# SCOTUS will not hear Daca



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

So the illegals will get to stay at least for a while yet. It will have to go through the 9th "circus" court of appeals first and then to the SCOTUS.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/supreme-court-won-t-hear-daca-case-n851186


----------



## Robie (Jun 2, 2016)

After reading a few articles about it...I understand the courts decision.

I think in all reality, they are going to end up staying anyway.

It's a matter of how they are treated that's up for grabs...voting, committing crimes, etc, etc, etc


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Since it wasn't a "law" to begin with, it shouldn't be going through the court at all.
Trump should let Obama's EO expire, just as he said he would, and we start enforcing existing immigration law.
If the Dems really want to keep DACA folks that bad, they'll cave.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Kauboy said:


> Since it wasn't a "law" to begin with, it shouldn't be going through the court at all.
> Trump should let Obama's EO expire, just as he said he would, and we start enforcing existing immigration law.
> If the Dems really want to keep DACA folks that bad, they'll cave.


I agree with you.


----------



## Urinal Cake (Oct 19, 2013)

Here's one that should do prison first then right over the border with a front end loader!

DREAMer with shotgun, shielded from deportation, is arrested for threatening to shoot up a high school


----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

Urinal Cake said:


> Here's one that should do prison first then right over the border with a front end loader!
> 
> DREAMer with shotgun, shielded from deportation, is arrested for threatening to shoot up a high school


But after sterilization in fed prison, that thing does not need to breed.

That is the lightest colored pile of dog shit I have seen in a long time.

UC, I don't think a front end loader is big enough, a hammerhead crane is more suited.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Regardless of what the court says, any court for that matter, Daca was born of an unlawful executive order. This means that it is in Trump's power to throw it out. I am gonna go on record saying that Trump should ignore the lower court rulings as "UnConstitutional" or otherwise unlawful order and start deporting come 3/5/18.


----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

I still don't understand how a judge can rule on anything that is not a law.

They are not kings ruling by decree.


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

SOCOM42 said:


> I still don't understand how a judge can rule on anything that is not a law.
> 
> They are not kings ruling by decree.


It's called Legislating from the bench and for some reason Liberals seem to think they can do it. Then again no one has stopped them yet.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

SOCOM42 said:


> I still don't understand how a judge can rule on anything that is not a law.
> 
> They are not kings ruling by decree.


They do not have the power, but too many spineless turds afford them power that they do not have.


----------



## Urinal Cake (Oct 19, 2013)

SOCOM42 said:


> But after sterilization in fed prison, that thing does not need to breed.


Oh there's a lot of Tacos that would pump that like an oil rig, you think they're picky?
They would treat that El Porko like a bank.... making a deposit!


----------



## Gunn (Jan 1, 2016)

Sasquatch said:


> It's called Legislating from the bench and for some reason Liberals seem to think they can do it. Then again no one has stopped them yet.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


But it's "For The Chillern". Don't you remember? Isn't that what they said when Billy Jefferson Clinton was president?


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

Gunn said:


> But it's "For The Chillern". Don't you remember? Isn't that what they said when Billy Jefferson Clinton was president?


It's always for the Chillern, except when it comes to illegals, drugs, choosing a bathroom, codling homeless and illegals. Then it's Chillern be damned.

I know I said illegals twice but those wheezing sack of dong tips Liberals love their illegals.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

SOCOM42 said:


> I still don't understand how a judge can rule on anything that is not a law.
> 
> They are not kings ruling by decree.


It called liberalism and has nothing to do with reality or the law. You just have to be that special judge with a magic decoder ring to find the hidden words/intent in the Constitution or a low.


----------



## soyer38301 (Jul 27, 2017)

We all know it has nothing to do with the chillern...if it was the dems would have done something when they had the house, the Senate, and the white house. They didn't cause they don't give a crap unless it gets them votes and power...
Screw em

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk


----------



## ilmostrog (Nov 10, 2016)

RedLion said:


> Regardless of what the court says, any court for that matter, Daca was born of an unlawful executive order. This means that it is in Trump's power to throw it out. I am gonna go on record saying that Trump should ignore the lower court rulings as "UnConstitutional" or otherwise unlawful order and start deporting come 3/5/18.


As I understand it this has happened in the past. I don't remember the details but at least one president has ignored the courts when he felt they were incorrect about a ruling. The case I am thinking of I read about in a book on the constitution and it happened in 1800s I believe.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

The court, any court, has no business here to begin with since Oblunders EO is illegal to begin with. Typical liberal courts legislating from the bench as usual. Shut the damn border down now and begin deportations. That is all.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

ilmostrog said:


> As I understand it this has happened in the past. I don't remember the details but at least one president has ignored the courts when he felt they were incorrect about a ruling. The case I am thinking of I read about in a book on the constitution and it happened in 1800s I believe.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I hope that Trump is at least debating this.


----------

