POTUS learning about checks and balances

[*bfine32*]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11/09/appeals-court-rules-against-obama-immigration-plan/

Quote:President Obama's executive action preventing the deportation of an estimated 5 million people living in the United States illegally suffered another setback Monday after a federal appeals court upheld a federal judge's injunction blocking the measure.

The 2-1 decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans further dims the prospect of implementation of the executive action before Obama leaves office in 2017. Appeals over the injunction could take months and, depending on how the case unfolds, it could go back to the Texas federal court for more proceedings.

[fredtoast]

Wait, isn't he just allowed to ignore the courts because they are not elected?

[*bfine32*]

(11-10-2015, 09:42 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Wait, isn't he just allowed to ignore the courts because they are not elected?

Aparently so; it's just the courts do not have to ignore him.

[GMDino]

(11-10-2015, 09:42 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Wait, isn't he just allowed to ignore the courts because they are not elected?

Fred, Fred, Fred...when courts disagree with Obummer its checks and balances.  When they agree with him they are being un-elected activists trying to destroy America.

Duh!

[BmorePat87]

(11-10-2015, 09:42 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Wait, isn't he just allowed to ignore the courts because they are not elected?

Judicial tyranny. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

Great why even elect people now. The non elected court can lord over us all.

[*bfine32*]

Surprisingly enough; no one has any thoughts on the actual issue.

[GMDino]

(11-10-2015, 11:16 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Surprisingly enough; no one has any thoughts on the actual issue.

I thought the issue was "checks and balances" because that was in the title of the thread.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-10-2015, 11:16 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Surprisingly enough; no one has any thoughts on the actual issue.

I quoted LaLaLucie verbatim. Seems we agree he has no thoughts. 

[BmorePat87]

(11-10-2015, 11:22 AM)GMDino Wrote: I thought the issue was "checks and balances" because that was in the title of the thread.

Since the only thing not copied and pasted was the title, I thought the same, so I commented on that issue. 

[BmorePat87]

After reading the argument in favor of the executive action, and explaining the need to prioritize certain deportations over others, I think I disagree with the court's decision. At the same time, I can see the issue that the states have with this.

The reality is I am not really concerned with illegal immigration.

[Benton]

(11-10-2015, 11:16 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Surprisingly enough; no one has any thoughts on the actual issue.

What's the issue? I just thought this was another passive aggressive swipe at a politician?

[Rotobeast]

(11-10-2015, 11:16 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Surprisingly enough; no one has any thoughts on the actual issue.

Reset ?
What reset ?

[Belsnickel]

We're going to constantly see this occurring with the continued political climate of nothing but adversarial relationships across the aisle. Our executive branch will continue to overreach, as they have for well over a century now, and the courts will have to step in to reign them in when it is too egregious. Our Congress will overreach in its authority, like the foreign policy thing a while back, all because no one is willing to actually work together. I've had my reservations about this move by the POTUS from the beginning. I truly dislike when our government just chooses to ignore a law. If it is a bad law, do something to get rid of it. Otherwise, enforce it and shut up. Our federal code is filed with laws that either aren't, or cannot be, enforced.

I do have to agree, however, that it is rather humorous that when the courts agree with a side, they are just doing their job with checks and balances. But if they disagree, well, they are just the worst thing ever to happen to this country and they are legislating from the bench. I agree with their ruling on this. Laws are to be carried out (executed) by the executive branch. It is not up to the executive branch to choose what laws to enforce, only how to enforce them. And no, this does not mean the executive must defend the laws, IMHO. Defending them is not carrying them out.

[GMDino]

Agreed.

(11-10-2015, 11:16 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Surprisingly enough; no one has any thoughts on the actual issue.

[Mike M (the other one)]

I'm glad this failed.
It's not the right way to do this, and quite frankly would've pissed me off beyond measure that someone could circumvent the laws of the land and become legal with out having to go thru the whole process and wait like many others are doing.

[GodHatesBengals]

Judicial activists, judicial tyranny, radicals in black robes, etc. etc. etc.

I'm sure Mark Levin is gonna scream about this all day even though it's what he wanted.... right?

[*PhilHos*]

(11-10-2015, 10:26 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Great why even elect people now. The non elected court can lord over us all.

So you disagree with the Supreme Court's decision to un-ban gay marriage?

[GodHatesBengals]

(11-10-2015, 05:00 PM)PhilHos Wrote: So you disagree with the Supreme Court's decision to un-ban gay marriage?

(11-10-2015, 11:28 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I quoted LaLaLucie verbatim.