Supreme Court split on Obama amnesty; Kennedy: Policy ‘just upside-down’

The Washington Times ^ | April 18, 2016 | Stephen Dinan

[jazusamo]

The Supreme Court divided deeply Monday over President Obama’s deportation amnesty, with conservative justices saying the White House was trying to steal Congress’s law-making powers, and liberal justices suggesting the court should stay out of the fight altogether, leaving the president with a free hand.

Outside the court, thousands of Hispanic-rights protesters rallied, demanding legal status from the courts and vowing political retribution on Congress — and Republicans in particular — if Mr. Obama loses his case.

Inside the courtroom, however, the argument was lower-key, with the justices sparring with lawyers over the tricky interplay between the law, federal regulations and Mr. Obama’s hopes of shielding most illegal immigrants from deportation.

“It’s as if the president is setting the policy and Congress is executing it. That’s just upside-down,” said Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who is expected to be an important voice as the court decides what to do.

[jazusamo]

Exactly, that’s the leftists wet dream.

[Little Pig]

“bendiho” = “pendejo”?

[i_robot73]

>
‘It’s as if the president is setting the policy and Congress is executing it. That’s just upside-down,’ said Justice Anthony M. Kennedy,

*****************************

A little honesty...............
>

And that’s the last of that ‘logic’, let alone honesty, you’ll see from SCotUS for the foreseeable future.

[nathanbedford]

With four leftist justices ruling ideologically, the best conservatives can hope for is a tie, a 4-4 split, but the leftists will win if they can pick off weak kneed Justices Kennedy or Chief Justice Roberts.

With a stacked court in which one side will consistently produce 4 votes, the remarks of Senator Grassley on the floor of the Senate criticizing Chief Justice Roberts could not have been more timely. The court has been so thoroughly politicized by the left that the nominating process as a result has become politicized.

The leftist did this, they did it with Bork and they attempted it with Thomas.

The utter politicization of an institution is threatening to ruin it. We should take heed about the kind of dialogue we encounter in this primary season and whether it threatens to destroy our institution, the Republican Party and with it any chance for conservatism to actually save the Republic from an otherwise inevitable reckoning.

We should ask ourselves, is this man really worth it?

[sargon]

We should ask ourselves, is this man really worth it?

We have ask ourselves. And Donald Trump is worth it, notwithstanding your constant, slanted derogation of him...

[BuckeyeTexan]

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

[nathanbedford]

I mention no names, my candidate can certainly withstand scrutiny, I ask all conservatives simply to consider whether their man is worthy.

Sargon, it isn't about me, it's about the candidate.

[Plummz]

As long as your candidate isn’t a born Canadian. No born Canadian could withstand scrutiny for the Presidency, and such a candidates’ supporters would be complicit in treason!

Talk about illegal immigration!

[baltimorepoet]

Does anyone actually expect someone named “Sotomayor” to be impartial or to make decisions that benefit the greater good rather than one group?

[newfreep]

A coincidence that the death of Scalia came just in time for rulings affecting Obamatollah’s legacy - i.e. eliminating 1 Constitutionalist?

[gogeo]

Yes, I think Kennedy is the key.

[sargon]

Sargon, it isn't about me, it's about the candidate.

Yes, it's about a winning candidate, Donald Trump, who you constantly dismiss and slander with the most transparent propaganda.

Ted Cruz has lost. He will have been mathematically eliminated after the next Tuesday or two. His only hope was to get the nomination at a contested GOP convention, which would irreparably splinter the party, and guarantee a GOP defeat in November.

Simply put, that's not going to happen. Not even the crooked GOPe is that stupid.

Trump is apparently a "liberal Democrat" who wants to:

Build a wall.
enforce the law.
deport them all.
end sanctuary cities.
end anchor babies.
moratorium on muslim immigration.
cut the taxes.
cut the spending.
cut the regulations.
cut the government.
cut the debt.
cut the epa.
repeal obamacare.
get the feds out and allow health insurance to be sold over state lines.
send education back to states.
get a handle on trade.
make trade deals in our own interests.
bring back capital.
bring back manufacturing.
bring back jobs.
strengthen the economy.
defend the second amendment
defend religious freedom.
appoint constitutional conservative judges.
rebuild our military.
bomb the shit out of isis.
end political correctness.
take the gop head-on.
take the media head-on.
take the liberals head-on.
and win, baby, win.

all of the above on a shoestring budget compared to most of the 16 competitors he’s beaten.
no pacs.
no big donors.

what’s democrat about any of the above?
What’s not conservative?
what’s not to like?

43 posted on Friday, April 15, 2016 9:13:49 PM by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!)

Over the weekend, there was a very well researched and documented article posted which clearly demonstrated that Donald Trump's conservative stances on issues like immigration are not new at all, and indeed he's been discussing many of these issues since the 1980's

It totally put the lie to the notion that Trump is a) liberal, and b) a late-comer to conservatism. Over the last 30-40 years, Donald Trump has been registered as a Republican for a longer period than as a Democrat.

If you want to criticize the man fairly, that's fine, but that's not what you do. You spin every single point in the most distorted manner possible.

