RSS
From the New York Times:
Appeals Court Denies Bid to Let Obama Immigration Plan Proceed
By JULIA PRESTON MAY 26, 2015A federal appeals court on Tuesday denied the Obama administration’s request to lift a hold on the president’s executive actions on immigration, which would have granted protection from deportation as well as work permits to millions of immigrants in the country illegally.
Two of three judges on a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, left in place an injunction by a Federal District Court judge in Brownsville, Tex. The ruling comes in a lawsuit filed by Texas and 25 other states against actions President Obama took in November. Many of the initiatives were scheduled to take effect this month.
The appeals court found that the states had sufficient legal grounds to bring the lawsuit and that the administration had not shown that it would be harmed if the injunction remained in place and the programs were further delayed.
Also denied was a request by the administration to limit the injunction to the states bringing the lawsuit. The ruling is a second setback for programs the president hoped would be a major piece of his legacy, raising new uncertainty about whether they will take effect before the end of his term and casting doubts on the confidence of administration lawyers that their case was very strong.
The lawsuit was filed in December and on Feb. 16, Judge Andrew S. Hanen, of Federal District Court in Brownsville ordered a preliminary injunction on the programs while he ruled on the constitutional issues in the suit.
In a statement, Ken Paxton, the attorney general of Texas, said Mr. Obama had tried to impose “a drastic change in immigration policy” without the consent of Congress. The appeals court decision is “a victory for those committed to preserving the rule of law in America,” Mr. Paxton said. “We will continue to fight the brazen lawlessness that has become a trademark of the Obama administration.”
White House officials said the ruling was not surprising, but they declined to discuss the next legal move for the administration.
“Today, two judges of the Fifth Circuit chose to misrepresent the facts and the law,” a White House spokeswoman, Brandi Hoffine, said. “The president’s actions were designed to bring greater accountability to our broken immigration system, grow the economy and keep our communities safe. They are squarely within the bounds of his authority and they are the right thing to do for the country.”
The Justice Department could appeal the ruling on the emergency stay to the full appeals court, but legal experts said it was more likely that the administration would skip that conservative court and ask the Supreme Court to allow the programs to proceed.
The legal wrangling suggests that Mr. Obama and his aides may have underestimated the legal and political challenges to offering protections to more than four million illegal immigrants without a congressional vote.
Yeah, there’s such a thing as “prosecutorial discretion,” but DAs aren’t allowed to print up 5 million Get Out of Jail Free cards and hand them out to relatives of their political supporters.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Is it normal for the executive branch to call out appeals court judges like this?
“Today, two judges of the Fifth Circuit chose to misrepresent the facts and the law,” a White House spokeswoman, Brandi Hoffine, said.
Is it just me, or does this characterization by an official WH spokesperson sound way out of line in describing the ruling of judges on a case involving the executive branch?
Would lawyers for the Justice Department get away with such a description? Is it OK if the WH says such a thing?
I don’t know what the consequences might be, or if that’s just the sort of thing other WH spokespeople have said in the past. But it strikes me as extremely disrespectful of the judges involved in a case in which one is effectively a defendant in the lawsuit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiDiHX50zT4
If it’s legal for the government and illegal for the citizen it is tyranny. People are going to blow whistles on it.
Legal help: Hlade’s Law:
If you have a difficult task, give it to a lazy person — they will find an easier way to do it.
If you have a difficult task, give it to a lazy person — they will find an easier way to do it."
The easiest way is to not do it at all. That will quite often be the approach your lazy person takes.
This isn’t a victory, nor is it even a reprieve. All those millions of illegal aliens will remain in the U.S. and will get, as they say, a “de facto amnesty”. They’ll serve as a constant temptation to both the Dems and the weak-minded in the GOP leadership.
The only way to actually solve the issue is to defeat it as a *concept*. Otherwise it will keep coming back. That’s great for those who make their living from fighting battle after battle, but it’s horrible for the U.S.
