Supreme Court Will Hear Obama “Executive Amnesty” Case – U.S. v Texas (Judge Hanen Ruling)…

D.A.P.A or Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program – is the executive action Obama attempted in November of 2014 which was shut down by Federal Judge Andrew Hanen in February ’15 with the issuance of an emergency injunction.

  • The DOJ appealed the Hanen injunction, on merit, to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and lost.
  • The DOJ then appealed the Hanen injunction, on standing, to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, and lost again.  (Full Backstory)

The Supremes 2012

The DOJ then filed an appeal with the US Supreme Court.  Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.  The Court will almost certainly hear oral arguments in the case in late April, with a decision expected in late June – just as the 2016 presidential campaign, in which immigration has already played a major role, really starts to heat up.

(Via Amy Howe) […]  The first issue that the Justices agreed to decide today is a threshold question: whether Texas and the other states have a right to file the lawsuit at all – a legal doctrine known as “standing.” The idea behind standing is that federal courts should only decide actual disputes, between parties who have a concrete interest in the conflict. You can’t bring a lawsuit, for example, simply because you don’t like one of the government’s policies; you generally have to show that you have been directly affected or injured by that policy.

The lower court in this case ruled that, at the very least, Texas has a right to challenge the administration’s immigration policy.

[…]  The next question that the Justices agreed today to decide goes to the merits of the state’s challenge: assuming the states do have a right to bring the case, does the Obama administration have the authority to issue the new immigration policy?

[…]  A third question before the Court is whether a federal law that governs how federal agencies issue regulations required the Department of Homeland Security (the section of the government that actually issued the policy) to notify the public about the proposed policy and provide an opportunity for members of the public to weigh in on it.

[…]  In granting review today, the Justices also instructed the states and the Obama administration to address a fourth question: whether the immigration policy violates the Constitution’s “Take Care Clause,” which requires the president to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”   The states had raised this question briefly in the Supreme Court, while emphasizing it heavily below. In many cases, the fact that the lower court did not decide a legal question will often prompt the Justices to decline to do so as well – but that did not happen here. This could mean that the Justices just want to make sure that all of the bases are covered in the case, or it could mean that there are at least four Justices who believe that the argument has some merit; it is impossible to know right now.  (read full)

The underlying case has never been argued at the lower court level.  As soon as Judge Hanen delivered the initial injunction, the DOJ began the appeals process against the injunction without ever arguing the merits of the underlying case.

The decision of SCOTUS to take up the full aspects of the underlying case is remarkable; however, it could be they felt it impossible to rule on the injunction appeal without just directly getting to the heart of the case.

Regardless, their willingness to go deep, makes it seem like at least four justices are willing to jump into the politics of the executive action.  The underlying reasoning of Judge Hanen was well constructed and eloquently outlined.  The President granting work authorization to illegal aliens is certain to become part of the larger argument showcasing executive overreach.

Obama_seal

This entry was posted in Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Illegal Aliens, media bias, Obama Research/Discovery, Supreme Court, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

124 Responses to Supreme Court Will Hear Obama “Executive Amnesty” Case – U.S. v Texas (Judge Hanen Ruling)…

  1. feralcatsblog says:

    Golly, I sure hope Rafael doesn’t get deported.

    Liked by 6 people

    • Kaiser Roll says:

      That would be the easiest way to test whether he is naturalized or not. A person convicted of certain crimes, that was a naturalized citizen, can have their citizenship revoked. Would a Trump run DOJ attempt this, probably not. Would still be interesting though.

      Like

      • PremAmerica says:

        Do you remember Sunday on ABC with Stephanopoulos (which was actually recorded on Saturday)?

        Do you remember how hard Trump was on Justice Roberts? Literally called him a “liberal justice.”

        Do you think Trump knew this was coming?

        Do you think it was a warning shot telling Roberts to not pull a Obamacare-like stunt?

        What do you think?

        Someone wrote on twitter, “They play checkers. Trump plays 3D Ninja Chess!”

        Liked by 5 people

        • Christopher Johnson says:

          If the Court has decided to play politics on this, I think the fact that Trump is likely to be the next president will HAVE to play a factor. Any power they try to award Obama will also be available to President Trump.

