Support NeoGAF

[Phoenix]

I wish people stopped just assuming "conservative" judges 100% always agree with the legislative output of "conservative" administrations.

I can't wait for the moment when Trump's appointed judge disagrees with him. The meltdown may go to the Earth's core.

 

[Flying Toaster]

DAMN!

This guy needs to run for President.

Awesome bold statement but at the moment he is doing better work in his current position.

 

[Vegetable Lasagna]

It was blatantly unconstitutional. It's illegal to pressure or in this case black mail states to comply to enforce immigration laws. It's the federal government job to do that. Another thing I like to point is that this the reason why the federal government and state government boundaries should always be clear. I remember during Obama administration that some people supported the idea of striping state government some power. But we will quickly reminded why it was a terrible idea. I think that both sides should respect these boundaries. It can backfire years later.

So you're saying the art of the deal is now unconstitutional? How can you a run business, let alone an entire government, without blackmail?

 

[Armaros]

It was blatantly unconstitutional. It's illegal to pressure or in this case black mail states to comply to enforce immigration laws. It's the federal government job to do that. Another thing I like to point is that this the reason why the federal government and state government boundaries should always be clear. I remember during Obama administration that some people supported the idea of striping state government some power. But we will quickly reminded why it was a terrible idea. I think that both sides should respect these boundaries. It can backfire years later.

Also the supreme court has previously ruled that you can only withhold funding when the actual money in question is specifically related to the disagreement between state and federal. So trying to strip a widerange of funding for immigration would be a no-no

 

[Muffin1611]

Seriously. In my wildest dreams, I never predicted that lawyers would be saving America.

This sounds like a badass Netflix series.

 

[Not]

The DonaLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLd

 

[Madness]

I wish people stopped just assuming "conservative" judges 100% always agree with the legislative output of "conservative" administrations.

Did that happen when Scalia was still alive? The court is made up the same as then you know.

There is no way they wouldn't rule in his favor. People were predicting 4-4 splits before Gorsuch nomination for the previous executive orders. Kennedy has often been the swing conservative justice, but I do not believe he would vote against the others, Roberts has also been a swing conservative justice. We'll see but I do not see a happy outcome if it goes to the Supreme Court.

 

[Cagey]

You guys thinking this is a win with a 5-4 Supreme Court in Trump's favor now... almost every single ruling and even appellate ruling will go the Supreme Court where he will get 5-4 victories in his favor. Hell if anything happens to any of the other liberal old judges, you could have a conservative Supreme Court majority for 30-40 years.

This is an overly simplistic application of politics to the judiciary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printz_v._United_States

Check the composition of the majorities in each of the two most relevant Tenth Amendment decisions here.

 

[Deku Tree]

Wait so the GOP supports states rights when it is to maintain racism, but the GOP is against states rights when the states are trying to stop racism?

 

[Flying Toaster]

Wait so the GOP supports states rights when it is to maintain racism, but the GOP is against states rights when the states are trying to stop racism?

I gave up with how the GOP tries to think. If it is against God, gives a woman or minorities rights or makes hurts a corporation the GOP is against it.

 

[Not]

Wait so the GOP supports states rights when it is to maintain racism, but the GOP is against states rights when the states are trying to stop racism?

Uh huh

 

[Sean C]

Kennedy has often been the swing conservative justice, but I do not believe he would vote against the others.

Based on?

 

[JaggedSac]

I'm seeing it all over twitter about the liberal judges are ruining this country. lol lol

Seems like the state's rights folks would be applauding this.

 

[djplaeskool]

DAMN!

This guy needs to run for President.

That's one eloquent "Hold dat shit"

 

[Amir0x]

Thank you US Courts, one sane branch remains.

 

[GifGafIsTheBestGaf]

DAMN!

This guy needs to run for President.

Someone page NetherRealm Studios' and have him as a guest character in Injustice 2, fighting the good fight

 

[LincolnSixEcho]

I am getting exhausted from all the winning we've been having.

 

[OrlanisWorks]

"THIS IS WHY CALIFORNIA SUCKS!"

WITHOUT US, THIS COUNTRY WOULD BE JUST A BLIP ON THE MAP!!!!

This government is so poor in operating appropriately on a political level right now, it's fucking bonkers.

 

[devilhawk]

Also the supreme court has previously ruled that you can only withhold funding when the actual money in question is specifically related to the disagreement between state and federal. So trying to strip a widerange of funding for immigration would be a no-no

It's a bit more complicated than that; see my previous post. It's all about the term "unduly coercive."

 

[Walter White Walker]

Who knew writing constitutional EO's was so hard.

 

[commedieu]

Thank you US Courts, one sane branch remains.

No shit.

Softens the blow slightly.

 

[the_sun_king]

Choke on it, you orange bastard and your racist scumlord AG.

 

[SchrodingerC]

I hope federal judges continue to block the orange toad until his term is over.
Don't let his bs EOs pass through.

 

[Tovarisc]

https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/856995046364782593

 

[David___]

 

[Protein]

Trump is a fucking failure.

 

[massoluk]

Gosh, the judicial branch is what is going to save us from Trump since nobody else will. Thank goodness for that.

Judges are saving this country

Checks!

And!

Balances!

The Founding Fathers are amazing!

 

[Michael F. Assbender]

The Founding Fathers are amazing!

Kinda.

