Avatar_feed
Responses: 10
SGT Aircraft Mechanic
7
7
0
What I have a real problem with is a judge in a lower court thinking that he can disregard or change a SCOTUS ruling.
(7)
Comment
(0)
SGT Edward Wilcox
SGT Edward Wilcox
>1 y
He did neither. Simply expanded on it. It was not the Supreme Court that decided who is considered a 'immediate family member'.
(1)
Reply
(0)
SSG Robert Webster
SSG Robert Webster
>1 y
SGT Edward Wilcox - Actually the judge did do this. IAW the INA, immediate family is spouse, parents, parents of spouse, and children.
You need to read page 9 of the SCOTUS document lifting the injunctions, under Per Curiam, Section B. You should note that the only part of the injunctions that they left in place applied specifically to a spouse and in a separate case as listed a spouse's parent. So yes the lower court did disregard the ruling.
(2)
Reply
(0)
SGT Edward Wilcox
SGT Edward Wilcox
>1 y
SSG Robert Webster - I stand corrected. However, I think the INA is unnecessarily restrictive, and gives no allowance for cultural norms in other societies.

So, to answer your original question, as far as grandparents are concerned, no I have no problem with this ruling.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar_small
SFC Combat Engineer
4
4
0
I view this as people playing word games. One can argue either way. The bottom line for me is that we are discussing "rights" being extended to non-citizens. In my opinion the our courts have no standing to make a ruling on this. That being said: I'me not a lawyer.
(4)
Comment
(0)
SFC Combat Engineer
SFC (Join to see)
>1 y
I'me willing to learn. Who says these rights apply to non-citizens.
(0)
Reply
(0)
SGT Edward Wilcox
SGT Edward Wilcox
>1 y
SFC (Join to see) - Go ask a judge, any judge. Or maybe, just sit in a courtroom, they're open to the public. Watch how many non-citizens are brought in for different reasons. Owning a gun is about the only constitutional right not afforded to non-citizens.
(0)
Reply
(0)
SFC Combat Engineer
SFC (Join to see)
>1 y
SGT Edward Wilcox - That’s exactly what I’m talking about: judges legislating from the bench… Unconstitutionally stealing authority from the Congress. Actually I am looking for a law, lawfully passed by Congress and signed by the president; no Executive Action, or interpretation of an existing law twisting its meaning as a devil quotes Scripture.
(0)
Reply
(0)
SGT Edward Wilcox
SGT Edward Wilcox
>1 y
SFC (Join to see) - Obviously you have never heard of a little concept called "Case Law" This involves interpreting and applying the law in a specific way. IT is not "legislating from the bench". They are not creating new laws, which is impossible for a judge to do. They are applying current law, in this case, the Constitution, in specific ways. Nothing wrong with that.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar_small
1stSgt V Anonymous
2
2
0
Bf3e8d4a
SSG Robert Webster Don't wast your time arguing with Libtards! They already know everything and you will never win an argument with them. They would rather cut their left nut off than support anything that has to do with Trump and they will fight to the bitter end so my philosophy is screw all of them!
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar_small

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

close