For instance, the whole "Trump attacks reporters" smear has now been shown to be an absolute hoax. Just as the hysterical "Trump advocates violence" BS. The fact is, a very clear admonition is broadcast at the beginning of every single Trump rally, asking attendees to be peacable with protesters and to let security do their job.

That occurs at every rally, and yet the Media deliberately ignores that. Not to mention that there have been no fisticuffs at any Trump rallies to speak of, and for quite some time.

Smear, smear, smear. That is the tactic of the Left/Media/GOPe and Cruz campaign that can't win on substance.

If you've been paying any attention at all, you should have noticed that lately Ted Cruz literally can't string 2 sentences together in response to any question he's asked, without basically ignoring the question and pivoting to an immediate attack on Donald Trump. He's absolutely obsessed and desperate.

Cruz is actually running a distant 3rd place in many state polls throughout the Northeast, and has also plummeted in National polls as well since Wisconsin. That's because the People don't appreciate these "greased skid" setups (which Rush Limbaugh admitted to a few days ago) which were specifically put in place to benefit the designated GOPe insider and to exclude "outsiders" like Trump, Cruz, Paul, etc.

The only thing that changed is that Jeb Bush got squashed like an insect by Donald Trump, so the GOPe had to reluctantly steal the delegates for Ted Cruz instead of Jeb Bush. But it was rigged for the designated insider, and it's no secret. Was that "playing by the rules"? Yes, it was. And the rules are crooked. That is the perception, it's an accurate one, I believe, and, in any event, in politics, perception is reality.

Colorado Delegates Speak Out On The Steal

Donald Trump is the presumptive GOP nominee, and it's time to wrap your mind around that fact and start focusing on beating Hillary in the general election.

Now, if somehow the GOPe manages to steal the nomination from Trump (and, under the circumstances, that is what it will be, a theft) and award it to someone less deserving, I will still vote for that GOP nominee.

What will you do should Donald Trump prevail?

Vote Trump

[Hostage]

The lower court has not even decided the merits or the standing. The PI is only for putting the issues on hold until they rule.

It is not normal that SCOTUS would review a PI when a lower court has not yet heard the case.

In effect SCOTUS is threatening to dismiss the case without letting a lower court to even hear the case. That’s not the role of SCOTUS.

The PI does not compel deportations, it simply temporarily suspends Obama from amnestizing millions of illegals while the case is heard. The illegals are left in the same status they are now, illegal and subject to deportation, just as they have always been. The PI does not order Obama to deport illegals.

Obama wants immediate citizenship for 11 million illegals so they can vote in November for democrats. This is accomplished by Executive Amnesty and coaching illegals to answer ‘yes’ on the application when asked if they have been in the United States longer than 5 years.

In effect, SCOTUS holds the outcome of the 2016 election in their hands.

[EDINVA]

Has the judge at the District Court level in this case yet issued his ruling about the lying DOJ lawyers ? They all stand to be suspended or disbarred, I think.

I would favor disbarment, as they do this to individuals who have to face the full force (and full funding) of the US Government attorneys who are entrusted with what is, and should be considered by all, a sacred honor. These attorneys have abused that honor.

[Jack Black]

The Supreme Court, in particular, and the entire Federal Court system in general, is an appalling institution.

Essentially the Democratic Republic has been overthrown, and we now live in a Judicial Theocracy, not so different from Iran. While the legislature are free to weigh in on any issue, as are the citizens through both their representatives and directly, in States that have citizen initiative, in the end the Federal Courts decide regardless.

This was most clearly demonstrated in the Gay Marriage decision, where the 5-4 decision overthrew laws in something like 35 States.

Day in and day out the drumbeat is relentless of liberal judges making up the law they want. The courts being so friendly to even wack-job cliams by liberals you now see Leftist increasingly ignoring the political realm entirely, and going straight to the Judical realm, where they have more power and opponents are at a large disadvantage.

The evil lawsuits by Blue State Attorney Generals is an excellent illustration of this trend.

Inside the echo chamber: Left-wing activists spent years planning climate investigations

Many people today are up in arms over the anti-democratic antics of both the Republican and Democratic parties. But the games being played over the nomination contests pale in comparison with the every-day nullification of the laws people pass by the Ayatollahs of the judicial branch.

[Cheerio]

SCOTUS will find open borders in the US Constitution right next to where they located Abortion and Gay Marriage. Take it to the bank.

If the court splits, what did the lower court rule?

[jazusamo]

The lower court has not ruled on the merits of the case and the appeals court has a preliminary injunction on 0bama’s action..

[fungoking]

I'd vote Trump over Hillary BUT...

There is NOTHING in Trump's politically history that gives me confidence that he would nominate a conservative justice to replace Scalia.

I know that other conservative justices have failed us or moved left, but I'm afraid that Trump would nominate someone already left of center, pro abortion, and shares Trump's distaste for private property rights concerning imminent domain.

That fellow Freepers have such faith that Trump will not act against his lefty history is amazing.

[Secret Agent Man]

Whatever one means butthole.

[Hulka]

Supreme Court is in play.

That is all that matter now. . .does anyone want hitlery or bernie to make the next three SCOTUS picks?