

The difference is refugees or immigrants. If they're claiming they're refugees and seeking
Asylum in this country they have to be heard out in a court of law, and the Ass Clown has no authority over that.

According to that dumbass theory, any of 2 billion people from any location on the globe could request asylum and the courts would have to give them a hearing. You have to be a special kind of stupid to believe that.

As usual, the snowflake understanding of your laws is defective.

Actually they can get a hearing, at whatever embassy they apply in. We won't fly their ass here to await a hearing in this country.

.

They can file an application. I don't think they are entitled to a hearing. Embassies don't do hearings. They don't have any judges.

In this instance of Hondurans seeking Asylum in this country they will have a hearing--to prove that they are in danger in their own country.

No they won't, because they aren't not getting over the border.

 

[bripat9643]

CIte one for us. You idiots keep claiming that's what the law says, but none of you will quote the law that says it.

Ya know what? I'm tired of your loudmouth stupidity. Call John Roberts up and he'll be glad to explain it to your ignorant ass

They can file an application. I don't think they are entitled to a hearing.

That's OK. I don't think you have a functioning cerebral cortex

In short, you couldn't find any law that says everyone in the world is entitled to an asylum hearing in a U.S. court.

 

[Lesh]

In short, you couldn't find any law that says everyone in the world is entitled to an asylum hearing in a U.S. court.

There is no preclusion for ANYONE applying for asylum you stupid ****

Questions and Answers: Asylum Eligibility and Applications

 

[bripat9643]

In short, you couldn't find any law that says everyone in the world is entitled to an asylum hearing in a U.S. court.

There is no preclusion for ANYONE applying for asylum you stupid ****

Questions and Answers: Asylum Eligibility and Applications

Who said anything about a "preclusion," whatever the **** that is?

 

[OKTexas]

LMAO the SCOTUS routinely overturns the liberal 9th circuit court of appeals decisions proving Trump correct. The judiciary may not like hearing they are corrupt and biased, too bad we elected Trump to set them straight.

This is the misconception you right wingers all have. It's because you've been brainwashed by FOX NEWS to believe it.

Judges, all judges, regardless of which side of the isle appoints them are dutifuly sworn to abide by the U.S Constitution. PERIOD

They are Apolitical, meaning not political, nor will it ever cross their minds, that since R or D appointed me, that's where my decision will go.

You don't have enough fingers and toes on the number of times that a Justice has gone against the party or President that has appointed them.

And like politicians, many judges could give a shit about the oath they took. If judges used the same standards, split decisions would be the exception and not the rule. Also you wouldn't be able to predict how a judge would vote. Rarely are there any surprise votes coming out of the supremes, they're totally predictable.

.

You mean like John Roberts--(a G.W. Bush appointee) that was the deciding vote on Obamacare-- There are always surprises coming out of the U.S. Supreme Court.

And if you think you got a couple of Anthony Scalia's in Justice Niel Gorsuch & Brett Kavanaugh--you're barking up the wrong tree.

Gorsuch & Kavanaugh both came out of the gate as GW's nominee's to Federal District court of Appeals in 2006. In 2006 Democrats were the majority in the Senate. While Democrats turned down a lot of G.W.'s nominees, these two came through that gauntlet with flying colors.

All of the above voted for confirmation of Gorsuch & Kavanaugh. The only reason Democrats tried to block Gorsuch, is because they were pissed that Republicans blocked Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland from an up or down vote. The only reason Republicans blocked Garland was so they could campaign on the next Supreme Court justice--(because you never know who Hillary Clinton would have picked)--

Niel Gorsuch is the only nominee in my memory that stated during confirmation hearings, that Roe v Wade is precedent in the constitution, meaning set in stone to you.
Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

So don't be surprised--and it's because they have sworn an oath to the U.S. Constitution, not a political party.

So you try to rebut my point by agreeing with it, good job. BTW there have been more than 600 precedents overturned.

.

LINK?

This is a partial list.

List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions - Wikipedia

.

 

[12icer]

That's OK. I don't think you have a functioning cerebral cortex

Roberts is not the only one to have done this but the screams from the dipshit dimshits was deafening last time. “That is disrespectful to the president” I think was the scream when one of the judges called their lying pile of shit messiah a liar. Hahahahaha. And for the dumbest most infantile squealing pig to say anyone else is intellectually challenged on any way is the best joke of the day

 

[oreo]

So you got nothing to rebut what I said?