I mean, their stupid Electoral College got us into this mess.

 

[Icebergslim]

Justice department stay winning.

 

[Electric Eye]

Wait so the GOP supports states rights when it is to maintain racism, but the GOP is against states rights when the states are trying to stop racism?

Its why it was never going to work. If allowed this precedent would mean a president could strong arm a state into doing he's bidding or be withheld funding and that would mean a future democrat president could do the same to conservative red states. Its the why this also won't even be heard at the Supreme Court like his other stupid executive orders.

 

[Kurdel]

Neat!

 

[massoluk]

Kinda.

I mean, their stupid Electoral College got us into this mess.

I prefer to think that was due to hardware limitation. Not their fault USA refused to upgrade.

 

[RPGCrazied]

https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/856995046364782593

Like he said about the travel ban. No you wont, take the L. You lost again, own it.

 

[Nafai1123]

Trump is a fucking failure.

You would think the country would've already known this with his numerous bankruptcies.

 

[Nepenthe]

The courts have been going ham recently. Love it.

 

[TetraGenesis]

The courts have been going ham recently. Love it.

Every action has an equal and opposite.

 

[slit]

There is no way they wouldn't rule in his favor. People were predicting 4-4 splits before Gorsuch nomination for the previous executive orders. Kennedy has often been the swing conservative justice, but I do not believe he would vote against the others, Roberts has also been a swing conservative justice. We'll see but I do not see a happy outcome if it goes to the Supreme Court.

If Kennedy did before, why would he not now? Also, Roberts pretty much saved Obamacare singlehandedly.

 

[BoogieWoogie]

https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/856995046364782593

You can tell who are saying these things because Trump and his cronies all speak in mind numbingly dumb or horrifying ways.

This is definitely Miller.

 

[PandaPandaPanda]

Its why it was never going to work. If allowed this precedent would mean a president could strong arm a state into doing he's bidding or be withheld funding and that would mean a future democrat president could do the same to conservative red states. Its the why this also won't even be heard at the Supreme Court like his other stupid executive orders.

i'd like one of these cases to be heard at the SC just to shut the people up on twitter etc on how it's a travesty that "liberal" judges are stopping their orange god

 

[devilhawk]

If Kennedy did before, why would he not now? Also, Roberts pretty much saved Obamacare singlehandedly.

Huh?

Kennedy and Roberts both ruled against the ACA in an issue extremely similar to this thread in that medicare funding could not be coercively used to force expansion of the program. Only two justices ruled in favor of it.

As for the Medicaid expansion, that portion of the Affordable Care Act violates the Constitution by threatening existing Medicaid funding. Congress has no authority to order the States to regulate according to its instructions. Congress may offer the States grants and require the States to comply with accompanying conditions, but the States must have a genuine choice whether to accept the offer.

 

[jaekeem]

This constraining understanding of the federal spending power is actually a conservative position (Sotomayor & Ginsburg dissented when something similar came up regarding the ACA). It was started by the Rehnquist court, and it's all essentially just a state's right thing.

Thank god for federalism.

It's really quite funny how decades of conservative jurisprudence pushing back against the federal government are now stinging the cheeto tyrant repeatedly. hehe

 

[devilhawk]

This constrained understanding of the federal spending power is actually a conservative position (Sotomayor & Ginsburg dissented when something similar came up regarding the ACA). It was started by the Rehnquist court, and it's all essentially just a state's right thing.

Thank god for federalism.

Surely, posters in this thread also favorably reacted to the ACA ruling that rejected the forced Medicare expansion under the same reasoning. Surely.

 

[jaekeem]

Surely, posters in this thread also favorably reacted to the ACA ruling that rejected the forced Medicare expansion under the same reasoning. Surely.

 

[theWB27]

Because they can't spell, most likely.

Hehe

 

[MrSaturn99]

DAMN!

This guy needs to run for President.

Wow!

Get fucked, Trump!

 

[Xando]

Are these idiots even checking for legality or are they just writing EOs and say yolo?

 

[linkboy]

Are these idiots even checking for legality or are they just writing EOs and say yolo?

They're throwing shit at the wall and hoping something sticks.

He knows has not going to lose support from his base.

 

[timetokill]

They know they can just throw out unconstitutional bullshit orders that will be struck down and their supporters will say they're doing a good job and it's evil "liberal activist judges" striking down the orders

 

[Chumly]

This constraining understanding of the federal spending power is actually a conservative position (Sotomayor & Ginsburg dissented when something similar came up regarding the ACA). It was started by the Rehnquist court, and it's all essentially just a state's right thing.

Thank god for federalism.

It's really quite funny how decades of conservative jurisprudence pushing back against the federal government are now stinging the cheeto tyrant repeatedly. hehe

Seriously. They are going to rule 9-0 against that dumbass. none of the conservatives on the court could rule for the trump administration without being blatant partisan hacks. Especially already turning down the Medicaid expansion. Which had a vastly better argument than whatever the trump administration is trying to do

 

[slit]

Huh?

Kennedy and Roberts both ruled against the ACA in an issue extremely similar to this thread in that medicare funding could not be coercively used to force expansion of the program. Only two justices ruled in favor of it.

I'm talking about the mandate that forces individuals to have insurance. Kennedy ruled against the mandate. If Roberts had as well it would have killed Obamacare since without the mandate it doesn't work.