Want to stop amnesty as a *concept*? Email or tweet leading amnesty opponents and demand they finally support the Stop Amnesty Challenge (Google it). It’s the only plan that’s an intellectual challenge to the elites, and it’s the only plan that will stop the very concept of amnesty.
When Brandis are in charge, things are a long way from normal.
This is unfortunately only a speed bump in the efforts of the Democrats to import new clients/voters for the welfare state and the Chamber of Commerce Republicans who want a couple more generations of dirt cheap labor.
It’s typical of the way community organizers talk, yes.
“Jerry Smith has made his ruling, now let him enforce it!”
Well, we’re beyond bombast like that into wussified passive-aggressive lawyerspeak, but let me translate Brandi’s comment: “Good luck forcing the President of the United States to do anything he doesn’t feel like doing, suckers. Enforce the laws? Ha ha ha. Muchas gracias y buenas noches.”
Hey, we’ll take small victories where we can get them. I had a drink earlier to toast the fifth circuit court of appeals.
Is it just me, or does this characterization by an official WH spokesperson sound way out of line in describing the ruling of judges on a case involving the executive branch?
Would lawyers for the Justice Department get away with such a description? Is it OK if the WH says such a thing?
I don't know what the consequences might be, or if that's just the sort of thing other WH spokespeople have said in the past. But it strikes me as extremely disrespectful of the judges involved in a case in which one is effectively a defendant in the lawsuit.Replies: @Brad, @Harry Baldwin
You beat me to it. This statement seems beyond inappropriate to me.
Legal help: Hlade's Law:
If you have a difficult task, give it to a lazy person -- they will find an easier way to do it.Replies: @Mr. Anon
“SKINET says:
If you have a difficult task, give it to a lazy person — they will find an easier way to do it.”
The easiest way is to not do it at all. That will quite often be the approach your lazy person takes.
Will you old guys stop harping on this constitution thing?
The constitution should be torn up.
The constitution has failed at its purpose: to preserve the opportunity for white people to have a decent life.
Time to scrap it all and switch to something that actually works.
The president’s actions were designed to bring greater accountability to our broken immigration system…
So, we must be punished: “yes, we don’t have a proper immigration system, so you must be punished. We will bring in four million illegals and let you have it good and hard. Maybe then you will see the light, lie back, and let yourselves be displaced by your betters.”
grow the economy and keep our communities safe.
Of course the opposite is true, but the apparatchiks append this at the end of every policy. Thus the War on Terror is for economic growth and safety; the Affordable Care Act is for economic growth and safety; etc.
When did Marie Harf change her name?
These judges are just pandering to the racist xenophobic element of the country. Denying someone their dignity just because they want a better life is reprehensible
For this administration it is. Obama called out a Supreme Court Justice during one of his State of the Union speeches. It’s a common tactic of authoritarians and American Progressives are, at the core, authoritarians. It’s what’s behind this and other maneuvers by Team Obama. They act and dare the rest of the political class to stop them.
One doesn’t have to be a fan of Savage to appreciate when he refers to the sorority girls running the Obama administration.
And they're not really running anything but their mouths. I do get the sense that putting a bimbo face on the U.S. government is Obama's way to troll the white man who humiliated his father's people (in his mind) back in the days of the British Empire.
“The President…shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” United States Constitution, Article II, Section 3.
“…this Clause does not grant power but rather imposes a duty: ‘The President…shall take Care…’ This is not optional; it is mandatory…English kings had claimed the power to suspend laws unilaterally, but the Framers expressly rejected that practice. Here, the executive would be obliged to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed’.”
— Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz of the Cato Institute before the House Committee on the Judiciary, December 13, 2013
The founders of this nation did not want one-man rule. The President’s job is not to make the federal laws, but to enforce laws which Congress passes and which he signs into law. Refusing to enforce a federal law is the same thing in practice as the de facto repeal of it. I’m not sure if Twinkie…excuse me, Brandi…can wrap her pretty little head around this difficult concept, but I think most citizens can.
