Posted on 02/04/2016 5:35:43 AM PST by reaganaut1
Hard-wired into the Supreme Court’s DNA is the notion that the court doesn’t reach out to decide a constitutional issue if it can resolve a case by interpreting a statute. “The court will not anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it,†is how Justice Louis D. Brandeis expressed this principle of judicial restraint 80 years ago in a concurring opinion to which the court often makes reference.
Wow. The “guidance†is the memo that established the deferred-action program, issued in November 2014 by Jeh Johnson, the secretary of Homeland Security. The Take Care Clause provides that the president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.†It is a constitutional provision that the Supreme Court has hardly ever addressed directly. Justice Antonin Scalia invoked it years ago, in a 1992 decision holding that environmental organizations lacked standing to challenge the adequacy of the Reagan administration’s enforcement of the Endangered Species Act.
So the court’s action two weeks ago in accepting the Obama administration’s appeal in a major immigration case was startling. The surprise was not that the court agreed to hear the case, United States v. Texas, an appeal from a ruling that the president lacked authority under the immigration laws to defer deporting undocumented immigrants whose children are American citizens or lawful permanent residents. It was rather the blockbuster constitutional question that the justices added to the case, a question the court had not been asked, and one that neither of the lower federal courts had even addressed when they ruled on purely statutory grounds against the administration.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Personally, ‘take care’ is not to be taken by itself. It goes on to say “to faithfully execute”.
“Take Care” without “faithfully” means nothing.
Here the Scotus has focused, so they say, on ‘take care’.
I’ve no doubt we’ll have logical handsprings that would embarrass even the sophists before this is over. They end up saying it’s in the mind of the beholder, and Obama is the relevant beholder.
Obama is not worried. He will just roll-out whatever blackjack he has on Chief Justice Roberts again. Kind of like a legal version of “Dance Rummy....dance!”.
I think there are old cases dealing with the issue. Prez enforce not make laws.
There have been a lot of 9-0 decisions by this Supreme Court slapping the Obama Administration down for executive overreach.
Iirc the Court has actually been escalating it’s language in telling Obama to knock it off. And again we’re talking 9-0 decisions here.
As ideologically divided as the Court is, the one thing the Justices are really unified on is the Judiciary’s perogative in interpreting Constitution and statute. The stupid little political games the Obama Admin played with the 5th Circuit will not have gone unnoticed. So I’m hopeful with this one.
SCOTUS has been known to reach beyond the issue handed to it. Not often, but not unheard of. These “American citizens of illegal aliens” may be found to not be citizens at all, in addition to ruling on the take care clause.
It opens with (basically), the Court makes opinionated determinations (in part) based on previous opinions and not Law
I copied it out and is in my library (bathroom) for study later today
Possible, but about as likely as Mrs. Clinton being arrested.
I've been known to do that. :>)
But in the case of the Scotus, did you read Anthony Kennedy's homosexual marriage decision. He'd have gotten a 10 on all cards at the Olympics for his handsprings. It was disgraceful, the pseudo-logic that was used.
So, I have reason for being skeptical of the scotus.
Agreed.
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.