We judge

  I'm expecting all the experts on the Supreme court to appear on Facebook. That will be in response to the deportation of criminals, without due process. If you are in my country illegally the only due process you are entitled to is the process of being deported, and that is the court of Ben. That process involves loading you on a bus or plane! But the experts will all weigh in on Facebook and other media platforms declaring the power of the court and federal judges. Thing is, the constitution gives the "power of judicial review" to that court. The constitution actually says little more than that about the court. It is the lawyers over the years that have defined those powers, subject to change over the decades. The power of the court was quite different 100 years ago as compared to what it is perceived to be today. Remember this is a court that decides what cases it will or will not hear. That's convenient. It's also necessary as the court would never be able to get anything done if they had to listen to every case that wasn't settled to someone's satisfaction in the lower courts. 

 I make no claims to knowing a great deal about all of this. I'm quite certain however that a lower court judge doesn't get to establish national policy. I really don't think he/she has the power to overthrow the decision of the president. The supreme court may rule on the constitutionality of a presidents actions/decisions but even the supreme court doesn't get to change those decisions. That power is vested in the congress, the only body that can make law. But all that is just civics 101. That is simply how the system was designed to work. The power of judicial review, the ability of the court to declare  law or executive action unconstitutional is not in the text of the constitution itself. The court established that in 1803. Yes, it was the opinion of the court that they should have that authority. Still, it isn't what the constitution says. I leave all that to the lawyers.

 The supreme court is often called the court of last resort. When you have failed to make your case anywhere else that is where you make your last appeal. You don't start there! You have to go through all the lower courts first. That's how it works. Then , if all those courts failed to give you satisfaction you can ask the supreme court to hear your case. The court will request all the documents from the lower courts, review them and then decide on the merit of the case. Generally it takes four Justices to say the case has merit before it will be heard. Now this "case" of deporting criminals without due process may indeed make it to the court. It does have to "get in line" like everyone else though.  The case will have to center on whether federal judges have authority over the executive branch. 

 The constitution does not explicitly mention deportation or immigration. The supreme courts function is to rule on the constitutionality of legislation. I can't see where that is possible when it isn't a constitutional question. The constitution doesn't say anything about that. You have to look elsewhere for that. The court can hear arguments that you can't deport illegal criminal aliens without giving then due process of law but they haven't done so, yet. So, the decision stands as it is until such time as the court either decides to take the case or dismiss it. A federal judge does not hold that power. I'm no expert on any of this but I can read. 

 The supreme court usually takes anywhere from three months to a year to decide on a case. A federal judge doesn't get to decide that in one day! That isn't how that works at all. If you wish to protect the "due process" of criminals in our country illegally the supreme court is the authority on that. Get in line, file your brief, and let the court decide on hearing that or not. Until then, the deportation of illegal criminals continues! Period. That's how it works. We all have to wait for an opinion from the court. Then, and only then, can congress act on the constitutionality of a law. You know they don't have to agree, they have the power to change the law, change that constitution. We the people decide that in the end, not a judge.