I’m not sure you understand how the judicial branch works.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They ARE getting due process. But in cases of removal proceedings, some undocumented immigrants get almost no due process: In 1996, Congress created expedited removal for undocumented immigrants without a hearing. Initially it only applied at the U.S. border. Then it was expanded to within 100 miles of a border for undocumented immigrants who had been in the country less than 14 days.


But, in general they are getting due process. However they cannot not have equal protection of the laws in every respect. If they did, they could not be deported.

The 14th Amendment says that no State can "deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law". Obviously, Congress can create laws that apply specifically to immigration, as noted above.

So they are not being deprived of life or property. And they are given due process which may be, in some cases, limited by immigration law.

I understand how it works under Progressive jurisprudence, which gives Judges the ability to "interpret" law according personal opinion and according to some institutionally created principles that are expressive of various supposedly higher principles but are not expressed nor inherent in the Constitution.

And I understand how it should work. That is, Constitutional Judges are to apply the law, as it is written, no matter how inconvenient that might be for some parties in the dispute. If a law is not deemed by a Judge to be "just," that Judge, or Judges, can recommend that Congress fix it. But, constitutionally, the Supreme Court Judges are not given the power to do the fixing. They certainly are not given the power to judge by personal whim.

appears as though neither you, nor Sotomayor, understand how the American judicial system is supposed to work :confused:

We now have to negotiate to enforce laws
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If that was really the case we wouldn't need judges. Hell, think of the savings.

We negotiate to enforce all pretty much all laws. Always have, always will.

Huh?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Judges resolve disputes--disputes between government entities, disputes between private entities, and disputes between private and government entities. Judges are referees in a dispute, they are not to be an opposing party in a dispute. Referees are bound by rules. If there were no rules which bound and guided a referee, a judge could not be impartial. The judge would become a party to the dispute. The verdict would be in favor of the side whose argument the judge preferred, rather than on the side whose argument was consistent with fundamental rules.

This all is particularly true of a SCOTUS Justice since it affects the supreme law of the land. Which is why I said that "Constitutional Judges are to apply the law, as it is written, no matter how inconvenient that might be for some parties in the dispute." When a Supreme Court decision is based on a majority preference rather than on the law, the law is abridged. In effect, a new law, written by judges, not by Congress, is created and becomes precedent for further judicial mischief and destruction of the Constitution. Which further vitiates the true role of judge as referee bound by rules, and turns judges into legislators who create rules rather than being bound by them.

And this fits nicely into what role a judge plays in Progressive jurisprudence. The Progressive judge becomes an added party to the dispute, on the side of the progressive argument rather than a referee, thus further advancing Progressive rule of unlimited government power. The Progressive judge, in effect, becomes redundant, an addition to one side of the dispute. And this fits well into your statement that "we wouldn't need judges. Hell, think of the savings."

Our constitutional system requires judges who can finally and impartially resolve a dispute by applying the law. Progressive political ideology has no need of judges. Government can do as it wishes. There are no rules to which it must adhere. There is no need for judges.

Equal application of the law requires judges to interpret the Constitution. This isn't progressive jurisprudence, it's how the branch of government operates. You're just spinning the decades old complaint by some that judges legislate from the bench, which only seems to be a problem for findings that mostly appeal to the left.

I am not spinning it. I am stating it. And you're not denying that it happens. Progressive judges do legislate from the bench. And it doesn't "seem" to be a problem to you and the rest of the Progressives because it is by far mostly Progressive judges that do it. It is a problem for those who see that as being tyrannical. Who see that as a way to transfer more power to the federal government than it has been given in the Constitution.

And yes, yes, yes--it does appeal to the left. That is the hallmark of the Progressive left. Growth of central government power to the eventual point that it has all of it. Which absolutely and intentionally includes Judicial legislation intruding on and usurping Congress's power and on the constitutional power granted to the people in order to transfer that power to a one size fits all irresistible government.

I guess the court
Did not just legislate from the bench overturning 41 years of presedent on a claim it a violation of the 1st amendment of course not ... only liberal judges do that !!!! Or the ones you don't agree with it's crystal clear

No, they didn't create legislation. They overturned the 41 years of unconstitutional legislation with its ensuing bad precedent. They freed up the rights of people to enjoy their First Amendment rights. That did not proscribe the free speech rights of others as did the legislation that they overturned.

Removing a law is not creating a law. Removing laws that abridge freedoms in the Constitution reverts the status of law back to its original position.

And I didn't say only "liberal" judges legislate from the Bench. I said that it was predominantly Progressive ones that do so.

So are you implying the court 41 years ago had no understanding of the Constitution and we're legislating from the bench and let stand a Un constitutional ruling stand for 40 years ... that had be litigated mutiple time's over those years....
But 2018 new info came to light and changed their minds
Ya OK

No. It was not new info. It was the original Constitution that came into light regarding this issue.. It had been covered for 40 years by the darkness of Progressive legislation from the bench. The Court does not instigate trials on its own. Constitutional challenges have to be brought to the Court by those who have standing to do so.

It had been covered for 40 years by the darkness of Progressive legislation


WOW you are really out there ..

The truth can be confusing to those inside the bubble.