Skip to comments.Judge: Sanctions possible in Obama immigration court case
Posted on 03/19/2015 5:02:49 PM PDT by QT3.14
click here to read article
Countries that prospered by allowing millions of poor unskilled immigrants access to welfare:
What would send a message, more than sanctions, would be (1) rescind those 108K amnesties and (2) rescind the earlier amnesty. Only that brings justice.
Props to the courageous patriot Judge Hanen for standing up to the tyrant and his operatives. Hopefully sanctions WILL be given to the government and those sanctions will be for the government to withdraw those 3-year work permits. Anything else is a travesty and forgives Obama for giving the court his finger and his disrespect.
How about prison time?
Ditto......and do it NOW!
Public flogging would be more appropriate. You know, like they do in the Middle East in those Islamic countries that the "progressives" admire so much.
The judge should require the Administration to track down all 108,000 and revoke the reprieves. Additionally, the judge should bar the DOJ attorneys involved from appearing in Federal court in addition to Contempt of Court citations and fines.
Judge should push for disbarment of all attorneys involved regardless of their court appearance. If they participated they had an obligation to inform the court. Boy that would have some lawyers scattering.
There's been too much of this lately, without any correction.
(We should be at least grade-school-level spellers, eh?)
Referral for disbarment would be warranted.
Better yet, immediate 60 day contempt of court confinement.
That always gets their attention.
It's not up to Freepers to correct the spelling. They should post it as written.
That should absolutely be done.
Yeah, I hate being the ‘Grammar Police’, but that IS indeed a grade school level mistake. Do these people read what they write anymore before submitting something? Spell Checkers don’t replace editors either.....
The lesson from the last 20 years of immigration policy is that lawlessness breeds more lawlessness. Once a people or a government decides to normalize one form of lawbreaking, other forms of lawlessness will follow until finally the rule of law itself is in profound jeopardy. Today, we have a constitutional crisis on our hands. President Obama has decided that because Congress has not granted amnesty to millions of illegal aliens living in the U.S., he will do so himself. Let us ponder for a moment just how shameless this assertion of power is.
Article 2, Section 3, of the Constitution mandates that the president shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed. This provision assumes that there is a law for the president to execute. But in this case, the problem that Obama is purporting to fix is the absence of a law granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. Rather than executing a law, Obama is making one uparrogating to himself a function that the Constitution explicitly allocates to Congress. Should this unconstitutional power grab stand, we will have moved very far in the direction of rule by dictator. Pace Obama, the absence of a congressional law granting amnesty is not evidence of political failure that must somehow be corrected by unilateral executive action; it is evidence of the lack of popular consensus regarding amnesty. There has been no amnesty statute to date because the political will for such an amnesty is lacking.
On February 16, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen halted President Obamas illegal amnesty with a temporary injunction. The proposed amnesty program, Judge Hanen found, went far beyond mere prosecutorial discretion not to enforce the law against individuals. Instead, the Department of Homeland Security proposed to confer on illegal aliens a new legal status known as legal presence. But Congress has not granted DHS the power to create and bestow legal status. The amnesty program represented a complete abdication of DHSs responsibility to enforce the law, Judge Hanen declared. Indeed, DHS was actively thwarting the express will of Congress.
Pursuant to traditional canons of judicial interpretation, Judge Hanen ruled against the Obama administration on the narrowest possible grounds in order to avoid reaching the constitutional question. He based his decision on the law governing agency rulemaking, rather than on separation of powers grounds. But his rebuke was just as scathing.
*************end excerpt********** "Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.,"
I just got my copy of Iprimis in the mail today. I have not had time to read it yet.
What do you expect from "Juan A. Lazano"? Probably one of Dicky Durbin's DREAMER "valedictorians"
Perjury in court is grounds for disbarment. Let the disbarring begin, en masse, right up to Holder the Racist.
What I fear is that, with BO having six years to spread his evildoers throughout the government and bureaucracy, jailing him will not keep what he's planted from flourishing. They will just wipe out constitutional law anyway.
Almost impossible to root it out now, without serious bloodshed, and no one wants to do that.
Hanen vs. Hartnett
Kathleen Hartnett told Hanet in January hearing prior to injunction nothing would be happening regarding key section of Obama’s orders, expansion of 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA), until Feb. 18.
“Like an idiot I believed that.” (Judge Hanen)
Hartnett apologized repeatedly.
Hartnett kept insisting the 108,081 reprieves were granted under 2012 guidelines, which were not stopped by injunction.
Hanen countered the 2012 guidelines only granted two-year reprieves and three-year reprieves are being proposed under the program now on hold.
“Can I trust what the president says?” (Hanen)
That’s a yes or no question.” (Hanen)
“Yes, your honor.” (Hartnett)
Hanen said a ruling would come on an action, if any, he’ll take against DOJ.
States party to the suit: Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.
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.