          So is the court so short-sighted that it will award a short term win of saying President Obama can unilaterally override Congress on matters of immigration for the next 12 months while giving the same authority to President Trump for the next 48 to 96 months?

          Liked by 5 people

        • tballard56 says:

          This is just another opportunity by Obama to show how much he owns Chief Justice Roberts. I would like to believe otherwise, but there is no other explanation for the judicial gymnastics he performed on the Obamacare rulings.

          Liked by 1 person

  2. bob e says:

    we are screwed, blued & tatoo-ed ..

    Liked by 5 people

  3. Kristi Ann says:

    It’s more than time to Stop this Abomination Barack Hussein Obama ( BHO ) aka Barry Soetoro who is a Devout muslim and muslim brotherhood member and SYMPATHIZER!!

    BHO is a USURPER / TIN-POT want to be dictator!! BHO is NOT a prophet or a king PERIOD!!

    United We Stand with Israel-Yisrael and our Judeo-Christian Nation United States of America, Divided We FALL!!

    Please PRAY for the HOLY LAND of Israel-Yisrael and our Judeo-Christian Nation United States of America Everyday!! “Pray Without Ceasing.” ( 1 Thessalonians 5:17 KJV )!!

    Love❤ Always and Shalom Everyone, YSIC \o/

    Kristi

    Liked by 5 people

    • georgiafl says:

      Israel has proved trying to forge treaties with Islamists is a futile endeavor.
      Israel and Japan have long known that importing Islam is a dangerous thing for any nation to do.
      Europe has proved that importing Islamists is foolish and dangerous.

      Islam is public enemy number one.
      Warring, r4ping, trafficking in drugs, human beings, including children, barbarism galore.

      Islam is its own blasphemy. Every hour, day, week, year, decade and century.

      Islam is as Islam does.
      Here is the last 30 days of Islam’s deeds – http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks

      27,649 deadly documented jihad attacks since 9/11/01 – http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

      Liked by 1 person

      • Kaiser Roll says:

        There is actually a sizeable Arab minority in Israel, mostly Muslim, but also Christians and Druze. Notably, while the Muslims in Israel complain about discrimination, they don’t leave the country for the other corrupt dumps next door.

        Liked by 2 people

        • georgiafl says:

          Israel will never allow a Muslim majority in Israel…and I bet they vet the ones that are allowed to live there very carefully.

          Like

          • Kaiser Roll says:

            If your ancestors didn’t bail in 1948, you got to stay. There are limitations of West Bank residents to work in Israel, and Gaza residents have been locked for a long time but used to be regulated like those in the West Bank.

            The Israelis have done admirable things to preserve a Jewish demographic majority, it would be nice if they told Diaspora Jews to stop calling Westerners ‘racist’ when they want the same thing.

            Liked by 3 people

    • Mike says:

      They f– this one up, the next appeal is to Judges Colt, Smith and Wesson.

      Like

  4. Rattlerjake says:

    If the Supreme court allows amnesty, we will be overrun with illegals 100X more than we are now. Mexico will no longer exist as a country because they will ALL be here!

    Liked by 6 people

  5. wheatietoo says:

    I pray that justice will prevail on this…and a majority of justices will agree with Judge Hanen & rule against this unlawful executive overreach.

    Liked by 8 people

  6. upaces88 says:

    Justice John Roberts Signed Off On Obama’s Removal For Treason
    ​There’s a bombshell of a rumor going around right now that Chief Justice John Roberts has signed off on Interpol to have Obama removed from office for multiple counts of treason.
    The charges are to include declaring war without consent of Congress, Second Amendment infringements, and abuse of the Posse Comitatus Act during the Bundy land dispute.
    (Congressman: Any Criticism Against Obama Is Racist)

    Continue Reading….and remember this went NO WHERE:
    http://www.mrconservative.com/2014/04/40309-justice-john-roberts-signed-off-on-obamas-removal-for-treason/

    Like

    • Notmeagain says:

      Wishful thinking, is my opinion. We know and have know that all this amounts to treason, especially in the mass. But how could Justice Roberts authorize anyone to arrest someone? Maybe he could give an opinion about the merits of the charge, but the Supremes are not a law enforcement agency. And Interpol makes no sense unless the traitor is in another country. Now the FBI could do this. If they had enough proof, say through an open email server.

