Posted on 06/23/2016 6:16:42 PM PDT by Elderberry
Ha, Ha, Ha, I love it...let the ‘door kicker; screamer; hissy fit; childish; BRAT’ leave the White House NOW!!!
Hey, have you failed to notice Obama doesn’t follow the law and no one does a single thing to stop it ? This Supreme Court decision doesn’t mean jack !
OK, that’s good but what about the even GREATER problem of Obama letting in tens of thousands of Muslims which almost certainly are infiltrated with ISIS and IslamoCrazies?
What’s it going to take to stop that NOW???
He has cover-up his crimes using the IRS which is worse than anything Nixon did and none did anything then either. He has supported terrorists, nothing. The only people who could do anything since the last election is the military in a coop or the congress removing him.
Obama should have to Adopt all those unaccompanied Children
The decision means nothing to Obama. He has already said that he plans to ignore the law and not enforce them.
Presidents cannot make their own laws or change the ones Congress has passed, even if 4 Supreme Court Justices disagree and think he can.
He is still illegally legalizing illegal aliens under the first illegal amnesty called DACA. The first illegal amnesty for illegal aliens that he illegally implemented is still going forward illegally legalizing illegal aliens.
Because no one sued to stop him.
Only the SECOND illegal amnesty for illegal aliens has been stopped, for now, by the states suing to stop it.
Our putative opposition party not only did not sue to stop the first amnesty, they fully funded it.
Anyone else notice that Lyle Dennison reveals himself as rabid Democrat partisan on this issue?
“Second, a group of twenty-six states with Republican leaders had gained a historic new opportunity to use the courts as a way to wage policy combat with a Democratic president.”
Why wouldn’t this ruling apply to all presidents? Could it be that it is Democrat presidents who try to rule by dictat?
Judge Hagen has not been a happy camper
It applied both to the entire November 2014 policy as it applied to adult parents of children who had gained a right to remain in the country.
**************************************************
The SECOND amnesty, DAPA, 2014 was to piggyback on the first amnesty, DACA, 2012.
Legalize the “children”, up to age 30, and then legalize the adults who brought their children across international boundaries in violation of federal and international laws.
Democrats think people up to 30 years of age are children because democrats themselves never really grow up.
Just look at the 1960's campus style sit-in the congressional democrats just eengaged in.
Zero is all wee wee’d up about not getting in his muslim fighters.
The whole point of the government lying to Judge Hanen about going forward with the program was to create the evidence they need to win the case at trial. It all revolves around whether the DAPA program is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion on a case by case basis or whether the program created a new class of lawfully present aliens. Prosecutorial discretion in removal cases is a matter committed to agency discretion under 8 U.S.C. 1852 and not reviewable by courts under Chevron USA v. Natural Resources Defense Council. The creation of a new class of lawfully present aliens is a matter exclusively committed to Congress under Article I Sec. 8 Naturalization Clause, and the Executive has no authority to do so.
In finding that the DAPA program was not an exercise of prosecutorial discretion, Judge Hanen looked at the similar DACA program and found Homeland Security never denied an applicant who met the minimum qualifications. Therefore, not discretion, but instead it was a new class. When the Judge barred the implementation of DAPA, the government did not have the opprtunity to deny any applicants and prove they were exercising discretion.
So the government went ahead with the DAPA program and the U. S. Attoneys lied about it. That's why the Judge has the ethics issues and orders in his court regarding the AUSAs. But the real reason they were going ahead with the program was so they could randomly deny a few qualified applicants and prove at trial that they exercised prosecutorial discretion.
We'll see if Judge Hanen lets them get away with it.
Mississippi and the ICE agents union sued to stop DACA. The 5th Circuit (same Circuit in U.S. v. Texas) found Mississippi did not have standing in Crane v. Johnson, decided in April 2015. Mississippi argued they would take a financial hit in education costs, but the Court said they costs were speculative. That’s why Texas relied on the financial impact of driver’s licenses to establish standing in U. S. v. Texas because they could quantify the fiscal impact.
But you are correct that the constitutionality of DACA has not been ruled upon.
I read Scotusblog regularly and find Dennison is relatively even-handed. If you want some real foam at the mouth left wing legal mumbo jumbo, go check out Justia.
PS: in 2005 the liberals on the SCOTUS already gave states the authority to use the Courts to wage policy battles with the Federal Government when they granted them “special solicitude” to establish standing in Massachusetts v. EPA. In that case, the liberals were creating a legal doctrine to get a result they wanted. Now they are horrified that their Frankenstein’s Monster is being turned on them to get a result they don’t want.
Irony. It’s so ironic.
bookmark
sorry but a scotus ruling does not i repeat does not affect a presidential decree. this admin will carry on.
The putative opposition party in Congress should have been in court the day after he did DACA.
Instead, they fully funded it.
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.