and the RATS, take another one in the.........HA ha!!!
Posted on 12/16/2014 11:43:02 AM PST by amnestynone
the top 14 “movers and shakers” in health care in 2014 because his legal analysis led to the upcoming Supreme Court case on Obamacare’s state subsidies that may blow the ACA sky high. Anyway, Jon flags a U.S. District Court opinion out this morning that finds Obama’s immigration executive action exceeds the proper understanding of “prosecutorial discretion”:
According to the opinion by Judge Arthur Schwab, the president’s policy goes “beyond prosecutorial discretion” in that it provides a relatively rigid framework for considering applications for deferred action, thus obviating any meaningful case-by-case determination as prosecutorial discretion requires, and provides substantive rights to applicable individuals. As a consequence, Schwab concluded, the action exceeds the scope of executive authority.
This is the first judicial opinion to address Obama’s decision to expand deferred action for some individuals unlawfully present in the United States.
Exactly.
From the Washington Times, seems the judge addressed your point quite forthrightly:
“Judge Arthur J. Schwab, sitting in the western district of Pennsylvania, said presidents do have powers to use discretion in deciding how to enforce the law, but said Mr. Obama’s new policy goes well beyond that, setting up a full system for granting legal protections to broad groups of individuals. He said Mr. Obama writing laws — a power that’s reserved for Congress, not the president.
“President Obama’s unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause, and therefore is unconstitutional,” Judge Schwab wrote.
The judge also said the policy allows illegal immigrants “to obtain substantive rights.” “
No authority whatsoever to grant all these things to these people!
Cruz was just being interviewed by Brett Bair to answer to Krauthammer and Will from last night. He was excellent. Calmly on point.
Do Liberals not get it? They are ASKING for a far right wing conservative Christian President to issue EO’s and bypass the law thinking himself higher than the law.
Or a President they will not agree with at all to do exactly what Obama is doing or worse. The difference is, I would not be okay with a President that is a mirror of Reagan using his power to spite any legal American, or to allow anything blatantly unconstitutional. I would be opposed to that. The liberals seem to bask in a tyrannical corrupt lawless President. But they don’t seem to realize, allowing Obama to get away with this now (ya, they make think it’s cool, stick it to real Americans), precedence matters and if Obama gets away with it, then so will our guy.
Guarantee they won’t be okay with it then. I won’t either, but I will appoint them mayor of Toldyousoville. Look what you have allowed Obama to wrought upon our country. No accountability for the corrupt lawlessness in our government. We have to move towards holding elected officials responsible or we are doomed.
And in said they were right in a way. Lol. He was good but I wish he would quit saying .. “let me be clear .... “
I thought the same thing about the “let me be clear” ugh sounds like BO.
If Senator Cruz could see the future, he would be hard put to come up with a more brilliant move. The guy is on a different level.
Tea Party will change America BACK to Liberty. It is time to kick the criminals to the curb.
Not guilty.
Oh, fused. Take good care. You will never egthaeda.
Fused? Egthaeda? I dunno?
Enthusiastically spread the word about the “Protest Against Obama Amnesty” rally across America for 2015-01-03 ... Ted Cruz, Jeff Sessions, Mike Lee (et al) will GREATLY appreciate our support ... A great Patriot turn-out WILL encourage the Senate and House GOP to dump McConnell and Boehner ... God Bless America ... Facebook page “Obama Amnesty National Protest : 2015-01-03” ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=680NlRI3v2I ... Thanks to All !!!
Agree that it would not likely have any chance to fall under rational basis, the only way we have a good chance of winning. Anything else would lean heavily to strict scrutiny, even with intermediate arguments, where’d we most likely lose.
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.