      Liked by 4 people

  7. Linden says:

    When will the court rule in this case? Last year, it was in June. If this year is the same, depending on the nature of the ruling, then that leaves 5 full months for O’s mischief before the election. Or he could, if the ruling goes against him, tell the court to go f___ itself. If he does it to Congress, he could do it to the SC.

    Like

  8. Good deal. I am hoping for a scathing rebuke of executive overreach and equally so, dereliction of duty.

    Liked by 4 people

    • PreNanny says:

      Did you forget a sarc tag?

      Liked by 4 people

      • boutis says:

        That would be a normal reaction. But Obama is a year out from being out of office. Approving his antics opens the door to the next president to do a lot with executive actions also. If Obama has a pen so does the next president. When the Democrats and eGOP were under the delusion that globalists like Obama would be in a majority forever it looked like a winner to them. Now with a possible Trump with the same power it doesn’t look so much a winner. The Supreme Court can let it stand and hand Trump everything including an election win and even more power or they can start trying to roll it back on Obama with an eye to limiting Trump. The eGOP and progressives are in a catch 22. An Imperial Globalist presidency looked good to them until it didn’t. Slippery slope and cause and effect confounds progressive globalists.

        Liked by 7 people

        • rmnewt says:

          a few have inferred the new pres can swing the gate the other way. Not so sure about that. Once the flood gate opens and people are given rights the Nation has rarely reversed course. Roe v Wade may be similar in that once the court ruled the state sponsored slaughter began and has only grown.

          Like

        • Betty says:

          That is why we need to wake up every American citizen to vote in the primaries and the general. If the Roberts court allows the Uni-party to fill the voter rolls with id’d illegals we need to overwhelm them with our legal votes.

          If Roberts were to just remove the injunction Obama could go ahead with issuing ids to the illegals, would the uni-parth urge the illegals to vote in the 2016 election to overwhelm us?

          But with just the injunction removed we could tell all the illegals that after the election the our president will erase the executive action/order and if they voted they, and all their family would be deported and none of them would every be allowed back into our country ever. So is that why Roberts is going to rule on everything to officially deny us that means of defending our Republic?

          Will Justice Roberts officially sign the death warrant for the United States of America, or officially restore the our Constitution?

          Liked by 1 person

    • Rattlerjake says:

      Wishful thinking! These idiots have made more unconstitutional decisions that all the previous courts put together, including Ovomitcare and fag-marriage. They are owned by this corrupt government and will do as they are told!

      Liked by 2 people

  9. RINOKiller says:

    What an ignorant son-of-a-b!tch!

    Like

  10. k9puppy says:

    On the evening news Ernst said he had no doubt SCOTUS will give barry what he wants. It wouldn’t surprise me if he is correct.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. NewOrleans says:

    I fully expect John Roberts to give Obama the 5th vote he needs. Again.

    Liked by 8 people

    • citizen817 says:

      Hopefully not this time again with Roberts. Obammie will be out of office in a year, where as the justice is a life term, with real consequences. To affect a new incoming president.
      He damn sure better get his ducks in a row this time around. We have our nation to save.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Betty says:

        “Obammie will be out of office in a year” If Roberts removes the injunction he will have given the illegals ids and the vote – they will vote uni-party and Roberts will have no worries – ever. But the United States of America will be dead by his hand.

        Liked by 1 person

    • rmnewt says:

      need to reload the court to counter him, maybe threaten with impeachment too. Not sure if there is anything else we can do to our “creative” chief justice.

      Like

  12. myrightpenguin says:

    I’ve gained a bad feeling over the last few years that the SCOTUS has become a conduit for the globalist agenda, to override states rights, and link in Federal Government and Executive Branch overreach with the global elitist agenda. Hope I am wrong.

    Liked by 13 people

    • citizen817 says:

      I’m hoping you are wrong as well.

      Liked by 3 people

    • singtune says:

      Hate to say it~~~~~But I truly feel you are Correct~! {Yes i hope we both are Wrong.}

      Liked by 3 people

    • yohio says:

      It is my opinion that this one decision, will be the rise or fall of this Republic. We will rise up if Obama and SCOTUS opens the gate to a flood of illegals. We have finally had it and were not gonna take it anymore.

