(06-27-2019 10:42 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  Roberts is a real snake in the grass.

He just wants to be remembered as being significant in US history.

(06-26-2019 05:16 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 11:51 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 06:30 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(03-19-2019 12:30 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Trump was right? goodness gracious!

Quote:WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Tuesday endorsed the U.S. government's authority to detain immigrants awaiting deportation anytime - potentially even years - after they have completed prison terms for criminal convictions, handing President Donald Trump a victory as he pursues hardline immigration policies.

The court ruled 5-4 along ideological lines, with its conservative justices in the majority and its liberal justices dissenting, that federal authorities could pick up such immigrants and place them into indefinite detention anytime, not just immediately after they finish their prison sentences....

linky: U.S. Supreme Court hands Trump a victory on immigration detention

How can there be such an obvious ideological slant to the issue that the votes cast so accurately reflect the politics of those voting. I thought these people were, at least in theory, supposed to be politically neutral, at least in their rulings, basing their decisions on case law and the constitution rather than the prevailing thought of their party.

If Trump does nothing else during his term I applaud his efforts to balance the SCOTUS, it's just a damn shame he has to.

I agree, it's a shame that it has come to this. But after 40 years of left and far-left politicization with decision after decision "inventing" new non-enumerated "rights", something has to be done, and unfortunately the only way right now is politicizational re-balancing, which is really just reasserting the US Constitution as it was intended, not as it has been more recently and activistically invented.

When you look at recent nominees/appointments to SCOTUS and the votes that got them there, you see one side trying to be reasonable as far as qualification and the other so hyper-partisan that no one but a certified water-carrier for their pet issues can ever be approved, qualified or not. And with the Kavenaugh nomination we see a new higher level of politicization of seeking to falsely destroy any nominee that would dare to think anythnig other than far-left PC.

I hope Trump gets 2 or 3 more nominations. Roberts is proving more unreliable than not, which is disappointing. It'd be nice if we could return to a more Constitutional court after we get rid of all these non-existent invented rights and get back to the business of building a great country that is the envy of our enemies again instead of apologizing and bowing to them.

Exactly right, if it's not delineated in the constitution it doesn't exist as a right. It's pretty simple really, at least up until you get liberal activist judges deciding that the constitution is a living, fluid document and subject to broad interpretation.

So about that Emoluments clause

I think you just put the question on there anyway.

The emoluments clause, also called the foreign emoluments clause, is a provision of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8) that generally prohibits federal officeholders from receiving any gift, payment, or other thing of value from a foreign state or its rulers, officers, or representatives. The clause provides that:No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.


Any booking at any of his hotels would trigger this. He should be made to divest his properties. You guys totally overlook this. So it’s right there in black and white. Simple really.

(06-27-2019 10:58 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The emoluments clause, also called the foreign emoluments clause, is a provision of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8) that generally prohibits federal officeholders from receiving any gift, payment, or other thing of value from a foreign state or its rulers, officers, or representatives. The clause provides that:No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.


Any booking at any of his hotels would trigger this. He should be made to divest his properties. You guys totally overlook this. So it’s right there in black and white. Simple really.

So the same thing would be true if Pelosi owned some Hilton stock?

Answer the question without a whattabout please.

And yes she should divest. Absolutely

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politic...n-n1023316

Trump wondering if he can delay the census. Apparently, he hasn't read the Constitution, but that shouldn't surprise anyone.

To those who think Roe v Wade will be overturned, think about this:
Roberts wont even allow the US Census to figure out how many US Citizens exist in the country

Remember Merrick Garland with all these 5-4 votes.

(06-27-2019 10:58 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The emoluments clause, also called the foreign emoluments clause, is a provision of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8) that generally prohibits federal officeholders from receiving any gift, payment, or other thing of value from a foreign state or its rulers, officers, or representatives. The clause provides that:No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.


Any booking at any of his hotels would trigger this. He should be made to divest his properties. You guys totally overlook this. So it’s right there in black and white. Simple really.

You dont understand the emoluments clause. I know you arent a lawyer so its forgiveable, but please stop taking the word of MSNBC et al as gospel.

