Law of the Land.
I don’t see how they can screw it up unless they keep allowing the illegals to enter and then claim asylum.
It will definitely put a strain on the consulates and missions but that can be worked out.
Funny how libs go poof!!!
They start threads and when their so-called expert opinion don’t jive, the never return to face their failures…they start new threads instead until that is proven false and then onto next one. 
5 Likes
"Only Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.
“Once again the Executive Branch has issued a rule that seeks to upend longstanding practices regarding refugees who seek shelter from persecution,” Sotomayor and Ginsburg wrote."
The above statement by the dissent seems to recall the statement by Gorsuch, do you really want me to rule the country. It has absolutely nothing to do with the law or Constitution, and everything to do with whether the judge thinks the policy should be implemented.
None of her business.
3 Likes
They are activists, not jurists, they have absolutely no respect for or fidelity to The Constitution or their Oaths of Office.
Same pattern with the lame stream media. Report on something til it falls apart then find something new and keep on it till it falls apart then rinse and repeat.
At least now we know who is manipulating the strings that animate RBG making it appear that she is still alive. 
1 Like
I wonder if it will be enforced? The EU has a similar law the “Dublin Regulations” were all migrants must claim asylum on the first country they arrive and could be deported to that country if they made it to another, I think Hungary blew that out of the water though.
Sure does seem to be there MO.
It will be now under Trump administration.
I tried and tried and tried…to tell em…amirite? 
1 Like
Silwy wabbit…libs can’t speak with their mouths full.
LOL like a ghost town for libs in here now.
Supreme Court threads are my favorites.
2 Likes
Kagan voted for?
Jim bunning (the last person to bury the nortorius RBG) is dead and Ginsberg is still alive.
Allan
It wasn’t an opinion just an order nullifying the injuction the ACLU sought.
The merits of the case were not argued. That’s is for another day, just like the DACA case.
Allan
You are correct… The only thing “won” is lifting of the injunction…
Yes, but when they stop an injunction, it means the case is unlikely to succed.
No, that’s not what it means… nice try…
We don’t know how the other 7 votes I don’t think. It needed 5 to lift the injunction, but we don’t know if it got more. The two dissents were just the written ones.
Typically the courts will allow in injunction if there is likely hood of injury or success of the case.
If the courts don’t believe that’s the case, they deny the injunciton.
1 Like
