It would behoove the “legal experts” posting here to actually read the case… Pay particular attention to the Administrative Procedures Act analysis the judge applied… Simplistically stating that the executive branch has unlimited authority to revoke something without explanation or reasoning flies in the face of a law that has been on the books since 1946…
We are not talking about “authority to revoke something without explanation”. We are talking about a current president revoking public policy set by a previous president. And, I might add, a policy set by the previous president which was a usurpation of power and without a constitutional basis. This is constitutional law 101. And, contrary to judge Bates’ socialist opinion, that those who benefit from the previous Administration’s adopted policy and have become reliant upon its benefits, and particularly reliant upon taxpayer financed government cheese, [which seems to be the case] are now entitled to that government cheese because they would suffer irreparable harm if the government cheese were ended, violates one of the foundations for which our government was created.
“Under a just and equal Government, every individual is entitled to protection in the enjoyment of the whole product of his labor, except such portion of it as is necessary to enable Government to protect the rest; this is given only in consideration of the protection offered. In every bounty, exclusive right, or monopoly, Government violates the stipulation on her part; for, by such a regulation, the product of one man’s labor is transferred to the use and enjoyment of another. The exercise of such a right on the part of Government can be justified on no other principle, than that the whole product of the labor or every individual is the real property of Government, and may be distributed among the several parts of the community by government discretion; such a supposition would directly involve the idea, that every individual in the community is merely a slave and bondsman to Government, who, although he may labor, is not to expect protection in the product of his labor. An authority given to any Government to exercise such a principle, would lead to a complete system of tyranny.” See Representative Giles, speaking before Congress February 3rd, 1792
Judge Bate use of his office of public trust to impose his personal sense of justice, fairness or reasonableness is a plain violation of his office of public trust, and he ought to be punished with no punishment left off the table.
American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.
What does “no punishment left off the table” mean?
I love when anonymous posters on a message board think they know more than a Federal Judge.
I love it when anonymous posters refuse to offer well reasoned rebuttals.
Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
what did I get wrong?
Your rebuttal is ludicrous to say the least, not to mention it is unsubstantiated.
“To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen [a working person’s earned wage] and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, [socialists, progressives and the poverty stricken populations who have invaded America’s borders], to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes, is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation.”____ Savings and Loan Association v.Topeka,(1875).
Judging from your question, you do not understand the written word.
I think it’s pretty accurate. You can point to anything I got wrong if you disagree, but you chose not to do that last time so I won’t hold my breath.
You are the one who made and unsubstantiated and insulting assertion ___ that I have a “hatred and fear of immigration and minorities.”
There was a time not too long ago in New York when the able-bodied were ashamed to accept home relief, a program created by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1931 when he was Governor. Now, New York City and many other major cities are infested with countless government cheese factions from poverty stricken countries, who not only demand welfare, but use it to buy beer, wine, drugs, sex, and Lotto tickets.
As many times as the 9th has been reversed, I’d say not all Federal judges are all that smart.
This wasn’t the 9th circuit… Try again…
Here is the actual ruling… perhaps you can try to excerpt and argue against sections of the ruling… you know, like how real law is practiced…
Do you have any arguments against the actual ruling or will this just be another your long diatribes?
Here is the actual opinion…
How about taking a shot at arguing the opinion…
Thank you Captain Obvious.
My comment was aimed at the poster who made this statement:
I love when anonymous posters on a message board think they know more than a Federal Judge.[/quote]
As if all federal judges are infallible.
Where is your rebuttal?
……we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress’ action, however, is not within our province to second guess. _________ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003)