Posted on 04/23/2016 5:43:32 AM PDT by HomerBohn
Greg Abbott accuses of justices playing ‘naked politics,’ says best outcome a 4-4 decision
(Free Beacon) – Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott said that the U.S. Constitution will be “completely rewritten” if the Supreme Court sides with President Obama in the lawsuit challenging his executive action on immigration.
Abbott, formerly the state’s longest-serving attorney general, told reporters Thursday morning that the lawsuit brought against the president by Texas and 25 other states is “framed under” the issue of immigration but in reality challenges Obama’s use of executive power to “unilaterally” rewrite laws.
“The lawsuit is about the fact that the president completely abandoned the Constitution to assume power he does not have and wrote law that he himself, as a constitutional lawyer, said he did not have the power to do,” Abbott said during a roundtable discussion at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C.
“The lawsuit is about the fact that, if the president wins this lawsuit, the Constitution as we know it has been completely rewritten and Congress no longer has any authority.”
Obama unveiled his executive action, which would prevent millions of illegal immigrants from being deported and allow many of them to obtain work permits, following the November 2014 election. A few months later, more than half of the nation’s states sued the president, arguing that his administration overstepped its constitutional authority.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case on Monday and appeared divided. Abbott expressed concern that some of the justices on the court are playing “naked politics,” which he said could hurt Texas’ chances of winning the case.
“Before Justice [Antonin] Scalia passed away, I felt our chances were good. If the court were solely to rule on the basis of the law … then it should be now an 8-0 decision. Because politics is being played now at the Supreme Court, I think the best outcome is a 4-4 split decision, which will mean that we will win, but it will not be a broad-based application across the United States affirming the principle that the president does not have unilateral authority to rewrite the law,” Abbott said.
A 4-4 tie ruling would leave in place an appeals court ruling that put a hold on Obama’s plan but would set no Supreme Court precedent.
The justices debated on Monday whether Texas and the other states had legal standing to bring the case at all by asserting that Obama’s executive action would cause them financial hardship. The administration argued that Texas’ injury was self-inflicted because the state could alter its laws to deny driver’s licenses to immigrants affected by the executive action. The conservative justices on the court appeared skeptical of that argument.
“Their argument is, we’re going to give driver’s licenses to people subject to deferred action. And you’re saying, OK, that’s your injury?” Chief Justice Roberts asked. “You can take that away. And I just think that’s a real catch-22. … [If they did that], you would sue them instantly.”
The remaining liberal justices, however, seemed unconvinced that Texas would face a financial burden if the plan were implemented.
“I’m focusing on the narrow question of how Texas is hurt, specifically, and not a political disagreement,” Breyer said during the arguments. “How are they specifically hurt by giving these people driver’s licenses?”
Abbott indicated Thursday that he is confident that the Supreme Court will uphold Texas’ standing in the case, citing a previous ruling in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency. The Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that Massachusetts had standing to challenge the EPA to begin regulating automobile emissions of carbon dioxides and other gasses because of potential damage from global warming.
“The Supreme Court boxed themselves in a corner because of their own liberal agenda,” Abbott said. “If they do not grant us standing, they have tied their hands and they will have backtracked on [the existing ruling].”
In order to vote against standing, he said, “they will have to have some pretend game that we don’t have out-of-pocket costs or fabricate some rule that has no basis in any kind of measurement saying that [our] out-of-pocket costs just aren’t enough.”
If standing is not established, the case would be dismissed.
When asked whether Texas would move to deny illegal immigrants driver’s licenses if not granted standing, Abbott did not provide a definitive answer but “double dared” the Supreme Court to deny the state the right to bring the case, which he said would “completely undermine” the 10th Amendment.
“We will cross that bridge when we get to it. I don’t think the bridge will have to be crossed,” Abbott said, adding, “The Supreme Court better apply the Constitution as it is written instead of making it up.”
Things like this reaffirm my belief that Scalia did not die of natural causes.
If Obama’s executive order is allowed to stand, what’s to keep him from banning guns? Clearly, the Constitution won’t matter in that situation either. This clown has decided that he makes all the rules. He can rot.
Scalia’s death was waaay too convenient.
He thinks he can and he has.....who’s going to stop him? Because, that would be racist./sarc
Traitor Roberts, The Enabler, has a law rewriting word processor....
We have nine months left for his unlawful attacks on our freedoms and liberties. If he wins this decision, as a nation we are done. All that will be left is tyranny.
Liberal Judges will NEVER rule with what the Constitution says, they strictly rule with an interpretation of what they wished it said.
Me too. But its been gping on for years by the shadow govt. Time to overthrow it and bring in people who will sit things straight. No matter what it takes.
If Roberts ties himself into a pretzel and rewrites Obama’s executive order to make it “Constitutional”, he will have shed the last remnants of the Republic.
Presidents cannot change laws.
Kenyanesian Usurpers apparently can.
This case is the clearest example of the precarious position we face regarding the supreme court. In discussion of this case, we will speculate on what would have been if Justice Scalia had not died, whether Chief Justice Roberts will disappoint us again, or whether Justice Kennedy will waffle, but no one will ever criticize the four liberal justices. Regardless of the law or the facts, no one has any doubt how these four will vote and it is just accepted without controversy. In a five to four decision against the constitution, it is always the fault of the fifth vote and not any of the solid four. With one more justice joining the liberal four, the supreme court will effectively become an arm of the democrat party.
Without borders, we are not a nation. We are a geographical entity.
We were done as a nation on January 20, 2009. Everything since then has made things worse.
Tyranny is the LEAST of our worries. When little Johnny Roberts gives his opinion, it will start CW II.
Ya know. I don’t care anymore. It’s coming. We are not going to stop it. Let them pull their pants down and expose who they are. See what happens.
Congress let the phony president appoint a radical lesbian in the form of Kagan to the disgraced Soopreme Kort.
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.