Should the latest Judge who ruled against President Trump recused himself?

[Jumper_Dad]

Let's be clear.

 

Let's say the 9th overturns 1000 cases a year.

 

Are you saying they are wrong on 800 of them?

No.

 

I know the point you are trying to get to, but the fact is that of the cases taken up by the SCOTUS they are in fact overturned at close to an 80% rate...third worst rate in the country.

[Hatz]

What should be looked at is that these cities are protecting law breakers, some who have committed kidnapping, rape and murder. Even after they were in police custody and then released. They also broke the law entering the USA. Protecting American citizens is the number one duty of government at all levels. These cities are failing a basic responsibility to protect their citizens, instead protecting criminals.

 

I don't disagree with your premise. But the actions the EO wanted to make may be overstepping legal boundaries and President Trump needs to try a different and legal approach to adopt in stopping these sanctuary cities.

[mcpapa]

First, Article Three of the Constitution explicitly gives federal courts jurisdiction over cases involving constitutional issues and federal laws, among other things.

 

Second, the issue doesn't even involve a law passed by the legislature. It was an Executive Order, by your definition we have a President legislating from the White House.

 

Third, the Judicial branch in a co-equal part of our government.

 

Third, how do you propose a court uphold and apply a law if it finds it unconstitutional?

 

Fourth, if you actually feel that courts shouldn't have this role, what do we do with laws that counter the constitution?

 

Agreed. I never knew that the role of the SCOTUS is fundamentally different than the role of federal courts.

 

But in my defense, it was 1969 when I took civics.

 

 

The Supreme Court's role is to interpret the Constitution and limit the powers of the other branches of government. The Supreme Court's power to do this is its power of judicial review, where it determines which laws and policies are constitutional, or allowable, and which are not.

[capt278]

First, Article Three of the Constitution explicitly gives federal courts jurisdiction over cases involving constitutional issues and federal laws, among other things.

 

Second, the issue doesn't even involve a law passed by the legislature. It was an Executive Order, by your definition we have a President legislating from the White House.

 

Third, the Judicial branch in a co-equal part of our government.

 

Third, how do you propose a court uphold and apply a law if it finds it unconstitutional?

 

Fourth, if you actually feel that courts shouldn't have this role, what do we do with laws that counter the constitution?

 

The EO was based on existing immigration law.

 

I guess you are in the camp that it is ok to ignore laws you don't like. Just as these sanctuary cities do.

[capt278]

So case precedent doesn't matter? Only a person's perceived background?

 

It seems to me that when Getslow argues with actual law (what the judges are supposed to do) you have now turned to "opinion" of the person rather than the judgement of the law.

 

Not only my opinion, the opinion of other attorneys and judges, from both sides of the aisle.

[Bipsic]

The EO was based on existing immigration law.

 

I guess you are in the camp that it is ok to ignore laws you don't like. Just as these sanctuary cities do.

 

And nothing the District Court did affects existing law. The EO was just found unconstitutional. I'm curious what you think about the rest of my post though.

[capt278]

And nothing the District Court did affects existing law. The EO was just found unconstitutional. I'm curious what you think about the rest of my post though.

 

Can you answer my question on whether you agree with sanctuary cities ignoring existing law?

[Clyde]

No.

 

I know the point you are trying to get to, but the fact is that of the cases taken up by the SCOTUS they are in fact overturned at close to an 80% rate...third worst rate in the country.

 

1. Many people do NOT realize that we're only talking about cases that actually make it to the SCOTUS so the stat, to most, is misleading.

 

2. The study that came up with the 80% number was done between 1999 and 2008. The LOWEST rate was 55% so the fact that it happens so often is not a surprise.

 

3. Some will say 55% is significantly lower than 80%. The Supreme Court averaged about 64 cases per year over that period. In the span of the study there were 175 cases from the 9th. The difference between 55 and 80 is about 4 cases per year.

 

So, yes, relatively speaking they are higher but that number is misleading as it is being used in this particular argument.

[Clyde]

The EO was based on existing immigration law.

 

I guess you are in the camp that it is ok to ignore laws you don't like. Just as these sanctuary cities do.

 

The issue of state and local law enforcement and federal laws is not clearly settled.

 

Add in penalties and we've seen recent cases that go against the philosophy. We saw it with medicaid expansion and the threats of penalties from the Obama administration. Justice Roberts says you can't "hold a gun" to the states' head.

 

Justice Scalia said the federal govt could not require local police to perform background checks on new gun buyers. Justice Scalia said states cannot require local law to enforce a federal regulatory program. Maybe there's some room in that argument do to "regulatory" but it leaves doubt.

 

This case may not be what some Rs want but the logic used will be used by Rs for future issues.

[Voice of Reason]

Can you answer my question on whether you agree with sanctuary cities ignoring existing law?

 

What law(s) are they ignoring?

 

Also, there are varying degrees of sanctuary cities. Are all sanctuary cities in violation of the law(s)?

[Bipsic]

Can you answer my question on whether you agree with sanctuary cities ignoring existing law?

 

I'd love to, but it doesn't seem fair if you didn't answer mine.

[mcpapa]

I'd love to, but it doesn't seem fair if you didn't answer mine.

 

As an old friend used to say.

 

Nah nah na boo boo.