[Nachum]

Huh. Just saw another article that thinks the court is split evenly on this 4 to 4.

[WMarshal]

The fiction that any of the azzclown justices on the Supreme Court base their rulings on the constitutionality of an law rather than the politics of the law is dead.

I think that any Supreme Court ruling should be reviewed by congress as to the soundness of their constitutional reasoning and if it is valid, then the sponsors of that legislation should go through impeachment proceedings. If the Supreme Court ruling is suspect, there should be impeachment proceedings against the Justices who ruled unconstitutionally.

It is one way to enforce fidelity to the Constitution.

[montag813]

Sounds like Erin Murphy rubbed the Court the wrong way. Too many cooks...

[BuckeyeTexan]

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

[apillar]

I certainly don't see the “Wise Latina” (Sotomeyer) voting against her Latino brethren, ditto with “Fred Flintstone” (Kagan) and “The Crypt Keeper” (Ginsburg), I guess Breyer would be the best bet, but I certainly wouldn't put money on it. I suppose a 4/4 is better than nothing, at least the hold on the executive order wills stay in place even if it doesn't set any precedent one way or the other.

[WENDLE]

This does not sound good. We have come to the state of political judiciary as a legislative branch beholding to anti -constitutional dictators rather that jurisprudence. There is no issue of state standing and states sue the federal government every day on regulations and imposed expenditures. All this is is a charade— a fraud to subvert the actual constitutional requirements for the MAKING OF LAW!! We have literally gone over the cliff already. where a political ideology is imposed by a dictator.

[libertylover]

a two-word phrase: “lawful presence.”...the phrase carries enormous meaning...The Obama administration’s lawyer [says] it stands for nothing whatsoever

This is what we're up against, folks. Don't let Mrs. Bill Clinton or Bernie Sanders win.

[DugwayDuke]

No need for a fifth vote: Texas and 25 other states challenged Obama’s authority to implement the policy by executive action, rather than going through Congress. Federal district court Judge Andrew Hanen in Brownsville, Texas, upheld the challenge in February 2015 and blocked the program from being implemented nationwide.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld that ruling last November in a 2-1 decision. The panel’s majority said Obama exceeded his authority by going around Congress.

You only need a fifth vote if you want to overturn the two lower courts. A 4-4 split means the ruling by the Court of Appeals stands and Obama loses.