Obama's immigration action determined to be unconstitutional.

Marle wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/26/appeals-court-refuses-to-lift-hold-on-obama-immigration-action/

Your title is moronic. Completely. Moronic.

The lower court put an injunction on the actions to prevent them from taking place while the lawsuit goes on.

This appeals court here said that the injunction will stay. It won't be lifted.

There has been no judgment on the case itself. It is common procedure to prevent parties from doing things that may mess up a later judgment. It is called Civil Procedure 101.

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE POLICY. NOTHING!!!

Why are some people so bad at reading and don't understand anything about the law in the US? It makes me angry.

asdlkfjalksdjfa;slfj wrote:

Marle wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/26/appeals-court-refuses-to-lift-hold-on-obama-immigration-action/

Your title is moronic. Completely. Moronic.

The lower court put an injunction on the actions to prevent them from taking place while the lawsuit goes on.

This appeals court here said that the injunction will stay. It won't be lifted.

There has been no judgment on the case itself. It is common procedure to prevent parties from doing things that may mess up a later judgment. It is called Civil Procedure 101.

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE POLICY. NOTHING!!!

Why are some people so bad at reading and don't understand anything about the law in the US? It makes me angry.

Obama hates the USA and the constitution. I'm not surprised his actions have been found unconstitutional by the Supremes.

libertarian wrote:

asdlkfjalksdjfa;slfj wrote:

Your title is moronic. Completely. Moronic.

The lower court put an injunction on the actions to prevent them from taking place while the lawsuit goes on.

This appeals court here said that the injunction will stay. It won't be lifted.

There has been no judgment on the case itself. It is common procedure to prevent parties from doing things that may mess up a later judgment. It is called Civil Procedure 101.

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE POLICY. NOTHING!!!

Why are some people so bad at reading and don't understand anything about the law in the US? It makes me angry.

Obama hates the USA and the constitution. I'm not surprised his actions have been found unconstitutional by the Supremes.

True Story

asdlkfjalksdjfa;slfj wrote:

Marle wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/26/appeals-court-refuses-to-lift-hold-on-obama-immigration-action/

Your title is moronic. Completely. Moronic.

The lower court put an injunction on the actions to prevent them from taking place while the lawsuit goes on.

This appeals court here said that the injunction will stay. It won't be lifted.

There has been no judgment on the case itself. It is common procedure to prevent parties from doing things that may mess up a later judgment. It is called Civil Procedure 101.

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE POLICY. NOTHING!!!

Why are some people so bad at reading and don't understand anything about the law in the US? It makes me angry.

Please show us all where in the Constitution the POTUS has the legal authority to change current immigration law.

Because otherwise, your response to the OP is looking rather moronic itself.

Just out of curiosity wrote:

asdlkfjalksdjfa;slfj wrote:

Your title is moronic. Completely. Moronic.

The lower court put an injunction on the actions to prevent them from taking place while the lawsuit goes on.

This appeals court here said that the injunction will stay. It won't be lifted.

There has been no judgment on the case itself. It is common procedure to prevent parties from doing things that may mess up a later judgment. It is called Civil Procedure 101.

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE POLICY. NOTHING!!!

Why are some people so bad at reading and don't understand anything about the law in the US? It makes me angry.

Please show us all where in the Constitution the POTUS has the legal authority to change current immigration law.

Because otherwise, your response to the OP is looking rather moronic itself.

OK.

OP said Obama's actions were determined to be unconstitutional. Then he posted a link.

In the link, where does it say that? Point it out exactly where or you look moronic.

All it said was that Obama can't do crap while the litigation is ongoing. Appeals court held that a preliminary injunction should say in place, which is to maintain the status quo.

So, the point is that the COURT hearing this lawsuit has not yet determined anything. How does this mean that Obama's action's are unconstitutional? That is the whole point of the litigation.

Moron.

My bad.

sajdflkdsajf;sfda;lsdjf wrote:

Just out of curiosity wrote:

Please show us all where in the Constitution the POTUS has the legal authority to change current immigration law.

Because otherwise, your response to the OP is looking rather moronic itself.

OK.

OP said Obama's actions were determined to be unconstitutional. Then he posted a link.

In the link, where does it say that? Point it out exactly where or you look moronic.

All it said was that Obama can't do crap while the litigation is ongoing. Appeals court held that a preliminary injunction should say in place, which is to maintain the status quo.

So, the point is that the COURT hearing this lawsuit has not yet determined anything. How does this mean that Obama's action's are unconstitutional? That is the whole point of the litigation.

Moron.

Well hey there poindexter, perhaps you could read the Constitution yourself and tell us how Obama's actions are fully within the parameters set for the Executive Branch by said document. You seem to think that We The People don't have the wherewithall nor the proper standing to read and understand what the Constitution states unequivocally, that only the courts have that ability. It's not like the Constitution is written in Latin or Klingon, wherein we'd probably need a higher authority to interpret said document.

Lucky for you, it's written in plain old English, so unless you are a moron ....