      Liked by 6 people

    • yakmaster2 says:

      The Liberals on our Supreme Court are activist Judges who do have a so-called social justice, multi-culturalism, anti-nationalism tilt. I really hope they don’t screw the American public AGAIN like they did on Obamacare, but the fact they even agreed to hear the case worries me!

      Liked by 2 people

      • Doodahdaze says:

        They could have declined. This is bad news. Impeachment should be looked at.

        Liked by 1 person

        • RINOKiller says:

          Except it will be an arrest warrant on Inaguration Day

          From the White House to the Big House!

          Like

        • boutis says:

          It only takes three to grant a review so I don’t think it was avoidable. Adding in the fourth issue, is it even constitutional and does Obama enforce existing Congressional law, is the stinker of a pushback that the DOJ did not see coming. The DOJ wanted the review on lawfare technicalities and didn’t get it. Politically it probably is a disaster because it is about illegal immigration during an election year about illegal immigration. The arguments will be held while Europe is being overrun and our own border is too when the weather starts warming up. While the DOJ is arguing “the children!” the public is thinking MS-13 and cartels, rape gangs, and welfare hordes. The Democrats and eGOP would have much better off letting sleeping dogs in a Brownsville courthouse lay.

          Liked by 1 person

    • Betty says:

      That could explain why Cruz pushed so hard for Roberts elevation to the Supreme Court.

      Liked by 1 person

      • myrightpenguin says:

        Roberts was known as a corporatist when confirmed. In those days we didn’t know half as much regarding the overlap of corporatism and globalism. Now we seem to have re-found what true conservatism is, with small business and entrepreneurs. Roberts is with the multinationals.

        Liked by 1 person

  13. emet says:

    The justices may conclude that President Obama is merely seeking “equal dignity” with kings, dictators, and despots.

    Liked by 2 people

  14. yohio says:

    If anyone ever wondered whether Presidents we’re assassinated for a purpose or even false flag events. Ask yourself this has there ever been a president who has so divided a country, or done things what a lot of people have perceived to be criminal or unjust then this President. Yet IMO the threat against him seems to be very low, and of course part of that reason is because of the belief it would set off racial tensions, and the other part seems to be no agenda against this President. For the record this is just for conversation and I’m really trying to show that a lot of theses other situations happened because of perceived threats and for some reason Obama is not seen as threat. I’m asking why do you think that is?

    Liked by 1 person

    • smiley says:

      “..other situation happened because of perceived threats…”

      to whom ?

      Like

    • Arkindole says:

      Because he would be elevated in history to martyrdom.
      The blue team won’t do it for that reason.
      If the Islamics do it they know we will turn 5 countries into glass, the moonrocks in Mecca will be gone, and they will be nothing more than vapourized meat.
      Putin is doing just fine with the communists holding first place in New Hampshire.
      China needs us to buy their flimsy shit.
      That leaves the crazy, who have had many chances, but apparently have a problem planning and executing things.

      One has to wonder where those budding Oswalds and Sirhan Sirhans are at the moment, especially given the fact that the SS has a problem with the WH fence.

      Liked by 1 person

      • The useful psychos are a wholly owned subsidiary of Team Red. No point there. The people who despise Obama realize he’s more useful alive, destroying the image of the proggies for decades. No incentive there, either. Better to tolerate his slow destructions, much of which can be reversed in patriotic glee.

        Making Obama sit through the word’s collective judgment of his on-paper failure is just punishment for his under-table success.

        Like

    • Betty says:

      Because he is implementation the agenda of the usurpers. And they, for now, can remain hidden.

      Liked by 2 people

  15. daveinsocal says:

    If the supreme court rules in barky’s favor, expect a cacophony of yells for a constitutional convention. Either that or pitch forks and torches.

    Liked by 2 people

    • yakmaster2 says:

      At that point I would welcome a Constitutional Convention. What is the quorum needed for that? Do we have enough Republican Governors?

      Like

      • Arkindole says:

        I keep hearing that from so-called scholars such as Levin. Be careful what you wish for because the progressive left wants to get into that document more than you do. And, with the percentages that they represent across the states that is a real and potential threat.