If Obama was acting unconstitutionally, he would not be participating in the litigation, appealing the ruling, or acknowledging the justiciability of the dispute. He would just act, the courts be damned, Andrew Jackson-style.
Instead, he did nothing to stand in the way of the federal courts striking this down. This was guaranteed from the start. Perhaps the challenge has merit, in which case he was going to lose. Or it doesn’t, in which case he would lose anyway since the federal courts have acted like the shock troops of the Republican party ever since stealing the election in 2000.
On everything except gay rights, the federal courts will invariably take the side of the Republican establishment. This was political theater from day one. The Ds get to make promises they can’t keep to gain votes. The Rs get the status quo, unlimited immigration continuing to suppress wages with no citizenship or benefits.
The similarities to the abortion debate are striking. “We want to legalize your cousins/outlaw abortion! We can’t right now, though, because those darn heartless conservatives/baby-killing liberals control the courts! Vote for us! We’re sure we can change it next time!”
“These judges are just pandering to the racist xenophobic element of the country. Denying someone their dignity just because they want a better life is reprehensible.”
Let’s try an experiment, shall we?
“Denying an immigrant their dignity just because they want a better life is reprehensible.”
“Denying a citizen their dignity just because they want to maintain a better life is reprehensible.”
Seems you weren’t entirely forthcoming in your use of “someone,” were you, Hugh?
The only way to actually solve the issue is to defeat it as a *concept*. Otherwise it will keep coming back. That's great for those who make their living from fighting battle after battle, but it's horrible for the U.S.
Want to stop amnesty as a *concept*? Email or tweet leading amnesty opponents and demand they finally support the Stop Amnesty Challenge (Google it). It's the only plan that's an intellectual challenge to the elites, and it's the only plan that will stop the very concept of amnesty.Replies: @AnAnon
“de facto amnesty” – that doesn’t include the right to chainmigrate their families here.
Even better, how about making the Challenge happen and let's concentrate on stopping amnesty? See:
http://glaivester.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-stop-amnesty-challenge.htmlReplies: @Jack Hanson
He owes an apology to sorority girls then.
And they’re not really running anything but their mouths. I do get the sense that putting a bimbo face on the U.S. government is Obama’s way to troll the white man who humiliated his father’s people (in his mind) back in the days of the British Empire.
It does lead to *de facto* chain migration. If you search my site for “network effect” you’ll find that it’s no surprise that having lots of illegal aliens leads to their friends and relatives coming to join them.
Even better, how about making the Challenge happen and let’s concentrate on stopping amnesty? See:
http://glaivester.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-stop-amnesty-challenge.html
The only thing you've managed is to challenge Whiskey for the title of Biggest Cringe Inducer around here.
Even better, how about making the Challenge happen and let's concentrate on stopping amnesty? See:
http://glaivester.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-stop-amnesty-challenge.htmlReplies: @Jack Hanson
Would you please STFU and stop filling every topic here with your constant autistic appeals to use social media to “shame” the shameless.
The only thing you’ve managed is to challenge Whiskey for the title of Biggest Cringe Inducer around here.
Is it just me, or does this characterization by an official WH spokesperson sound way out of line in describing the ruling of judges on a case involving the executive branch?
Would lawyers for the Justice Department get away with such a description? Is it OK if the WH says such a thing?
I don't know what the consequences might be, or if that's just the sort of thing other WH spokespeople have said in the past. But it strikes me as extremely disrespectful of the judges involved in a case in which one is effectively a defendant in the lawsuit.Replies: @Brad, @Harry Baldwin
Don’t forget, Obama had no problem rebuking members of the Supreme Court to their faces during his 2010 State of the Union address.
Brandi, you’re a fine girl,
what a good wife you would be,
but my life, my lover, my lady,
is Larry Sinclair
A new Jacksonian “they ruled, now let’s see them enforce it” moment? I don’t see him acquiescing on this.