Contrast this, to what the SF Judge said:
So you got anything other than your giggles?????????????


.

The difference is refugees or immigrants. If they're claiming they're refugees and seeking
Asylum in this country they have to be heard out in a court of law, and the Ass Clown has no authority over that.

According to that dumbass theory, any of 2 billion people from any location on the globe could request asylum and the courts would have to give them a hearing. You have to be a special kind of stupid to believe that.

As usual, the snowflake understanding of your laws is defective.

Actually they can get a hearing, at whatever embassy they apply in. We won't fly their ass here to await a hearing in this country.

.

They can file an application. I don't think they are entitled to a hearing. Embassies don't do hearings. They don't have any judges.

Hmmm, you're right. They have to be at a port of entry or in the US to apply for asylum.

Can I Apply for Asylum at an American Embassy?

.

This is the misconception you right wingers all have. It's because you've been brainwashed by FOX NEWS to believe it.

Judges, all judges, regardless of which side of the isle appoints them are dutifuly sworn to abide by the U.S Constitution. PERIOD

They are Apolitical, meaning not political, nor will it ever cross their minds, that since R or D appointed me, that's where my decision will go.

You don't have enough fingers and toes on the number of times that a Justice has gone against the party or President that has appointed them.

And like politicians, many judges could give a shit about the oath they took. If judges used the same standards, split decisions would be the exception and not the rule. Also you wouldn't be able to predict how a judge would vote. Rarely are there any surprise votes coming out of the supremes, they're totally predictable.

.

You mean like John Roberts--(a G.W. Bush appointee) that was the deciding vote on Obamacare-- There are always surprises coming out of the U.S. Supreme Court.

And if you think you got a couple of Anthony Scalia's in Justice Niel Gorsuch & Brett Kavanaugh--you're barking up the wrong tree.

Gorsuch & Kavanaugh both came out of the gate as GW's nominee's to Federal District court of Appeals in 2006. In 2006 Democrats were the majority in the Senate. While Democrats turned down a lot of G.W.'s nominees, these two came through that gauntlet with flying colors.

All of the above voted for confirmation of Gorsuch & Kavanaugh. The only reason Democrats tried to block Gorsuch, is because they were pissed that Republicans blocked Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland from an up or down vote. The only reason Republicans blocked Garland was so they could campaign on the next Supreme Court justice--(because you never know who Hillary Clinton would have picked)--

Niel Gorsuch is the only nominee in my memory that stated during confirmation hearings, that Roe v Wade is precedent in the constitution, meaning set in stone to you.
Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

So don't be surprised--and it's because they have sworn an oath to the U.S. Constitution, not a political party.

So you try to rebut my point by agreeing with it, good job. BTW there have been more than 600 precedents overturned.

.

LINK?

This is a partial list.

List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions - Wikipedia

.

I am not talking about individual decisions the U.S. Supreme court has decided regarding current amendments in the Constitution. That's what the Supreme court does on a daily basis. Someone is challenging an amendment and wants a decision from the U.S. Supreme court based upon circumstances of the amendment.

I want you to give me a list when the U.S. Supreme Court completely abolished an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The 1st amendment is constantly challenged but it certainly doesn't mean that they abolished it, it still exists--as all other amendments to the Constitution do.

“Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court, it has been reaffirmed…and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered,” Gorsuch told Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. “…A good judge will consider it as precedent of the United States Supreme Court, worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.” Feinstein asked if Gorsuch considered Roe v. Wade “super precedent” – a decision that cannot be overturned.“It has been reaffirmed many times, I can say that,” Gorsuch answered.

Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

 

[12icer]

Preclusion is a stopping or barring of a legal process in a layman’s term, but the fact is there is a process for applying for asylum it is statutorily limited to certain crossing points called points of entry. The law requires them to enter at one of these points for LEGAL ASYLUM claims. Crossing illegally voids any legal right to make a claim. As does ANY criminal activity.

 

[OKTexas]

The difference is refugees or immigrants. If they're claiming they're refugees and seeking
Asylum in this country they have to be heard out in a court of law, and the Ass Clown has no authority over that.

According to that dumbass theory, any of 2 billion people from any location on the globe could request asylum and the courts would have to give them a hearing. You have to be a special kind of stupid to believe that.

As usual, the snowflake understanding of your laws is defective.

Actually they can get a hearing, at whatever embassy they apply in. We won't fly their ass here to await a hearing in this country.

