Posted on 02/16/2015 8:51:16 PM PST by sheikdetailfeather
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott announced on Monday night that a federal judge has “granted” his request to “halt” President Barack Obama’s “Executive Amnesty Order” across the country.
Abbott didn’t immediately offer any other details, but promised for information later.
BREAKING: Federal Judge just granted my request to halt Obama's Executive Amnesty Order Nationwide. More later. #txlege #tcot @TexasGOP
— Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) February 17, 2015
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
What is sad is how millions of Americans think he has no over reached and last week my son aged 17 was in a college class where over half the students thought the President should only enforce the laws when he wants to and the President makes the laws.
There was only my son, one Sheriff deputy and a couple of others who argued about how the Government works.
For your information and those that are reading, as has been repeated hundreds of times over the past few months here on FR, the federal injunction order stops all and any aspects.
Now what that means is that federal workers and federal contractors are stopped from participating in any way with the implementation of DAPA.
Obama can shriek all he wants but in order to implement his lawless policy he must have bodies to carry it out.
For example, the main hologram ID manufacturer is General Dynamics in Corbin, Kentucky. There is no chance that GD will violate a federal judge’s order for a business that barely registers if at all to their total bottom line government sales.
And federal workers will not risk arrest by US Marshals assigned to federal courts.
So as of now, Executive Amnesty is toast.
There will be an appeal but I believe strongly that an appeal will not hold up. That leaves Judge Hanen lots of time to run out the clock on Obama’s lawlessness.
Texas yet again having to save our sorry asses form the stupidity of too many Americans.
I seriously don’t know why you guys stay attached to what is basically Austria-Hungry 2.
In the case of the NLRB, the decisions made by the previous board had to be reaffirmed by the new board. The result may be the same, but the courts found that Obama overstepped his authority by naming three members to the panel while the Senate was on a short break. The Dems controlled the Senate at the time and had implemented the nuclear option when it came to confirmations except for the Surpreme Court.
I’m not sure if Judge Banen referenced this in his ruling, but — straight from Obama’s mouth when he was announcing his executive amnesty:
“if the Congress had acted, this WOULD BE law”.
That’s right, he said “WOULD BE LAW”. Look it up. So, he admitted right there that what he was doing was NOT in accordance with the law. His oath of office is to “take care to faithfully execute the law”. IMO, this is impeachable.
Outstanding!
Push back the tyrants!
Great news to log onto this morning!
Yeah. He will just ignore any court order.
You betcha.
"Obama Administration IGNORES Judge's Ruling on Drilling Moratorium"
“How did this judge ever make it thru the confirmation process?”
This judge was the choice of George Bush for this federal court.
Now then ...
Cite one instance where the Obama administration has refused to comply with an order issued by a federal court including the Supreme Court.
Hornbeck Offshore Services LLC v. Salazar <-- Case citation should be italicized but wasn't for clarity's sake.
Obama must address the order and try to overturn it or get a different ruling from another federal court at or above this level. He can't ignore it.
Yes, he can. I think that was his campaign slogan. He meant it.
Refusing to comply is not an option.
Yes, it is. Refusal is always an option, especially for Obama.
Yes. Shelby County v. Holder
Hornbeck Offshore Services v. Salazar is an ongoing case in United States federal court. In the wake of the Deepwater Horizon explosion and the subsequent oil spill, the U.S. Department of the Interior issued a six-month moratorium on exploratory drilling in deep water. Plaintiffs filed suit challenging the moratorium.
Beginning June 8, 2010, Judge Martin Feldman of the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Louisiana began ruling on motions in the case. Prior to June 22, Judge Feldman issued several orders to expedite the case (i.e. moving a hearing date from July 28 to June 21 and denying the government's request for a continuance). On June 22, 2010, Feldman granted a preliminary injunction lifting the moratorium.
he White House appealed to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which granted the request for an expedited hearing. On July 8, 2010, a three judge panel, W. Eugene Davis, Jerry E. Smith and James L. Dennis, denied the government's emergency request to stay the lower court's decision pending appeal. The Obama administration is preparing a revised moratorium. The three-judge panel will hear arguments on the merits of the case the week of August 30
Despite the ruling of the three-judge panel, a de facto moratorium arguably remained in place because the government had told oil companies that they must seek revised permits and the approval of a government agency to continue deepwater drilling. One of the requirements was that a CEO of a company seeking to drill must personally sign a statement certifying that all safety equipment works properly and all well designs are safe, and acknowledge personal criminal liability for any false statements.
While Hornbeck may have been right that Salazar violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in barring deepwater oil drilling for six months, all of its efforts were for naught, undercut by an injunction tailored to a too-specific situation, rather than a specific result. When a court enjoins an agency from taking a specific action, that injunction is narrowly construed and does not preclude the agency taking action not encompassed within the injunction.
Lesson: Injunctions, whether preliminary or final, against an agency of the United States are very specific, narrowly drawn, and narrowly construed. In this instance, the injunction barred only limited actions, and DOI acted to reinforce its position outside the strictures of the injunction.
No aspect of Deepwater Horizon or the administrative process that followed can be considered an exemplary lesson – whether oil drilling or administrative law and litigation. Hornbeck exemplifies the need for great care in constructing injunctions against the United States and its agencies.
Yes, he can. I think that was his campaign slogan. He meant it
If he is ignoring it, why is the administration appealing the ruling?
Yes, it is. Refusal is always an option, especially for Obama.
Not if it is a court order. Even the Dems won't support a President who disobeys a court order.
On November 7, 2014, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the plaintiff's appeal of the 4th Circuit ruling. A ruling is expected by June 2015.
The decision to grant certiorari was unusual. It was believed that the Supreme Court would not grant certiorari given the lack of a circuit split, instead awaiting further decisions from lower courts before reviewing the issue.[40] University of Michigan Law School Assistant Professor Nicholas Bagley described the decision to grant certiorari as indicating that "four justices apparently think—or at least are inclined to think—that King was wrongly decided"
How has the WH ignored or failed to comply with the ruling in this case?
The Administration ignored Judge Feldman's injunction against the drilling moratorium and continued to deny drilling permits. Judge Feldman found the Admin to be in civil contempt and order them to pay the plaintiff's fees. The Admin appealed the contempt ruling and the 5th Circuit reversed Judge Feldman's contempt order. The Obama Admin ignored the injunction until the moratorium expired.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-02-03/u-s-administration-in-contempt-over-gulf-drill-ban-judge-rules
Not if it is a court order.
Refusal is always an option. There may be criminal or financial penalties for doing so, but refusal is an option.
Even the Dems won't support a President who disobeys a court order.
You're joking, right? The Dems have repeatedly encouraged Obama to ignore the courts and use his Executive Power to circumvent rulings.
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.