The Supreme Court hands Donald Trump two losses on immigration
While all of the media attention today has been focused on the budget battle and a possible government shutdown over border wall funding the President had a very bad day on immigration with the Supreme Court. The highest court in the land handed Donald Trump two losses on his asylum policies.
The first loss came when the Supreme Court ruled that the President could not restrict asylum requests by people who enter the country illegally:
This was a 5-4 decision with Chief Justice breaking ranks and siding once again with the liberal justices–this is becoming the norm at this point, he appears to be turning into another David Souter…
The second defeat came when the Supreme Court declined to let the President enforce his asylum ban on Central Americans. Here is more:
The Supreme Court dealt President Donald Trump’s attempt to crack down on illegal immigration a blow Friday when it rejected a White House bid to implement his asylum ban on Central Americans.
The high court declined to overturn a block placed by the San Francisco federal appeals court on Trump’s executive order to automatically reject asylum requests from migrants crossing the US border from Mexico.
Unlike the first decision this decision was 9-3, with Chief Justice Roberts again ruling against Donald Trump.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
America's Watchtower 
Expelling the anti-Americans and globalist deterrents in important positions is a must.
Click on pic to enlarge
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hopefully the plan will be on hold for 8 years but at least we got a four year reprieve!
LikeLiked by 1 person
No judge has jurisdiction to erase our border
Daniel Horowitz · November 26, 2018
No court can ever force the president to allow any alien to enter the country. No such lawsuit could ever have legitimate standing, and no such decision could have any constitutional moorings. If we don’t understand that, we are no longer a sovereign Republic.
Monday night, Jon Tigar, an Obama-appointed judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, a forum chosen by the ACLU, penned what is essentially an op-ed expressing his desire that Trump’s order on asylum be temporarily enjoined. His desire is just as binding as my desire to place an injunction on all liberals from running for office. He has no jurisdiction over immigration, has no jurisdiction over national security, has no jurisdiction over the border, violated endless settled law, violated Article II powers, violated Article I delegated authority, and broke every sane ruling on Article III standing that differentiates a court from a legislature.
https://www.conservativereview.com/news/no-judge-has-jurisdiction-to-erase-our-border/
LikeLiked by 3 people
I sure missed that. Glad you were on the job. I don’t know what it is but it seems our picks aways seem to veer left as soon as they get on the bench. One never hears about it the other way.
LikeLiked by 3 people
At least Kavanaugh came back into the fold after his PP ruling. I don’t know what they have on Roberts but they have something.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My Christmas wish: When RBG, the daughter of satan slithers off the bench her bitch-boy Roberts volunteers to retire along with her so he can be there to wipe the oatmeal off her chin, push her wheelchair and change her depends.
LikeLiked by 1 person
He’d probably screw that up too!
LikeLike