Why Do We Obey An Obscure Judge's Ruling?

[Abraham]

Such as President Trumps initial attempt at temporarily halting the immigration of Middle Eastener's who could have terrorist ties? But, he was halted in his tracks due the ruling of some obscure judge. Why/how can such a judge overrule the President? Why not ignore the judges finding and do what needs doing?

Given Sanctuary cities are advocating the breaking of Federal law practically (with impunity as no mayor or city councilman has gone to jail for advocating such as inviting illegal aliens) even to the point extending more rights and privileges to non-citizens than mere/actual citizens get to exercise, all the while breaking Federal law - why hasn't he sent in the troops to arrest these mayors and their ilk, try them, and if found guilty put them in Leavenworth?

[Abraham]

Further, if the so-called city leaders of so-called sanctuary cities decide they're defacto going to create their own countries, are arrested and carted off to jail and pro-fa groups of crazy radicals want to battle about it...fine. Bring it.

Strafe them with A-10 Warthogs, artillery of all kinds, troops on the ground and drones in the sky.

No borders means no nation.

I want to keep our nation and if that means some blood has to spill remember what President Thomas Jefferson said: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Can you tell I'm sick of the loons who insist THEY run the country like a banana republic?

[Scott Farkus]

That is an excellent question. I've been wondering the same for some time.

[philbo]

Very simply, it's called the Rule of Law, or the restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws. The rule of law is the principle that law should govern a nation, as opposed to being governed by decisions of individual government officials. That such a basic precept of democracy has to be discussed with adults in this country is beyond belief.

[warnmar10]

Very simply, it's called the Rule of Law, or the restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws. The rule of law is the principle that law should govern a nation, as opposed to being governed by decisions of individual government officials. That such a basic precept of democracy has to be discussed with adults in this country is beyond belief.

How do you square that vision with the concept of "three coequal branches" of government? Is one coequal branch more equal than the other two?

[Liberty]

Very simply, it's called the Rule of Law, or the restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws. The rule of law is the principle that law should govern a nation, as opposed to being governed by decisions of individual government officials. That such a basic precept of democracy has to be discussed with adults in this country is beyond belief.

How do you square that vision with the concept of "three coequal branches" of government? Is one coequal branch more equal than the other two?

They are not equal. Each branch has it's own independant seperate powers.

[Scott Farkus]

How do you square that vision with the concept of "three coequal branches" of government? Is one coequal branch more equal than the other two?

Exactly. It certainly seems like the judiciary has accumulated a disproportionate share of power over the past few decades. What the solution is, I don't know, maybe Congress needs to be more willing to exercise its impeachment powers. But this is heading in a very dangerous direction.

[philbo]

How do you square that vision with the concept of "three coequal branches" of government? Is one coequal branch more equal than the other two?

3 coequal branches... and where does that fiction emanate from? (Please say constitution, please say constitution...)

[TreyHouston]

Isnt this what is happening in Venezuela? Both the government and courts are attacking each other? Same here, a local judge is trying (and doing so) ruling the country. Sessions was talking about this in California last week.

[treadlightly]

On a related note, if anyone knows how to force any government entity to follow a law they deem inconvenient, I'm all ears.

My favorite bellwether for Texas is this little conundrum nobody cares about, even though election tampering is front page news:

State Election Code says that no voting system and no voting system equipment shall be used in a public election before passing certification by the Secretary of State.

All electronic ballots in Texas are prepared on Windows compatible computers.

The Secretary of State has never certified a single Windows compatible computer for use in elections. All elections unlawfully use uncertified equipment in violation of State Election Code.

Funny, huh? I've written a boatload of letters over the years and have yet to get a single public official interested, including the House Committee on Elections. They just don't care.

[The Annoyed Man]

It’s very frustrating ..... I agree. But the problem is that we are hoist by our own petard, so to speak. We make two claims of principle that hamstring us: (1) that we are law-abiding; and (2) that we live in a nation with the rule of law, not the rule of men.

The left has no problem with the rule of men, as long as they are the men ruling. And, they are the first to break any law they find objectionable - under the guise that resistance and civil disobedience are noble in and of themselves......even when their resistance is unlawful and their civil disobedience is immoral.

We insist on living in a Constitutional Republic, by the rules of a Constitutional Republic. Among other things, these rules establish a 3-legged stool of gov’t: the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Even though he or she may be wrong on the issue, when a federal judge — “obscure” only because you haven’t heard of him/her before, but a presidential appointment none-the-less — makes a ruling that is unfavorable to our national interests, it is still a constitutional ruling until such time as it works its way up through the federal court system to SCOTUS, and SCOTUS either upholds or overrules it.

