Posted on 11/26/2015 4:46:29 AM PST by Elderberry
On Friday, the U.S. Justice Department filed a 35-page petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review Texas v. U.S., the case filed by 26 states against President Obama's immigration amnesty plan.
The government is appealing a preliminary injunction that stopped implementation of Obama's amnesty plan, which was issued by a federal district court and upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on Nov. 9.
In an odd coincidence, Donald Verrilli, the solicitor general, filed the petition on the one-year anniversary of Obama's speech to the nation on Nov. 20, 2014, where he announced his unprecedented, unilateral action to violate federal immigration law and provide lawful status and work permits to as many as five million illegal aliens.
The government's petition asks the Supreme Court to take up the case, despite the fact that this is only a preliminary injunction. No permanent injunction has been issued, and no trial has yet been held. But Verrilli claims that review is needed now because of the "great and immediate significance" of the president's amnesty plan and "the irreparable injury to the many families affected by delay in its implementation, and the broad importance of the questions presented."
Of course, given that the Obama administration has virtually stopped all of its deportation procedures, with only some exceptions for certain criminal aliens, it is hard to imagine what "irreparable injury" all of these illegal aliens will suffer, since they have, in all practical terms, been granted "lawful presence" already even without the president's official amnesty plan in place.
It is true that the preliminary injunction prevents the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from issuing work permits to illegal aliens, but even that is probably not that significant for many of them, because employers all over the country know that the administration has no interest in enforcing federal law barring employers from hiring illegal aliens.
What Is the Government Arguing?
The government makes the same losing arguments to the Supreme Court that it made to the Fifth Circuit, all of which were disposed of by the court of appeals in a very thorough, well-written opinion. Verrilli claims none of the states even have standing to sue the federal government because any costs they incur from illegal aliens being granted lawful presence are just "voluntary." This is almost a farcical argument, given the enormous education, health care, and law enforcement costs imposed on the states with the influx of huge numbers of illegal aliens into their communities.
Verrilli also makes the over-the-top claim that this injunction is "unprecedented" and "in violation of established limits on the judicial power." Thus, "if left undisturbed, that ruling will allow States to frustrate the federal government's enforcement of the Nation's immigration laws" (emphasis added). Given how far outside the "established limits" of the president's executive power under the Constitution the immigration amnesty plan is, claiming that it is the courts-and not the administration-acting outside the scope of their constitutional powers is almost insulting.
And it is quite audacious to accuse the courts of frustrating the administration's "enforcement of the Nation's immigration laws" when the whole policy of this president is to frustrate enforcement of our immigration laws.
As the Fifth Circuit pointed out, it was the president himself who said that because Congress refused to amend our immigration laws to suit his interests, he had to "change the law" himself. That is a far cry from enforcing our current immigration laws as passed by Congress and signed into law by this or a prior president.
The Administrative Procedure Act
The government also reiterates the unsuccessful arguments made in the lower courts that the states have no claim under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the federal statute governing the issuance of new regulations and rules by government agencies.
The solicitor general continues to claim that Jeh Johnson, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, had "ample authority to issue" the "guidance" that implemented the president's amnesty plan, including not just giving illegal aliens "lawful presence" status in the U.S. so they cannot be removed or deported, but also providing them with work permits.
Verrilli argues that the immigration amnesty plan and Johnson's "guidance" should be exempt from all notice and comment requirements under the APA because otherwise "it threatens far-reaching consequences by constraining needed flexibility to adapt enforcement policies to changing circumstances and priorities." To the contrary, the whole point of the APA is to force federal agencies like DHS to provide notice and an opportunity for the public to comment on major changes in rules, regulations, and policies.
The APA doesn't stop agencies from having the flexibility needed to adapt to "changing circumstances and priorities," but it makes sure they don't do so in secret on an arbitrary and capricious basis without the public and individuals who will be affected by these changes having a chance to influence the agency. This is vitally important, since the purpose of the executive branch is to serve the best interests of the public as a whole, something that does not always seem to be the objective of this administration.
On Nov. 23, the Texas solicitor general, Scott Keller, sent a request to the Supreme Court asking for an extension of time to respond to the Justice Department's petition until Jan. 20, 2016. Keller cited "pressing deadlines" in numerous other Texas cases before the Supreme Court, including oral argument in Evenwel v. Abbott, a redistricting case, which is scheduled for Dec. 8.
There is one thing that the government gets right: This is an important case that is vital to the future of this country, although certainly not in the way the administration claims. This case is about the rule of law and the constitutional limits on the power of the executive branch. So the Supreme Court may very well take the case. If they do, we have to hope that they uphold the injunction and don't allow the president to act as an unchecked monarch who can change whatever laws he doesn't like at will.
Hello? cheif justice roberts hello? we need another vote of confidence for the American people just like obamacare
It’s not just an amnesty plan anymore. It’s an invasion.
Oh and Chief Justice Roberts?
Did you need any extra copies of those (ahem) compromising pictures we sent to you just before that historic ObamaCare vote? Just let us know if you need more for your family and friends, ok?