        There is a lot of talk about DELEGATES to the republican primary going rogue. Now, think about that concept of delegates making the votes at a constitutional convention in the states.

        It’s working fine. It’s the cultural interpretations that are screwing it up. The impeachment process has been under utilized.

        Liked by 3 people

        • flyanddive says:

          Yes, a con-con is way to risky at this point in history.

          Liked by 4 people

        • amjean says:

          We saw what happened with the so called conservative movement that
          was hijacked by GOPe providing us with politicians that on the outside
          campaigned as a conservative and once in office voted entirely different.

          The same thing would happen with a constitutional convention; it would
          be co opted and lefties are chomping at the bit we fall in to another trap.

          We already have the laws on the books; follow them.

          Mark Levin champions this convention; he is anti Trump, pro Ted Cruz
          who is not eligible according to the constitution to be president.
          The lesson should be already learned when it comes to this self proclaimed
          constitutional expert.

          Liked by 3 people

      • Convention is an extremely bad idea. Bad, bad. Did I say bad?

        An Article V convention opens up the entire Constitution. This is the case for every Constitutional convention. A runaway convention is a misnomer because it is false that a Constitutional convention can be limited by Congress or the states. Not only can a convention not be limited by them, there is nothing Congress or the states can do to stop a convention once it begins.

        So many people don’t fully grasp the authority Constitutional convention delegates have. The convention is sovereign and the delegates are acting with the highest authority we have as citizens – the authority to establish our government. The delegates (the Constitution doesn’t say who chooses the delegates) can do anything. They can propose any amendment…they can also write a new constitution with a new ratification method. A ratification method that bypasses the states altogether.

        What if the delegates want non-citizens to vote? Or maybe they want to change the presidential eligibility requirements? What if they abolish the Electoral College?

        There are so many ways a convention could absolutely destroy our Constitution and our Country as we know it.

        Levin, and everyone who supports a Constitutional convention, are idiots.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Karmy says:

        NO on Constitutional Convention!!! Bad idea. See Publius Huldah on why http://freedomoutpost.com/?s=constitutional+convention

        Like

  16. Regina says:

    hold out hope – they Have ruled against him before
    NLRB vs. Canning

    WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court ruling that President Barack Obama exceeded his authority in 2012 by appointing three people to the National Labor Relations Board kicks off a scramble by the current board to revisit hundreds of labor decisions made while the now-departed appointees were seated.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-ruling-forces-nlrb-to-scramble-to-redecide-cases-1403818711

    Like

  17. RoninInCA says:

    The one branch of our government that worries me the most is the Judicial Branch.. That was the method of destruction here in CA.. We may never recover in CA.. So be Vigilant and hope by the grace of God SCOTUS gets this right… The timing of this make one wonder though..

    Liked by 3 people

  18. Old Hillbillt says:

    Great! Another chance for the “traitor named john roberts” to sell this country out. Wonder where he will hide out on “vacation” this time? (Probably in the halfrican”s new villa in Dubai)!

    Liked by 1 person

  19. DrPretorius says:

    It is way past time for the people of this country to throw off the yoke of judicial tyranny that has become our undue burden since the latter half of the 20th century. The only thing that gives the tinpot dictators of the USSC any authority at all is the willingness of the people to be supine as sheep when confronted with the extra-constitutional “rulings” that have foisted every destructive evil, from unfettered abortion to HusseinCare to homosexual “marriage” and so much more, on this country. If we can find a Trump to lead us at the national level, then we need to find other such men that can be elevated at the state level who will finally reassert the rights of states to disregard any “ruling” that is clearly outside the scope of the constitution as written. The era of liberal tyranny through judicial activism must end.

    Liked by 9 people

  20. ZurichMike says:

    I look at it this way — if the Supreme Court upholds the mulatto Marxist’s overreach, it sets a precendet for the next president to do the same (or undo it) — and with Trump likely as the next president, even the stupid Latina and the Ruth Buzzie Ginsburg will probably agree with the states.

    Liked by 8 people

  21. Baron Von Ruthless says:

    4, nay. 5, aye. 320 million Americans, screwed.