The left is far more committed to its ideology than it is to a stable Constitutional gov’t. Federal court appointments are for life, so if, for instance, Obama appoints a leftist judge to a federal court at a fairly young age - say in his or her 40s - then that judge will continue to have an affect on the federal courts for the next 35-40 years.....or even longer, if he/she refuses to retire due to age. THAT is why federal judicial appointments are such an important part of choosing for whom you will vote. You can’t just vote on what you hear the candidate say on the campaign trail, you have to also vote on how likely it is that the candidate of your choice will have the opportunity to appoint judges, especially SCOTUS justices, and what kind of appointees he’ll consider for the bench.

I am sure that even the attorneys who are members of this forum, who tend toward the conservative or libertarian in their personal politics, will agree with the following statement....... “Attorneys, who make up the vast majority of judicial appointees, as a profession tend to be more liberal in their personal politics than are the general population at large.” Even the average conservative lawyer (a rare bird) is probably not as conservative as his constituency. I believe this has to do with the fact that their job isn’t necessarily to see that justice is done.....it is to seek the maximum advantage for their client under the law. Whatever the profession’s lofty goal of justice being done, it is purely a happy accident when achieving the maximum advantage for their client ALSO happens to be justice done; and the fact is that’s professionally speaking, achieving their client’s maximum advantage is MORE important than seeing Justice done. Even prosecutors operate under this notion - their client being the state. In any case, the liberalism of the average lawyer is why organizations of lawyers like the ACLU and ATLA wield such enormous political influence for the left. They raise funds from far more liberal lawyers than they do conservative lawyers, and they are essentially representing their lawyer constituencies - which tend to be liberal. There are fewer analogous associations of conservative lawyers, representing the legal interests of a smaller pool of conservative lawyers, that have wielded much influence for as long as have the ACLU and ATLA. Conservative litigation associations like ADF and Judicial Watch are much more recent phenomena.

Finally, the left uses the courts far more often to get its way than is good for the nation, and they do this because their policies fail in the marketplace of ideas, and in the political arena. The average citizen is more conservative in his or her views than the left would like to see. Consequently, the left’s ideas tend to be rejected by voters. By and large, American voters want a secure border, they want their 2nd amendment rights protected, they want some limitations placed on access to abortion, they want the rights of parents respected, they want freedom of speech and religion to be protected by gov’t instead of being limited by gov’t. ALL of these things are antipathetic to the left - which wants unlimited immigration across an open border, elimination of the 2nd Amendment, unlimited abortion rights paid for by the taxpayer, and the power to control speech and punish religion. Since it can’t achieve all of its goals in electoral politics, it seeks them in the courts. The courts are populated by judges who were once attorneys, and who tend to be more liberal than the politicians who appointed them.

Give someone power, and it will eventually corrupt them. Even “conservative giant” Scalia agreed that that it was good to expand “public good” eminent domain to include the business profits for private entities (Kelo v City of New London) over and above the interests of private property owners who were getting screwed by big business. That’s neither a conservative nor libertarian position. It is purely a “power of the state, colluding with big business, to trample the rights of the citizen” position. Allegedly conservative Chief Justic John Roberts danced on the puppet strings of Obama’s Justice Department when it argued in ONE phase of the Obamacare trial that the tax was a fine, and later in the trial changed its argument to the fine being a tax ......because Roberts led them to believe that he would rule favorably if it was a tax. Virtually every single “conservative” justice ever appointed ended up shifting to the left to some degree or other - even Scalia, though his shift was less apparent. So far, the only one who has remained faithful his conservative principles has been Clarence Thomas. The fact is that the federal court is a political institution at least as much as it is a judicial one ... maybe even more so. And just as the rest of gov’t has shifted over the years to the role of deep state with a leftward slant, so have the courts.

The entire abomination exists to thwart the will of the people. The joke on us is that as long as we call ourselves “law-abiding” and submit ourselves to the rule of law, We will continue to be dominated by the rule of men.

[BBYC]

Marbury v. Madison

[Abraham]

Ignore the judge - do what's right.

Want no borders, care not we are a nation without petty tyrants (petulant judges) dictating what's best for the country?

War is sometimes necessary to set forth the agreement that we DO have a county. If you come here, it's at OUR behest, not yours..don't like it, go elsewhere, like Venezuela, Cuba, or Syria.
Cuba is lucky to have a cat for Suday dinner you socialist/commie dumboes.

Over the years, all the variety of countries I've visited, not ONE said the immigrants dictated immigration laws.

Wake up America!

YOU are in charge...not illegal aliens.

[flechero]

Why can't we find some "obscure" judge to rule against sanctuary cities and BAM! problem solved.

[philbo]

Why can't we find some "obscure" judge to rule against sanctuary cities and BAM! problem solved.

It may not be some obscure judge, but SCOTUS that does exactly that since they have already upheld some of Trumps rules.