.

They can file an application. I don't think they are entitled to a hearing. Embassies don't do hearings. They don't have any judges.

Hmmm, you're right. They have to be at a port of entry or in the US to apply for asylum.

Can I Apply for Asylum at an American Embassy?

.

And like politicians, many judges could give a shit about the oath they took. If judges used the same standards, split decisions would be the exception and not the rule. Also you wouldn't be able to predict how a judge would vote. Rarely are there any surprise votes coming out of the supremes, they're totally predictable.

.

You mean like John Roberts--(a G.W. Bush appointee) that was the deciding vote on Obamacare-- There are always surprises coming out of the U.S. Supreme Court.

And if you think you got a couple of Anthony Scalia's in Justice Niel Gorsuch & Brett Kavanaugh--you're barking up the wrong tree.

Gorsuch & Kavanaugh both came out of the gate as GW's nominee's to Federal District court of Appeals in 2006. In 2006 Democrats were the majority in the Senate. While Democrats turned down a lot of G.W.'s nominees, these two came through that gauntlet with flying colors.

All of the above voted for confirmation of Gorsuch & Kavanaugh. The only reason Democrats tried to block Gorsuch, is because they were pissed that Republicans blocked Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland from an up or down vote. The only reason Republicans blocked Garland was so they could campaign on the next Supreme Court justice--(because you never know who Hillary Clinton would have picked)--

Niel Gorsuch is the only nominee in my memory that stated during confirmation hearings, that Roe v Wade is precedent in the constitution, meaning set in stone to you.
Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

So don't be surprised--and it's because they have sworn an oath to the U.S. Constitution, not a political party.

So you try to rebut my point by agreeing with it, good job. BTW there have been more than 600 precedents overturned.

.

LINK?

This is a partial list.

List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions - Wikipedia

.

I am not talking about individual decisions the U.S. Supreme court has decided regarding current amendments in the Constitution. That's what the Supreme court does on a daily basis. Someone is challenging an amendment and wants a decision from the U.S. Supreme court based upon circumstances of the amendment.

I want you to give me a list when the U.S. Supreme Court completely abolished an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The 1st amendment is constantly challenged but it certainly doesn't mean that they abolished it, it still exists--as all other amendments to the Constitution do.

“Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court, it has been reaffirmed…and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered,” Gorsuch told Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. “…A good judge will consider it as precedent of the United States Supreme Court, worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.” Feinstein asked if Gorsuch considered Roe v. Wade “super precedent” – a decision that cannot be overturned.“It has been reaffirmed many times, I can say that,” Gorsuch answered.

Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

What the hell are you drinking, only 3/4ths of the States can abolish or revise a constitutional amendment. Roe can be completely overturned or severely limited by another court decision. It only lives as an opinion of the court, they are subject to change.

.

 

[Lesh]

Preclusion is a stopping or barring of a legal process in a layman’s term, but the fact is there is a process for applying for asylum it is statutorily limited to certain crossing points called points of entry. The law requires them to enter at one of these points for LEGAL ASYLUM claims. Crossing illegally voids any legal right to make a claim.

Do you have a link to that?

Never mind

Questions and Answers: Asylum Eligibility and Applications

You're wrong.

 

[Dale Smith]

Preclusion is a stopping or barring of a legal process in a layman’s term, but the fact is there is a process for applying for asylum it is statutorily limited to certain crossing points called points of entry. The law requires them to enter at one of these points for LEGAL ASYLUM claims. Crossing illegally voids any legal right to make a claim.

Do you have a link to that?

Ever heard of "Port of Entry", dumb ass?????

 

[WEATHER53]

There is no urge to remove RvW.
It’s a smokescreen fear tactic

 

[Lesh]

There is no urge to remove RvW.
It’s a smokescreen fear tactic

WHAT?

Do you live under a rock?

 

[Care4all]

Impeach the ************!

YES!

Trump should be impeached!

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Roberts just Crushed the Dishonest Orange!!

 

[Care4all]

LMAO the SCOTUS routinely overturns the liberal 9th circuit court of appeals decisions proving Trump correct. The judiciary may not like hearing they are corrupt and biased, too bad we elected Trump to set them straight.

This is the misconception you right wingers all have. It's because you've been brainwashed by FOX NEWS to believe it.

