Posted on 06/23/2016 7:41:15 AM PDT by georgiegirl
Breaking news by Stu Varney. Supreme Court was tied 4 to 4, so the lower court decision stands against Obama's Immigration plan.
I gotta tell you that the argument over labels and definitions has a lot to do with the heart of the battle we are in. It’s Leftist lies, believed as you point out by many on the Right, versus the truth.
It is a battle for the hearts and minds of the American People and “labels and definitions” are a key factor.
Two simple examples, two of many. One is the use of the word “immigration.” The ACTUAL debate is over ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION but the Lying Left drops the word “illegal” and actively attempts to incorporate “immigration” into the lexicon and confuse the issue. Confusion is one of the Left’s most powerful tools.
Another example of the need for precision in what we’re talking about to combat Leftist confusion is the use of the word “globalization”. The ACTUAL debate is over POLITICAL/GOVERNMENTAL GLOBALIZATION which is the blurring of our political borders and the weakening of our national sovereignty. But “political/governmental” gets dropped, so just about anything international (private trade, the internet, private international phone calls, etc.) potentially becomes a candidate for “globalization” and confusion is off and running and the Left wins with confusion.
So precision and understanding in the use of labels are definitions and extremely important. You have to be ready to challenge the Left or the duped Right at the very outset of presumptions based on faulty,confused concepts or definitions. Once they get past that threshold without a challenge, they usually have you.
Everybody take a chill pill...this case is not over yet.
Yes, it was a victory for the Rule of Law and a setback for 0bama’s totalitarian regime. But the case is NOT over yet. The case before the SCOTUS was an appeal from a preliminary injunction by Judge Hanen of the District Court. The case is now sent back to him for an actual trial on the merits. While the 5th Circuit opinion stacks the case against the government, there is a way that 0bama’s regime still wins.
In order to grant the preliminary injunction, Judge Hanen had to find that Texas had a substantial liklihood of prevailing on the merits of the case. He ruled that Texas would. The reason for finding this is that the government was calling the DAPA program an exercise of prosecutorial discretion, which is exclusively the province of the Executive, and has been granted to the Executive by act of Congress (8 U.S.C. 1852). Prosecutorial or agency discretion in determining who gets subject to removal proceedings is NOT reviewable by the Courts. Judge Hanen looked at the similar DACA program, and found that Homeland Security had NEVER denied an application for deferral under that program when the minimum requirements were met. In other words, that program did not exercise discretion and created a new class of resident alien, which only Congress can do. He said since the programs were similar, DAPA would be the same thing, and therefore, no discretion, the program is judicially reviewable, creates a new class of alien, and was not authorized by Congress. His order granting the preliminary injuction was a prediction that this would be the evidence and ruling at trial.
But since the Judge issued his order granting the preliminary injunction, the government ignored his order. That’s the whole issue before the District Court now regarding the attorney discipline sanctions against the U. S. Attorneys for unethical conduct. They lied to the Court when they said they had stopped the DAPA program, and they had actually processed several thousand additional applications under DAPA. The reason they did, which hasn’t come to light yet, is that they also randomly denied a bunch of applications who otherwise met the qualifications. The government was trying to create the evidence they needed to show that they were in fact exercising prosecutorial discretion. Therefore, their argument will go, exercising discretion = matter committed to agency discretion under Chevron USA v. National Resources Defense Counsel = not reviewable by the Courts = 0bama regime wins, Texas loses.
The next shoe to drop in the trial court will be whether Judge Hanen will allow the government to use this evidence they created in defiance of a Court order to win their case, or whether he decides to exclude it as a sanction for disobeying the Court’s order.
Ulitmately, this case will be decided by the November Election. If Clinton wins, the case goes back to the SCOTUS, with the decisive 5th vote being a Clinton appointee. If Trump wins, the DAPA memorandum is rescinded by Executive Order, the case is dismissed and Texas (and the American people) win by default.
It ain’t over yet.
Hispanic citizens and green card holders trying to keep a foothold on their jobs and pay rate in providing for their families just dodged a bullet. For them this was not about illegals who share the same ancestry staying but 4 million of them getting work permits in one fell swoop and then descending on the job market to try to replace them legally. I think that is how this issue has to be defined for hispanic voters to counter the Democrats’ tribal identity politics
I totally agree. I insist on labels being defined. I don't care so much, in correspondence, what the definition is, but I find it important to find out or agree on what the definition is.
In our discussion, I'd say your definition of "constitutional" is "in accord with the constitution, legitimate, well justified." The law and order definition is "asserted by SCOTUS, no matter how rotten the rationale."
I like your other examples too, immigration vs. illegal immigration, and "globalization" (which is also an internationalist crony issue).
The left and politicians successfully use labels to avoid discussing the issues and the proposed remedies. See the gun control manipulation currently under way, and the buzz phrase "due process." I reject the contention that if "due process" is present, the system is fair or in accord with the constitution. I've seen too many varieties of "due process," some of which deny the accused the right to view the evidence (which is exactly what is proposed for no-fly/no-buy) to accept some undefined "due process" as adequate. But the press and the politicians, well, the message is "if there is due process, nobody will be wrongfully denied." Yeah, right, for how long, at what cost, and who has and what are the burdens of proof? Crickets.
So say you, but not the Constitution. Article V is for AMENDING the Constitution, not enforcing it.
Review the basic assumptions of the Constitution as confirmed by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The states are constitutionally sovereign outside constitutionally delegated authority of the feds. The states have not only the constitutional right but the DUTY to resist and nullify unconstitutional federal acts which, as I say, is the very definition of tyranny.
Four SCOTUS justices only believe that laws can be created and issued from a Democrat in the White House... If Trump tried the same as Obama he would be shot down in a heartbeat. Liberals will be the first ones grabbing the Constitution when Trump is President that is exactly how screwed up this current resident has made the country with his politics of division.
Well maybe legal and rightful defense of blood-bought and precious freedom is fool-hardy to you but not to me.
I feel sorry for those who give up their precious freedom so many have died for and acquiesce to tyranny without a legal fight and failing that, without a shot being fired. I believe liberty is worth dying for.
As I said in front of a class numbering 65 in law school, in answer to the professor’s argument for socialism, “I’d rather live 45 years free than 85 years under tyranny.” Any day.
One’s freedom is over when one says it’s over.
So 4 justices are still *(&^ retards.
But nobody to enforce it.
PING!!!
Article, comments, esp #122 for summary of where this case stands.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3442900/posts?page=122#122
Thanks, henkster
Thomas, Alito, and Roberts I assume upheld the lower court’s ruling, but who was the fourth to join with them?
I guarantee Ginsburg and Sotomayer dissented. Breyer is unlikely to have opposed the executive branch due to his “active liberty” philosophy.
So was it Kennedy or Kagan who handed Obama his defeat?
How many divisions does the court have? ~ obama, with a hat tip to Stalin...
There is nothing at all scary about what is going on
Hussein Obama, Americas FIRST Muslim president, is working to cause as much havoc and destruction of our country as he can
So far Hussein has nothing to worry about. Americans will debate and wonder until the Muslims knock on your door. Are you a Muslim or will you surrender to their demands? The questions are coming sooner, not later
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.