Get the App

Newsvoice isn't just another news site. It's crowdsourced and democratized. We move the power over the news to you. Join the movement by downloading the app.

porcus 1 weeks
VERY broad support within SCOTUS - 7 out of 9 justices agreeing with the Trump administration. But you can bet that the Left will shrilly screech about how wrong the SCOTUS is on this ruling, instead of examining their own flawed beliefs.
Ivory 1 weeks
The recent trend of regional judges blocking the enforcement of laws they disagree with... And issuing nationwide injunctions no less.. It has to stop. SCOTUS essentially ruled that a judge impeded the law for months.
porcus 1 weeks
Agreed. Judicial activism was possible when the 9th circuit court was structured in an ideologically imbalanced way; I like that Trump is getting to assign replacement justices there and this lunacy should stop soon.

porcus 1 weeks
BOOM! SCOTUS has stopped the Leftist 9th circuit court's interference so hopefully the US can get some progress made on this.

WWG1WGA 1 weeks
More proof the crypt keeper Ruth Bader Ginsberg needs to retire

porcus 1 weeks
Also, hopefully Trump is able to replace EVEN MORE of the 9th circuit court's justices - 13 out of 29 is a nice start but I think it would be better to have a clean majority.
Watheverable GRAMPS 1 weeks
Tenho amor

bobby_5150 1 weeks
Can we get an injunction on the 9th circuit?
porcus 1 weeks
Trump is replacing them, slowly. Pretty soon they will not be so crazy anymore.

Andrew 1010 1 weeks
Yes finally SCOTUS gets it rolling.

Andrew 1010 1 weeks
Which is a rational and reasonable approach and stance to take.

Ivory 1 weeks
We're so lucky the "Supreme Court" has decided the law s for us. Imagine living in a country where the people are in charge, rather than 9 judges telling us what laws they like, and what laws they don't. The fact is.. A judge shouldn't be able to stop law enforcement from enforcing laws that are passed by congress and signed by the POTUS. Period. We don't need the Supreme Court to tell us that.
porcus 1 weeks
It's a necessary balance of power, but I would strongly prefer that there was a bit more ideological balance in the lower courts. Really, it's an issue between the court being "literal" on its approach to the law, or "interpretive" - trying to understand the spirit of the law. Some things need to be literal and others it's more important to be concerned about what the law is actually trying to solve. We can't say that the laws are written perfectly, or that the law makers are very inclined to re-write a poorly written law. :/
cledge fenrir 1 weeks
but the Supreme Court don't decide the laws Congress when they make the laws. The courts' job is to make sure the laws are followed. The only thing Democratic about America is electing our representatives.
Fred Armstrong 1 weeks
actaull pledge. the courts are supposed to interpret the law or if you will. judge it's constitutionality. the executive branch makes sure they are followed

John Wilson 1 weeks
yea these decisions to block have become automatic. that clearly is abusing the system. they have to fast track these or require more circuits to agree. checks and balances don't work if they are not performer in good faith. this goes way beyond politics, it is undermining our republic. but perhaps that is thier goal, to let it burn.

Luficer Morningstar 1 weeks
not anymore ;)

porcus 1 weeks
Nothing wrong with this policy, good on the SCOTUS for the 7-9 ruling.

Michael Tatom 1 weeks

Paul C 1 weeks

FirstCensorshipThenJail 1 weeks
Warning shots fired. Next up, judges removed from the bench for willfully subverting the constitution and judicial overreach to destabilize the union and the legal system. Purge the communists.