Judges, all judges, regardless of which side of the isle appoints them are dutifuly sworn to abide by the U.S Constitution. PERIOD

They are Apolitical, meaning not political, nor will it ever cross their minds, that since R or D appointed me, that's where my decision will go.

You don't have enough fingers and toes on the number of times that a Justice has gone against the party or President that has appointed them.

ROFL! You believe judges appointed by Democrats "abide by the Constitution?" That they are "apolitical?" Are you a complete fool?

Being Trump's shadow, is not very becoming of you.... maybe you should try to step outside of it, for a change?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

You are confused Moon Bat.

The courts should be trustworthy arbiters but thanks to the Liberal asshole activist judges, mostly appointed by that Obama piece of shit, they have destroyed the integrity of the Judiciary. Just look at how many times that Libtard 9th Circus is overturned if you have any doubts.

Your confused, Flash in the pan. The issue is not the 9Th Circuit it is Trump's assault on the independence of the judiciary. You may want a compliant judiciary that follows only what you believe, but fortunately we still live in nation where the rule of law still controls. As I said, you Trumpers do not want a free society, you want a uniform, meek and submissive one.

But the legislative branch, at the will of the people, is supposed to make the law. Not judges’ (mis)interpretations of existing law.

Judge's are to interpret the law. That does not mean that there cannot be multiple interpretations. Which is why we have what are called appellate courts. When appellate courts disagree, the Supreme Court makes the final decision. Nothing insidious about differing opinions.

There is when those opinions are clearly in disagreement with what the legislature voted on.

That's why there are 3 branches of Government. The legislature can vote and pass laws all day long, but if it doesn't meet the muster of the US constitution those laws will go down in a ball of flames.

Look at all the state abortion laws that have been overruled by higher federal courts.

And abortion legality was never legislated.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Your confused, Flash in the pan. The issue is not the 9Th Circuit it is Trump's assault on the independence of the judiciary. You may want a compliant judiciary that follows only what you believe, but fortunately we still live in nation where the rule of law still controls. As I said, you Trumpers do not want a free society, you want a uniform, meek and submissive one.

But the legislative branch, at the will of the people, is supposed to make the law. Not judges’ (mis)interpretations of existing law.

Judge's are to interpret the law. That does not mean that there cannot be multiple interpretations. Which is why we have what are called appellate courts. When appellate courts disagree, the Supreme Court makes the final decision. Nothing insidious about differing opinions.

There is when those opinions are clearly in disagreement with what the legislature voted on.

That's why there are 3 branches of Government. The legislature can vote and pass laws all day long, but if it doesn't meet the muster of the US constitution those laws will go down in a ball of flames.

Look at all the state abortion laws that have been overruled by higher federal courts.

So how did they manage to salvage the ACA after declaring several portions unconstitutional? There was no clause that allowed the judges to sever portions and uphold others. So tell the class how Roberts allowed that law to stand, when you just said it should have gone down in flames?

.

He declared it to be a tax and used tax as precedent.
He legislated from the bench, bypassing the legislature.

 

[bripat9643]

LMAO the SCOTUS routinely overturns the liberal 9th circuit court of appeals decisions proving Trump correct. The judiciary may not like hearing they are corrupt and biased, too bad we elected Trump to set them straight.

This is the misconception you right wingers all have. It's because you've been brainwashed by FOX NEWS to believe it.

Judges, all judges, regardless of which side of the isle appoints them are dutifuly sworn to abide by the U.S Constitution. PERIOD

They are Apolitical, meaning not political, nor will it ever cross their minds, that since R or D appointed me, that's where my decision will go.

You don't have enough fingers and toes on the number of times that a Justice has gone against the party or President that has appointed them.

ROFL! You believe judges appointed by Democrats "abide by the Constitution?" That they are "apolitical?" Are you a complete fool?

Being Trump's shadow, is not very becoming of you.... maybe you should try to step outside of it, for a change?

I'll take that to mean you are as gullible as Oreo.

 

[basquebromance]

"Justice Roberts can say what he wants, but the 9th Circuit is a complete & total disaster. It is out of control, has a horrible reputation, is overturned more than any Circuit in the Country, 79%, & is used to get an almost guaranteed result. Judges must not Legislate Security and Safety at the Border, or anywhere else. They know nothing about it and are making our Country unsafe. Our great Law Enforcement professionals MUST BE ALLOWED TO DO THEIR JOB! If not there will be only bedlam, chaos, injury and death. We want the Constitution as written!" - President Trump