[Menehune56]

Except that Brennan and the SCOTUS are NOT empowered by the Constitution to set immigration policy. Only Congress can do THAT. So Brennan may have thought that his footnote was clever beyond words, but he was just whistling You Ain’t Nuthin’ But A Gound Dog as far as it carrying any LEGAL authority. Wait until Mr. Trump is ensconced in the Oval Office.

It does seem that congress has the power to overturn the Brennan interpretation with specific legislation and approval by a conservative president. Would love to see it but I'm afraid SCOTUS might find some way to them rule that legislation "unconstitutional." Especially with John Roberts at the helm. He's the new Earl Warren.

[Tucker39]

IMHO, Roberts does what he does because Obunga has something on him. That would end with Trump. Unless Obunga still has reach into the SCOTUS even after he’s out of office.

[Tucker39]

Upon due consideration I would like to repeat. SCOTUS does NOT set immigration law. Brennan’s footnote does not carry any legal authority. If he had spoken it rather than written it, it would have carried no more authority than flatulence in a hurricane. Of course, commie lib Brennan would steal any authority we permit him to get away with. In this case, it will not be permitted.

I’m confident Pres. Trump will make that clear at the proper time.

[hinckley buzzard]

An opinion in a footnote, or even in the body of an opinion where it is not a part of the core finding, is considered "dicta," ie just "what he said," and not to be considered a basis for precedent or of probative value. IOW, a footnote is legally nothing, nada, nichts.