Happy Thanksgiving!
https://www.texastribune.org/2015/11/24/doj-urges-supreme-court-deny-states-request-extens/
Texas, leading a 26-state coalition that has successfully blocked the plan in lower courts, has asked the high court for a delay that some predict would push any ruling so late into - or even beyond - Obama’s last term that it would effectively doom the proposal.
It was the federal government’s move Tuesday, and the U.S. Department of Justice asked the court to reject Texas’ request for a 30-day extension to file its brief in the case, but says it is open to an eight-day delay if the response is “physically on file” at that time.
A full delay could mean the high court doesn’t render a final decision on the program - known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents - until June 2017, U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. said in a letter to Supreme Court Clerk Scott S. Harris. That would be more than two years after the president announced the policy that would protect more than four million undocumented immigrants from deportation proceedings and allow them to apply for three-year work permits.
Brownsville-based U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen has already struck down the program, finding that Obama violated federal law by enacting it through an executive order, and the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld that ruling.
The White House filed its appeal with the Supreme Court on Friday, and Texas promptly requested a 30-day extension to respond.
Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller cited several other cases the state has pending before the court that it must prepare for. He also said the White House could have acted sooner if it was worried about the immediate effects of the lower courts’ rulings.
It’s unclear when the high court will decide on the extension, but the justice department said it’s prepared to press on should the extension be granted.
“We note, however, that should state respondents’ request for a 30-day extension be granted, we anticipate filing a motion for expedition and a May argument session to permit the case to be heard this Term,” Verrilli wrote.
FYI. Please ping the list!
Bet they refuse to hear it. There is no reason for them to hear it. By all admissions, Obama’s plan breaks the law.
Obama’s aim is to get the documents to at least 4 million to 7 million illegals, and up to 34 million (the 34 mil number is sourced from the federal register) AND ... then get them immediate citizenship by coaching them to lie that they have been in the USA for at least 5 years, AND ... then registered to vote.
Once they are given expedited citizenship status, they will be relocated to critical swing districts around the country where they will be used to keep power in the democrats hands for generations so that the ‘Fundamental Transformation’ is never derailed.
Let’s pray the USSC does not take it up this session. If they put it on next year’s calendar, the case won’t be heard until mid-2017 when Obama and his hang will be gone.
groan
It’s up to the Bush’s Appointments
One thing is certain, the scotus has 3 judges of honor. The rest are as sneaky as any politician and at least 3 are leftist pigs. Aka common criminals.in black robes.
Obama’s aim is to get the documents to at least 4 million to 7 million illegals,
*****
Short quote:
Refugees [...] can become citizens as soon as six years after being granted refugees or asylum status in the United States.
Nov 19 2015
Judicial Watch Sues Obama Administration for Records about Citizenship Push for Immigrants
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3362716/posts
Immigration Services would normally conduct a criminal and security background investigation of an immigration applicant upon his or her filing for naturalization. In 2012, Immigration Services abandoned required background checks, adopting, instead, “ lean and lite “ procedures in effort to keep up with the flood of amnesty applications spurred by President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) executive amnesty, an expansion of which has been ruled illegal by the federal courts. Nevertheless, thousands of illegal aliens exempted from deportation under Obama’s unilateral amnesty moves are also potentially eligible for citizenship . The Obama administration has already have admitted into the United States a large number of people with documented ties to ISIS and other radical Islamic groups. Refugees (from Syria, Somalia, and other countries) can become citizens as soon as six years after being granted refugees or asylum status in the United States.
Obama’s plan is not to wait for the years to pass to confer citizenship. Members of Congress have already stated a plan exists to have the illegals lie that they have been in the USA for the years required for immediate citizenship qualification.
The numbers planned for this illegal granting of citizenship is not in the thousands, it is in the millions. The reason behind these moves to citizenship is to confer eligibility to vote.
What we need to do is build a whole bunch of gallows because in about a year we’re going to need to do a lot of hanging of these criminals currently occupying the federal gov.starting with everyone at the white hut.
Supreme Court = Owned
See Obamacare
If true, this isn't an offense suitable for impeachment. It is out-and-out treason, grounds for summary dispatch.
You’re far too charitable. We have nine unelected political hacks in black muumuus to lord it over us.
And our forefathers fought a revolution for this?
His first illegal amnesty for illegal aliens, DACA is also illegal. He has no authority to grant legal status to illegal aliens.
If we had an opposition party they would have been in court the day after he did that in 2012. But they want amnesty, too.
Trump said at his last rally that he doesn’t care what reasoning lies behind Obama’s plans, we just need to get him OUT OF THERE NOW!
I thought there might be a small sliver of fear behind the confidence in Donald Trump when he said it because he repeated “We don’t have much time”, “If we could call for a special election like other countries, we should hold the election tomorrow”.
And then there’s Valerie Jarrett stating just days ago that Obama’s no lame duck and that big things are planned in his final year.
What we need is hard intelligence of what is planned. We need patriots to blow the whistle even if it means putting their lives in danger.
Sounds radical and extreme but unfortunately, it may be what is needed. Gallows on the Mall to leave a historical record and imprint of what Americans did to traitors at the beginning of the 21st century.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.