    Liked by 3 people

  22. Doodahdaze says:

    This stinks. This reminds me of the Obamacare fiasco.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. Doodahdaze says:

    It is rare for the Court to take up an issue that was left undecided in lower courts. The question no doubt was added to assure that all aspects of the states’ challenge are reviewed together.

    http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/01/immigration-policy-review-and-decision-this-term/

    Liked by 1 person

  24. JAS says:

    I see at this decision to hear the case more as a shot across the bow to warn presidents about monarchical overreaches of their executive actions.

    Look at it this way. If you were a member of the highest, most powerful court in the land, would you allow a president to make you “irrelevant”, subject to overrule by a monarchy? I don’t think so.

    Liked by 1 person

  25. james23 says:

    So, once again, John “Tax” Roberts and Anthony Kennedy decide the most fundamental political issues in our democracy. 2 Men. 2 unelected, liberal Men.

    Yeah, just like the Framers intended. /

    Liked by 3 people

  26. Kaiser Roll says:

    Hoping for favorable treatment in the courts won’t be enough. We have to remove the traitors in Congress that are the enablers. With a two-thirds vote they can amend the constitution or remove the corrupt from office.

    Nearly every single congressional Democrat, except for a single digit number of people representing rural areas, is on board for the Third World invasion of this country. Plenty of Republicans are just as comfortable as long as their donors pay them off.

    Liked by 1 person

  27. georgiafl says:

    “…certain to become part of the larger argument showcasing executive overreach.”

    Pray this statement will come true. And that the effect will be the end of any other POTUS trying Obama’s usurpations and subversion of US Constitution and Bill of Rights, as well as States rights and sovereignty, and especially of Voter and Election Integrity.

    Liked by 1 person

  28. Libertati Aut Ad Mortem says:

    Of course the SCOTUS will rule for Obama and open borders. The Unites States within the confines of the District of Columbia is a corporation and rules for the benefit of the corporation and against the indentured serfs.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3002

    Liked by 2 people

  29. gettimothy says:

    Great. Leave it to a bunch of clowns who don’t follow the constitution or the plain meaning of written law. The court is illegitimate.

    Liked by 1 person

  30. amjean says:

    Not being well versed on this subject, I have questions.. Why would the SC take up
    this case, if not to find ways to support Obama’s executive order? Why not just leave
    the decision made with the lower courts? They had already ruled against Obama.

    I know I an missing something; would someone clue me on what it is? Thanks.

    Liked by 1 person

  31. NJF says:

    Grrrr. All I’ve got is…..They better get it right this time!

    Like

  32. Centinel2012 says:

    Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:

    Since this is the Roberts Court that like to make law i am not hopeful — but them maybe he will want to make amends for the insane Obama care rulings he made. for a proper ruling

    Like

  33. Bobbi D says:

    …OR we could look at it this way, with Trump leading the election since he announced, his immigration plan is a lot of what they people supporting him wants for America, the Supremes could finally come out from underneath the ‘threats’ from the obuma administration and uphold the oath they took and rule in the favor of America and her people….

    Like

    • Betty says:

      I think the “threats” are coming from more then just the obama administration. This is just another Globalist attack against Donald Trump and We The People. If allowed to vote, the illegals will attempt to take our country right out from under us – Useful Idiots thinking they are helping their own people. While all they are really doing is dousing the light of liberty in this world.

      Like

  34. jonvil says:

    One can only hope that the prevailing political Trump winds will trigger self-preservation over agenda.

    Like

  35. John Galt says:

    SCOTUS taking up issues not yet decided by Hanen gives me bad vibes.

    Liked by 2 people

  36. rmnewt says:

    This may be a much bigger deal than it appears. The SCOTUS decides in the summer in time for the Nov election. Could the courts decision swing the election with tens of millions of new voters wanting to keep the doors open to their friends and relatives from the third world?
    The Court’s action is the strongest counter to Trump’s top priority on immigration and border control. Unfortunately, this issue is not being heard in the court of public opinion, but rather in the “Supreme” Court. As we lament, the supremes have proven to have a different agenda from many/most of us.
    Its tough to get leverage on the SCOTUS, but if anyone can do it, Trump would seem to be the one.

    Liked by 1 person

  37. carolmcd says:

    My advice is to talk this issue up a lot between now and April-June to let the Court know how Americans feel. The Court is not supposed to be influenced by public opinion, but they are.