The president is not taking foreign titles (for example, the Queen of England isnt knighting him), China isn't granting him estates, the government of Brazil is not sending him a check for $5 million, etc.

His businesses making money in other countries doesnt violate the clause.

(06-27-2019 10:19 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  

(06-27-2019 10:03 AM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  BREAKING:

Quote:The Supreme Court temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s attempts to include a question about citizenship on the 2020 census in a 5-4 ruling on Thursday, with Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the left.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/sup...us-for-now

They punted for now. They will revisit this at a later date.

Having said that the ruling should have been 9-0 to include the question.

Unreal. What is Roberts thinking? This is NOT a new question

https://thehill.com/homenews/administrat...020-census

Roberts set a really dangerous precedent. Now any single random power hungry appointed for life judge can stop any administration policy. Roberts didn't rule the census question illegal, which it obviously wasn't since it has been used many times before, but he allowed the lower court judge to run out the clock.

We will see a lot more of these dictatorial unelected judges do these types of injunctions over the next year and a half. And President Trump's reelection may not stop this.

Its a very dangerous step that Roberts took trying to make a "minimalist conservative" ruling.

(07-03-2019 08:36 AM)bullet Wrote:  https://thehill.com/homenews/administrat...020-census

Roberts set a really dangerous precedent. Now any single random power hungry appointed for life judge can stop any administration policy. Roberts didn't rule the census question illegal, which it obviously wasn't since it has been used many times before, but he allowed the lower court judge to run out the clock.

We will see a lot more of these dictatorial unelected judges do these types of injunctions over the next year and a half. And President Trump's reelection may not stop this.

Its a very dangerous step that Roberts took trying to make a "minimalist conservative" ruling.

Unless of course Trump puts the question on the census anyway. I think there is a chance that might happen.

(07-03-2019 09:36 AM)Claw Wrote:  

(07-03-2019 08:36 AM)bullet Wrote:  https://thehill.com/homenews/administrat...020-census

Roberts set a really dangerous precedent. Now any single random power hungry appointed for life judge can stop any administration policy. Roberts didn't rule the census question illegal, which it obviously wasn't since it has been used many times before, but he allowed the lower court judge to run out the clock.

We will see a lot more of these dictatorial unelected judges do these types of injunctions over the next year and a half. And President Trump's reelection may not stop this.

Its a very dangerous step that Roberts took trying to make a "minimalist conservative" ruling.

Unless of course Trump puts the question on the census anyway. I think there is a chance that might happen.

He's not

Quote:The Trump administration said Tuesday that it will not ask about citizenship status on the 2020 census, backing off a contentious effort to reinstate the question over objections from opponents who successfully argued to the Supreme Court that it would disenfranchise minority groups.

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who originally directed the Census Bureau to add the question, said in a statement that he was moving ahead with printing the 2020 census despite his disagreement with the court's ruling last week.
"I respect the Supreme Court but strongly disagree with its ruling regarding my decision to reinstate a citizenship question on the 2020 Census," Ross said in a statement Tuesday. "The Census Bureau has started the process of printing the decennial questionnaires without the question. My focus, and that of the Bureau and the entire Department is to conduct a complete and accurate census."
The order to print came suddenly, surprising attorneys who had challenged the Trump administration.

Link

(06-27-2019 03:14 PM)solohawks Wrote:  To those who think Roe v Wade will be overturned, think about this:
Roberts wont even allow the US Census to figure out how many US Citizens exist in the country

The court always balances itself. Look to history. It's never going to lean too far left or too far right. Thoughts and platitudes to the contrary are only to whip up the masses for their votes. Roberts is neither liberal or conservative.....Roberts is a Judge. Opinions are based on facts or precedence only.

(07-03-2019 09:41 AM)bobdizole Wrote:  

(07-03-2019 09:36 AM)Claw Wrote:  

(07-03-2019 08:36 AM)bullet Wrote:  https://thehill.com/homenews/administrat...020-census

Roberts set a really dangerous precedent. Now any single random power hungry appointed for life judge can stop any administration policy. Roberts didn't rule the census question illegal, which it obviously wasn't since it has been used many times before, but he allowed the lower court judge to run out the clock.

