Avatar_feed
Responses: 12
MCPO Roger Collins
4
4
0
A split decision goes back to the lower court ruling, which I believe was his action was not legal.
(4)
Comment
(0)
PO3 Shayne Seibert
PO3 Shayne Seibert
>1 y
Which in turn means that the dream act and all other immigration reform bills should immediately be overturned.
(0)
Reply
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
MCPO Roger Collins
>1 y
PO3 Shayne Seibert - Big difference when you talk about bills, laws, SCOTUS decisions and Executive Actions.
(1)
Reply
(0)
PO3 Shayne Seibert
PO3 Shayne Seibert
>1 y
MCPO Roger Collins - my thoughts were, if the supreme Court can't justify Obama's EO on immigration, then the whole approach should be revisited.

I know in an election year that will not happen, but if the highest court in the land has found one part of the debate in question, the entire process should be stopped until there is consensus.
(0)
Reply
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
MCPO Roger Collins
>1 y
PO3 Shayne Seibert - The problem is that the SCOTUS does not make laws (or so they say) and this is a overall issue that has to be resolved by way of Congressional processes. They will make a narrow ruling on the aspect of his misuse of the Executive authority in this instance and throw the baby back to the legislators.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar_small
SGT John " Mac " McConnell
4
4
0
This issue can tear the country apart. depending on which direction it goes..
(4)
Comment
(0)
COL Ted Mc
COL Ted Mc
>1 y
PO3 Shayne Seibert - PO; Being a justice of the Supreme Court is generally considered to be a career-ender for anyone with any political ambitions.
(0)
Reply
(0)
PO3 Shayne Seibert
PO3 Shayne Seibert
>1 y
COL Ted Mc - except for the fact that they are now in a position where they can influence any federal laws or any particular societal issue that comes up.

Gay marriage comes to mind.

An issue that is not covered in the Constitution is relegated to the states. Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution, so States are supposed to be able to set their laws accordingly. 37 States said no to gay marriage, a majority, but then some lobbyist got ahold of the situation. The court couldn't do anything about the actual LAW or any precidence, so they said it is a matter of happiness and can't be infringed.

Total BS
(0)
Reply
(0)
PO3 Shayne Seibert
PO3 Shayne Seibert
>1 y
Unless they want to form laws to fit their agenda...
(0)
Reply
(0)
COL Ted Mc
COL Ted Mc
>1 y
PO3 Shayne Seibert - PO; Personally I favour the European solution where "religious marriage" is a matter for churches and "secular marriage" is a matter for governments.

You can have as much of a "religious marriage" as you want, but if you don't have a recognized "secular marriage" then you don't get any of the "state benefits" from being "married" (although, of course, you do get all the "church benefits" from being "married").

However, neither radio nor television were "mentioned in the Constitution" so does that mean that each State has the power to regulate radio and/or television within its boundaries? How about medicine - that wasn't "mentioned in the Constitution" either. Or air travel? Or nuclear weapons? Or since slavery wasn't "mentioned in the Constitution" and since it is patently obvious that the Original Intent of the Founding Fathers was to permit slavery in the United States of America isn't any law that prohibits slavery "unconstitutional" and only the result of "activist judges"?
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar_small
CPT Jack Durish
4
4
0
The joys of an ideologically split court
(4)
Comment
(0)
Avatar_small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close
Seg?add=7750261&t=2