    Liked by 1 person

  38. carolmcd says:

    P.S. I hope Trump talks about it too. Judge Hanen’s decision in the lower court was pretty clean. Hopefully, the states will be judged to have standing.

    Liked by 1 person

  39. If supreme court justices agree with Obama, that will become the law and the next president will not be able to undo it!. I feel like Roberts is in Obama’s corner and this is fixed!. Guittierez is already claiming victory!

    Like

    • Lack is not all says:

      It breaks my heart. So much work and hope for nothing. The enemy is huge. They have something on Roberts.

      Like

    • Different opinion… Since what is being ruled upon is the states’ right to stop an executive action with an injunction; and at the whim of SCOTUS also hear the underlying executive action, a ruling in favor of Obama would allow the EXECUTIVE ACTION to go forward. It would still be an executive action which could be overturned by the next president.

      Like

  40. Betty says:

    Do you see in that picture of the Justices that Justice Antonin Scalia is sitting to the right of Roberts with his right hand open and resting on his knee and his left hand fisted and that Justice Roberts is mesmerized by the fist?

    Like

  41. chasingfacts says:

    “Cruz fought like hell to get Justice Roberts in there,” Trump said on ABC News’ This Week. “Justice Roberts turned out to be an absolute disaster, he turned out to be an absolute disaster because he gave us Obamacare.”
    David Jackson, USA TODAY 11:54 a.m. EST January 17, 2016

    Like

  42. stringy theory says:

    With Roberts and this court, no telling how it will come out. The SC long ago gave up interpreting the Constitution in favor of legislating from the bench.

    Liked by 1 person

  43. wasntme says:

    Crap. The ball js in obomba’s court now. Literally.
    Hopefully justices will decide on the merits of the case and not the amount of dirt obomba has on them.

    Like

  44. billsv says:

    I always thought a case had to “ripen” (be decided by the lower courts) before SCOTUS would hear it on the merits. If that were the case then only the merits of the injunction could be heard. Maybe the four judges who decided to hear the case were the very liberal judges who want to defend Obama’s actions. Perhaps more will be exposed in oral arguments

    Like

  45. redsequin4 says:

    There was no urgency to hear this case but the court hurried it onto their calendar anyway. Now there’ll be a decision before the election (June?). Politics anyone? New voters for the Dems?

    The fact the justices want to address the “Take Care Clause” gives me some hope but I don’t trust this court. Thomas, Alito and Scalia are the only justices we can rely on. Roberts and Kennedy are loose cannons. Did anyone believe Roberts would be the deciding vote for Obamacare TWICE?

    In 1965 the Hart-Celler Immigration act was passed and changed immigration policy in this country forever. Yet Americans were promised by many not to worry, it wouldn’t tear at the fabric of our nation. One of it’s biggest supporters was Ted Kennedy. In 1965 he said:

    “First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same … Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset … Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia … In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.” Senator Ted Kennedy (Center For Immigration Studies 1995 http://www.cis.org/1965ImmigrationAct-MassImmigration)

    If they rule in favor the flood of illegals will turn into a tsunami. This is what forty years of uncontrolled illegal immigration has brought us.

    Did anyone ever believe we’d have a President who’d be petitioning SCOTUS to bless his unconstitutional, lawless overreach? We surely are living in bizarro world.

    Like

  46. Jett Black says:

    The addition of the take care clause issue signals substantial concern about this rogue potus’ refusal to enforce existing immigration law. In the meantime, Hanen’s injunction remains in place.

    Like

  47. HA! The supreme court agreeing to hear the full case of executive overreach even though the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals only ruled on the right of the state to get an injunction is overreach on SCOTUS’ part.
    “The decision of SCOTUS to take up the full aspects of the underlying case is remarkable” and its remarkable because it is NEVER done. When does the supreme court hear an argument that didn’t come to them through an appellate court??? This SCOTUS is as unlawful as the administration it protects!!! and we have no recourse. I’m thinking the fix is in – it’s rigged in favor of Obama. SCOTUS could have delayed it ’til Obama’s term was up if they wanted to. In either case they’re activist judges – whether they want to allow Obama’s dictatorial power or they want to slap his hand, the justices are themselves overreaching their authority.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s