Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
If I live in a jurisdiction in which the district attorney expressly refuses to prosecute anyone who steals purses from old ladies carrying less than $10,000 in cash and valuables, does that establish a legal right to steal purses from old ladies? If a cop or some do-gooder grabs me a few seconds after they hear some annoying old lady yelling about being robbed, can they take that purse from me and return it to her without a hearing or due process?
We live in a jurisdiction (the USA) in which a lawless chief enforcement official (Joseph Robinette Biden) not only refused to enforce immigration law but actively imported illegal aliens. Ten or twenty million purse-snatchers and their allies believe that a right to keep the purse has been established.
I am not thrilled with a prison being a main deportation destination, nor am I pleased that the Administration has blown off some minimal procedural steps in some instances that gave lawfare warriors an opening.
But it has to be established beyond question that Biden’s lawlessness did not create a right that can be challenged only by formal process in each individual case. The lawfare being waged over the specifics of immigration enforcement clearly carries an intent of smuggling in/establishing such a right.
Discussion (37)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I see two intentions. One is a long-term destructive intent on America's rule of law as described in the concluding remark. This is the Communist-oriented "domestic enemy" at work. The second one is to delay enforcement in an attempt to keep President Trump from establishing a governing record that solidifies the support of the American people with the objective being to influence the 2026 midterm elections to favor Democrats.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I agree. Who thought we'd live to see lawlessness by our judiciary system?
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
So what happens now?
Your comment @SusanQuinn and the point of the OP is that the Executive is acting lawfully and the Judiciary is acting unlawfully. Normally, Congressional action would settle the issue but that can be difficult with the Senate filibuster.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
It really did not take long.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
The proper Constitutional action for unlawful action by POTUS is impeachment, no?
You're seeing five of 37 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.