Posted on 10/03/2016 9:42:32 AM PDT by MaxistheBest
Trump should call a news conference and tell Americans that this is only the first step; now we need to enforce the law.
And, when they win they say "the people have spoken".
Who says ya can't have it both ways?
This case shows how close to the cliff edge we are.
If Hillary gets to stack the courts with fellow America haters, it’s game over.
Open borders forever. The USA becomes a third world country forever.
Judge Hanen now should call the Lawyers from the Corruptist Dept. that lied to him about the specifics of the case, throw their asps in jail for contempt of Court for a year and level about 100,000 dollar fine on each of them personally.
I have followed this case very closely, and this does not close the book on this case. The appeal was from a preliminary injunction; the trial is yet to be had. Do you remember the issue of the “unethical conduct” by the U. S. Attorneys in the case? The unethical conduct was that they lied to the Court and to the plaintiffs about whether Homeland Security/INS was processing deferred status applications after the Court ordered them halted. The government was using the application process to make their evidence for the trial in this case, which has not yet taken place. We will see whether the Judge allows them to use evidence created in violation of his order.
As for the outcome, ultimately it depends on the November election. If Trump is elected, he rescinds the DAPA order and the case becomes moot and is dismissed. If Clinton is elected, she appoints the deciding 5th vote, and when the case comes back to the SCOTUS, the program is upheld.
No, the book is not closed.
No, I didn't know what you said and I'm glad you followed it and explained it so well
What does all this do to DACA .. the program already in place?
I can't keep my head wrapped around ALL the various subject matter regarding the undocumented illegal worker.
Yeah as if obozo and his cohorts will follow the law. They already are violating the previous decisions
“This is Barry’s MO...touch it, blight it. Look back at the last 8 yrs and its a clutter of destruction.”
Best summary of Obama’s Presidency.
Me, too. Please continue to update us. There is so much noise that these important legal battles get lost in the reverb.
DACA was challenged by the State of Mississippi and the Border Patrol Union in Crane v. Johnson, which was decided by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2015. The 5th Circuit is the same Circuit that issued the current legally binding opinion in U.S. v. Texas. In Crane v. Johnson, the 5th Circuit held that the plaintiffs (State of Mississippi) failed to establish standing to sue. Mississippi alleged that the program would cause them to incur costs in providing public education to the DACA children. However, Mississippi did not quantify the dollar amount it would cost the state, and the 5th Circuit said it could not find actual harm based on speculation. Therefore, no standing. So the Constitutionality of DACA has never been ruled upon and it’s still an open question.
The ruling in Crane v. Johnson was the reason Texas relied upon the drivers’ license requirement to establish standing. Issuance of a driver’s license by the Texas Department of Public Safety is not paid for 100% by license fees; there is a subsidy portion paid for out of the state general fund. Because Texas could quantify the exact amount it subsidizes for the issuance of a driver’s license, and can project the number of potential DAPA applicants, they were able to specifically quantify the fiscal impact to the state, and establish standing to sue.
See post 27.
Ooh, that won’t sit well. Zero is going to push even harder everywhere else.
PS; Crane v. Johnson was decided in April 2015, which was when the case of Texas v. United States was pending before Judge Hanen in the District Court. In Crane v. Johnson, Mississippi belatedly tried to make the drivers license argument, probably because they saw the argument Texas was making in the trial court. I say “belated” because they didn’t realize they had a drivers license argument when their case was before the trial court, and tried to raise it for the first time on appeal. Because of that, there was no actual evidence of fiscal impact from the trial court which the 5th Circuit could rule upon, and the Court of Appeals ruled Mississippi waived the issue.
The 5th Circuit opinion in Texas v. U.S. specifically notes those circumstance from Crane v. Johnson, and distinguishes it on that basis.
I have a 9 page outline of the 5th Circuit opinion in Texas v. U.S. laying around somewhere; I prepared it for our local high school’s “We The People” team for national competition last spring.
So if there is any Govt contribution or financial part in a matter, it can be adjudicated ?
Wow, Henks, those must be some bright high schoolers! The part that made this case a stand out was the Judge requiring Holder/Lynch’s attorneys to take Ethics classes. What a Judge.
Of course it’s somewhat more complicated...the concept of standing is that in order to establish “case and controversy,” you have to show you have some skin in the game. You have to show that the action of the government has a specific negative impact on you, and that a Court decision will alleviate that impact. The concept of standing for a state to sue the Federal government is kind of a new idea and does not have much historical precedent. There are plenty of precedents where the federal government sues states to gain compliance with Federal law, such as United States v. Arizona, where Arizona’s citizen identification statute was ruled unconstitutional.
The concept of state standing to sue comes from Massachussetts v. EPA, where Massachussetts sued the EPA to force them to declare carbon dioxide a pollutant subject to EPA regulation under the Clean Air Act. It was an absolute abomination of a case. In effect, it allowed states to have direct legal input into federal policy. Massachussetts v. EPA declared that states have “special solicitude” in establishing standing.
Well, isn’t it ironic that the very political stripe that wanted Massachussetts to have standing to sue is now absolutely apoplectic when Texas uses the argument of “special solicitude” to claim standing to block one of their favorite policies? The irony does not escape me. They created Frankenstein’s monster, and now they are horrified to find it turned on them.
And yes, 2015-2016 team had some very bright high school kids on it. Smarter than I am. This years’ team may even be better.
“filing lawsuits against”, would perhaps be more accurate wording. :-)
thanks
I know illegals are still flowing through. I’ll take a win against this guy though and celebrate.
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.