Judge declares some of Obama's action on immigration unconstitutional

[Nope]

I read the Washington Post article but was confused at this part:

In other words, while Judge Schwab declared the President’s actions to be unlawful, he did not set it aside. Indeed, given that no party was challenging the lawfulness of the President’s action, it’s not clear what authority the court would have had to invalidate the policy.

What was the point in the court taking on the issue in the first place?

[Heywood]

I read right wing and left wing articles, but much prefer to keep it as unbiased as possible. I do have a personal disgust for Fox, and avoid it like a virus. I also haven't watched MSNBC in six years.

Presumably you will discuss things with people who use Fox or MSNBC as their source of news so it helps to know where they are coming from when they bring something up. If you are reasonably intelligent and have some critical thinking skills you can wade through the bullshit. These outlets do serve a purpose of bringing certain stories to the forefront. I don't believe the Gruber scandal would have gained any traction were it not for Foxnews is a recent example.

Anyways...back to the topic of the thread. I do not think the judge overstepped his bounds in issuing this ruling. The judge has some judicial discretion to consider facts or arguments not offered by the prosecution and/or defense. This was a case of an illegal immigrant who could not even speak English being represented by a public defender. I doubt the prosecutor or the defender put a whole lot of time time in this case but rather were simply moving it through the system. If I am the judge here, I'd be interested in examining the newly issued executive order to see if it applies at all to the case at hand.

---

I read the Washington Post article but was confused at this part:

In other words, while Judge Schwab declared the President’s actions to be unlawful, he did not set it aside. Indeed, given that no party was challenging the lawfulness of the President’s action, it’s not clear what authority the court would have had to invalidate the policy.

What was the point in the court taking on the issue in the first place?

Maybe he wanted to take a swipe at Obama. Obama has taken several swipes at the judiciary branch.

[simplemoss]

The average age of FOX news viewers is 72

[Heywood]

The average age of FOX news viewers is 72

Which is 70 points higher than yours.

[simplemoss]

No seriously it actually is

[Heywood]

No seriously it actually is

I am serious....a cockroach is smarter than you.

Edit: It seems I am the mouthbreather here. When you said 72 I thought you were talking about IQ....not age. I doubt the average age of a Foxnews viewer is 72 though.

[simplemoss]

Fuck you inbred Neo nazis hillBilly cow fucking klansmen peice of racist human dog shit your whole family are nothing more than inbred cousin fucking rednecks and GO FUCK A GOAT

[Brian37]

I read right wing and left wing articles, but much prefer to keep it as unbiased as possible. I do have a personal disgust for Fox, and avoid it like a virus. I also haven't watched MSNBC in six years.

Presumably you will discuss things with people who use Fox or MSNBC as their source of news so it helps to know where they are coming from when they bring something up. If you are reasonably intelligent and have some critical thinking skills you can wade through the bullshit. These outlets do serve a purpose of bringing certain stories to the forefront. I don't believe the Gruber scandal would have gained any traction were it not for Foxnews is a recent example.

Anyways...back to the topic of the thread. I do not think the judge overstepped his bounds in issuing this ruling. The judge has some judicial discretion to consider facts or arguments not offered by the prosecution and/or defense. This was a case of an illegal immigrant who could not even speak English being represented by a public defender. I doubt the prosecutor or the defender put a whole lot of time time in this case but rather were simply moving it through the system. If I am the judge here, I'd be interested in examining the newly issued executive order to see if it applies at all to the case at hand.

---

I read the Washington Post article but was confused at this part:


What was the point in the court taking on the issue in the first place?

Maybe he wanted to take a swipe at Obama. Obama has taken several swipes at the judiciary branch.

Still haven't gotten the concept of oversight and checks and balances. Once again all you ever argue is "it is ok when I get what I want and tyranny when I don't".

So by admission of the judge taking a "swipe" at Obama, you admit that there is recourse (or the opportunity to make a change). So exactly how is executive order any different since every president in our history has used it for one thing or another? Executive order has never been a licence to be king for any president. It is part of the check on the other branches and they also can counter him. Nothing illegal done on his part. It would be tyranny if they could not challenge it in court, which WAS done. Losing a challenge or winning a challenge in court in support of the state or plaintiff does not make a president a tyrant for using the tools all presidents have had.

Obama is a Harvard grad, I am sure whatever that Judge did in his ruling will have little to no impact to his order. Why? Because he has a law degree.

[simplemoss]

+1 brian37

[professor]

Um Brian, I read Obama HAD a law license .
And it was revoked.
I guess the bar association thought the bar wasn't high enough when they gave it to him?