We will see a lot more of these dictatorial unelected judges do these types of injunctions over the next year and a half. And President Trump's reelection may not stop this.

Its a very dangerous step that Roberts took trying to make a "minimalist conservative" ruling.

Unless of course Trump puts the question on the census anyway. I think there is a chance that might happen.

He's not

Quote:The Trump administration said Tuesday that it will not ask about citizenship status on the 2020 census, backing off a contentious effort to reinstate the question over objections from opponents who successfully argued to the Supreme Court that it would disenfranchise minority groups.

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who originally directed the Census Bureau to add the question, said in a statement that he was moving ahead with printing the 2020 census despite his disagreement with the court's ruling last week.
"I respect the Supreme Court but strongly disagree with its ruling regarding my decision to reinstate a citizenship question on the 2020 Census," Ross said in a statement Tuesday. "The Census Bureau has started the process of printing the decennial questionnaires without the question. My focus, and that of the Bureau and the entire Department is to conduct a complete and accurate census."
The order to print came suddenly, surprising attorneys who had challenged the Trump administration.

Link

Just kidding, marching orders have changed in 4 hours

Quote:Contradicting both his Department of Justice and his secretary of Commerce, President Donald Trump vowed on Wednesday to keep fighting to have a citizenship question added to the 2020 census.

"We are absolutely moving forward, as we must," Trump said in a tweet.
The President's message suggested that he was either reacting to criticism from the right that the government had unnecessarily caved on the issue, or perhaps speaking past the parties involved in two lawsuits in an effort to energize his base on the issue. One example of the criticism Trump faced Tuesday: conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt sent out a tweet that he was "very surprised" that the President had "surrendered without a battle on this issue."

Trump disputed that characterization in his tweet Wednesday.
"The News Reports about the Department of Commerce dropping its quest to put the Citizenship Question on the Census is incorrect, or, to state it differently, FAKE!" the President wrote.

It was not immediately clear what the administration's next steps would be given Trump's contradictory statements. Asked for comment after the tweets, a Justice Department spokeswoman said that she would have to "circle back on this."
On Tuesday, a Justice Department Attorney, Kate Bailey, notified plaintiffs challenging the question via email that she could "confirm that the decision has been made to print the 2020 Decennial Census questionnaire without a citizenship question, and that the printer has been instructed to begin the printing process."
The Department of Justice later confirmed the question would not be on the census. And Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross issued a statement saying "The Census Bureau has started the process of printing the decennial questionnaires without the question" even though he said he disagreed with the Supreme Court ruling.
In addition, during a hearing Tuesday evening, a federal judge asked the Department whether the decision was "final" and the Department of Justice said that it was, according to plaintiff's lawyers participating in the call.

And an example of what Roberts is allowing. Now that judge is stopping the government from choosing its own lawyers.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/judge-bl...d=64228596

Change in counsel is granted routinely.

I repeat my question—Exactly what does the left have photos of Roberts doing?

That, or threats on his life, are the only reasons I can fathom for a supposedly conservative judge to have turncoat opinions based on such shoddy legal analysis on this and on Obamacare.

(07-03-2019 09:36 AM)Claw Wrote:  

(07-03-2019 08:36 AM)bullet Wrote:  https://thehill.com/homenews/administrat...020-census
Roberts set a really dangerous precedent. Now any single random power hungry appointed for life judge can stop any administration policy. Roberts didn't rule the census question illegal, which it obviously wasn't since it has been used many times before, but he allowed the lower court judge to run out the clock.
We will see a lot more of these dictatorial unelected judges do these types of injunctions over the next year and a half. And President Trump's reelection may not stop this.
Its a very dangerous step that Roberts took trying to make a "minimalist conservative" ruling.

Unless of course Trump puts the question on the census anyway. I think there is a chance that might happen.

I think we need a law providing that 1) only the Supreme Court, and not lower courts, has the power to declare a law unconstitutional, or 2) no court can issue a ruling that applies outside its jurisdiction (district or circuit, as appropriate), or both. That would stop a lot of legislating from the bench.