Posted on 02/16/2015 8:51:16 PM PST by sheikdetailfeather
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott announced on Monday night that a federal judge has “granted” his request to “halt” President Barack Obama’s “Executive Amnesty Order” across the country.
Abbott didn’t immediately offer any other details, but promised for information later.
BREAKING: Federal Judge just granted my request to halt Obama's Executive Amnesty Order Nationwide. More later. #txlege #tcot @TexasGOP
— Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) February 17, 2015
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
One month after SCOTUS struck down preclearance, Holder announced that Texas must get preclearance.
Buckeye Texan, Isn’t Holder in contempt of Congress and has not been arrested? How will this Judge’s Order be enforced if their is no consequence to the Executive Branch?
Despite the ruling of the three-judge panel, a de facto moratorium arguably remained in place because the government had told oil companies that they must seek revised permits and the approval of a government agency to continue deepwater drilling. One of the requirements was that a CEO of a company seeking to drill must personally sign a statement certifying that all safety equipment works properly and all well designs are safe, and acknowledge personal criminal liability for any false statements.
Lesson: Injunctions, whether preliminary or final, against an agency of the United States are very specific, narrowly drawn, and narrowly construed. In this instance, the injunction barred only limited actions, and DOI acted to reinforce its position outside the strictures of the injunction.
No aspect of Deepwater Horizon or the administrative process that followed can be considered an exemplary lesson – whether oil drilling or administrative law and litigation. Hornbeck exemplifies the need for great care in constructing injunctions against the United States and its agencies.
Refusal is always an option. There may be criminal or financial penalties for doing so, but refusal is an option.
Not if you want to remain in office.
You're joking, right? The Dems have repeatedly encouraged Obama to ignore the courts and use his Executive Power to circumvent rulings.
I am not joking. They won't support him if he openly refuses to obey a court ruling. When SCOTUS ruled that the states can decide on whether to expand Medicaid or not under Obamacare without penalty, Obama and the Dems had to comply.
Texas and any of the other Southern states that were treated differently under the Voting Rights Act do not have to obtain preclearance, including Texas. It says so on DOJ's website.
The effect of the Shelby County decision is that the jurisdictions identified by the coverage formula in Section 4(b) no longer need to seek preclearance for the new voting changes, unless they are covered by a separate court order entered under Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act.
It is not Holder's decision to make. He needs approval from the courts.
December 17, 2014
In October, federal judge Nelva Gonzalez Ramos of the Southern District of Texas issued a far-reaching opinion striking down Texas’ new Voter ID law on several grounds. She not only found that the law violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, but also that it was an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote under the Equal Protection Clause, unlawful intentional discrimination against Hispanics and African-Americans, and a poll tax in violation of the Twenty-Fourth Amendment. Although the Fifth Circuit stayed the injunction and allowed the Voter ID law to take effect in November, Judge Ramos’ decision has received quite a bit of publicity.
One little-discussed aspect of the 147 page opinion was a reference the Department of Justice’s attempt to require Texas to once again get permission from the federal government whenever it changes its election laws. As Liberty Blog readers are aware, before last year’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder, Texas and many other States had to receive “preclearance” from DOJ to enact any new voting laws. Shelby County absolved states of that requirement. However, little-known Section 3(c) of the VRA allows a federal court to exercise supervisory authority over state election laws “for such period as it may deem appropriate” if it finds that a State has abridged “the voting guarantees of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment.” Thus, DOJ has contended that it may bring a State back under the preclearance regime after one finding of intentional discrimination by a federal judge.
The attempt to “bail in” Texas will be the first significant test of this provision in the post-Shelby County era. Even if the finding of intentional discrimination in this case was correct, Section 3(c) is an extraordinary remedy. As the Supreme Court has recognized, the preclearance provision in the VRA was one of the strongest assertions of federal power in our history: federal review of duly enacted state laws is foreign to our system of dual sovereignty. However, it was justified for decades because the covered States and subdivisions had engaged in non-stop discrimination for more than a century before the passage of the VRA.
Unlike the original preclearance provision, DOJ’s attempt to “bail in” Texas is based on the finding of one federal district judge in a single case based upon circumstantial evidence. As such, it is an even greater exercise of federal power and should be held unconstitutional. At the very least, DOJ should be required to prove that Texas has engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination in order to place it back under the heavy hand of federal supervision. But if the tone of Judge Ramos’ opinion is any indication, Texas could be “bailed in” sooner, rather than later.
Calling it a memo helps me understand the difference. I wasn’t sure exactly what he did or why it was followed since it wasn’t an EO.
The screaming, gnashing of teeth and rending of garment has started - led by Maxine Waters in Los Angeles. She’s been screaming all over the local news all day.
What old Maxine doesn’t understand is that massive illegal immigration hurts her people most of all.
But then her constituency has changed over the past few years so she has to support illegal immigration if she wants to stay in office.
What a hypocrite.
” What old Maxine doesn’t understand is that massive illegal immigration hurts her people most of all.”
This psycho-wretch only cares about herself.
Bump to the frikken top!
The screaming, gnashing of teeth and rending of garment has started - led by Maxine Waters in Los Angeles. She’s been screaming all over the local news all day.
What old Maxine doesn’t understand is that massive illegal immigration hurts her people most of all.
But then her constituency has changed over the past few years so she has to support illegal immigration if she wants to stay in office.
What a hypocrite.
Most of them are simply carrying Obama’s water.....for them it’s political to keep their seats.
Besides this has nothing to do with “people” in that any Democrate gives a hoot about illegals...it’s all about voting “numbers” in this next election...and so is Obama’s using his power to by bass congress on immigration.
Democrats know full well they do not have the publics support....their job is to make it “look like it” while they bring in foreigners to get them licenses so they can vote.
Good news is RARE in the last 6 years but this decision has to rank up there at the top. Hallelujah and Amen, Judge Hanen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now, if Barry attempts to issue work permits to illegals, Congress has court-sponsored grounds to prosecute him for it.
Holder and Obama called him “ a conservative judge”.
How can these idiots be so far removed from the Constitution?
Twenty Seven states are already suing, with more to come.
The states are forced to bear educational costs, welfare costs
and health care costs ( measles outbreak etc)without any federal help, AND the IRS is giving a tax credit to illegal aliens who file , and they get a monetary return even if they have ZERO income?
No wonder the states are suing, This is demographic warfare
executed by Obama on the People.
Holder and Obama know what they did was against the law. They are lawless. They don’t care about the constitution. It’s old and outdated to them. It was written by white men. That is the way radicals are and why we should never elect them into the White House.
The judges they appoint are the same as them...lawless in that they make up and revise the constitution as it suits their leftist ideology.
“And THAT is exactly why it should be the National Guard that’s called up — if that was to happen it would be prima facie evidence of Treason.”
*****
If the media wasn’t the propaganda wing of the Democrat Party, I would agree.
However, Obama would love the chance to federalize the Texas National Guard. It would be spun as the equivalent of President Eisenhower doing the same to the Arkansas National Guard to stop a racist governor in the Little Rock Nine desegregation incident.
It wouldn’t be viewed by the majority as treason. Just a courageous civil rights stand by Pres_ent Zero.
Hey Texas!!!
Send that New Governor of yours up to Pennsy to help us out!!! We got a REAL winner up here...
Amen
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.