SCOTUS over steps its authority again

N

nate45

New member
Top court eases rules for foreigners to try to stay in US

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court made it easier Monday for some foreigners who overstay their visas to seek to remain in the United States legally.

The court ruled 5-4 Monday that someone who is here illegally may withdraw his voluntarily agreement to depart and continue to try to get approval to remain in the United States.

The COTUS specifically states that immigration is the purview of congress. All of you who feel the court was within its rights to rule on Gitmo explain where the court has authority in this.
 
B

Brett Bellmore

New member
A little further down:
The decision essentially embraced a proposed Justice Department regulation governing the treatment of similar cases in the future.
Click to expand...

What the court did was decide to let somebody whose name starts with "B", and ends in "ush", over step HIS authority.

So, just curious, where do the guns come into this?
 
M

Musketeer

New member
So, just curious, where do the guns come into this?
Click to expand...

This is L&P.

It is part of the trend of the SCOTUS overstepping its bounds. It would be nice if the legislature decided to start flexing muscle on the matter but they spend most of their time playing with one particularly flaccid one...
 
M

Musketeer

New member
Justice Antonin Scalia said, "The court lacks the authority to impose its chosen remedy."
Click to expand...

Another 5-4 with the liberals prevailing. I think Scalia pretty clearly sums up the problem which is... this should be outside their authority.

Of course it is getting really hard to find people assigned to lifetime posts who are held unaccountable for their actions who will admit to NOT having authority over something if they can possibly claim it.

Weird as it sounds it gives me more hope in Heller. The matter of scrutiny is likely key to the matter and a court with members obsessed with expanding the power of the judiciary are likely to try and keep any control over the issue within the judiciary for the future. That means assigning a strict scrutiny standard which falls on the judiciary to interpret every single time. This allows them to slap down any legislation at their own will with their own prior judgment as justification.
 
T

Te Anau

New member
The liberals on the court are working hard at the destruction of America as we know it.Fifty years from now,it'll all be over! :mad:
 
N

nate45

New member
Even when the court makes a decision I like, (not that I like this one) if they overstep their authority I'm against it.

Every time the court unconstitutionally goes against a popular decision of the executive or legislative they are stealing our votes. There has to be a way to stop five leftists or five conservatives or five whomever for that matter from holding sway over millions. Judicial Fiat must end.
 
M

MedicineBow

New member
Every time the court unconstitutionally goes against a popular decision of the executive or legislative they are stealing our votes.
Click to expand...

This doesn't make much sense.

It is exactly the job of the judiciary to make decisions about actions of the other branches, whether those actions were "popular" or not.

That's the whole point.
 
N

nate45

New member
Well, Medicine Bow I would assert that instead of a tyranny of the majority what we are witnessing is tyranny of the minority 5 versus 300+ million.
 
M

MedicineBow

New member
Well, Medicine Bow I would assert that instead of a tyranny of the majority what we are witnessing is tyranny of the minority 5 versus 300+ million.
Click to expand...

Yes, isn't it fascinating that the United States is set up as a country of laws rather than as one where the majority rules?

It is what makes us great.
 
D

divemedic

New member
I have not read it yet, and I refuse to form an opinion on a reporter's version of the story.

Has anyone else read it?
 
P

Playboypenguin

Moderator
I haven't read the ruling but I am already confused. Immigration is a legal issue and the rules regarding it are the laws of the nation. Why would the highest branch of our legal system have no right to rule on national law?

As for Scalia...he is a shill who will say anything to support his own opinion. This is the man that said torture is not punishment because the people being tortured may have not done anything wrong. :rolleyes:
 
D

divemedic

New member
Nevermind, I have it right here. What the court ruled is this:

Whether an alien who has requested and been granted voluntary departure from the United States must adhere to that election and depart within the time prescribed, even if doing so causes the alien to forgo a ruling on a pending, unresolved motion to reopen the removal proceedings. This would cause the case to be automatically terminated, as the Alien would no longer be in the country, thus mooting the case.

Absent a valid regulation resolving the dilemma in a different way, the court concluded that the alien must be permitted an opportunity to withdraw the motion for voluntary departure, provided the request is made before the departure period expires, so that the other motion could be resolved.

This ruling, IMO, resolves a conflict between two contradictory laws and allows the man to have his day in court.
 
N

nate45

New member
More granting of constitutional rights to non-citizens. Once he over stayed his visa he should have been deported. Which is what should happen to all illegal aliens in this country.
 
M

MedicineBow

New member
More granting of constitutional rights to non-citizens. Once he over stayed his visa he should have been deported. Which is what should happen to all illegal aliens in this country.
Click to expand...

Sigh.

Read the case.

It had nothing to do with that.
 
D

divemedic

New member
We gotta punish those brown people!!! Furiners r steelin my jobs!

We all know that no one has any rights unless we say they do. After all, rights are granted by the government. If they decide you don't get any rights, that's final.

[/sarcasm]
 
M

Musketeer

New member
We all know that no one has any rights unless we say they do. After all, rights are granted by the government. If they decide you don't get any rights, that's final.
Click to expand...

So when were you heading down to Mexico to liberate the people and ensure they have all the rights our COTUS apparently grants them?
 
P

Playboypenguin

Moderator
So when were you heading down to Mexico to liberate the people and ensure they have all the rights our COTUS apparently grants them?
Click to expand...
Surely you are joking. I mean you have to understand the difference between defining how we behave as a nation on our own soil/how we regard human rights and forcing our opinions onto another independent nation, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top