Supreme Court To Hear Immigration Case

[Tiberius]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/19/us/politics/supreme-court-weighs-obamas-immigration-plan-with-much-at-stake.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

 

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday will hear a major challenge to President Obama’s plan to shield millions of immigrants from deportation and allow them to work. The case, brought by 26 states, may produce a significant ruling on presidential power and immigration policy in the midst of a presidential campaign in which both issues have been front and center.

The case, United States v. Texas, No. 15-674, is being heard by an eight-member court, and the absence of Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February, has altered the judicial dynamic. A 4-4 deadlock is now a live possibility, one that would leave in place an appeals court ruling that blocks the plan without setting a Supreme Court precedent.

 

[Magox]

It will be blocked, as it should.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Magox

[Tiberius]

It will be blocked, as it should.

Roberts....And no way it should be

[Magox]

I support reforms that address many of the undocumented immigrants that are here, I do not support a president who unilaterally tries to do it on his own, specially one of this magnitude. Executive orders I've always believed were to supposed to help around the edges, this takes it to a whole new level. Something like this should go through the proper channels of how government typically works, and if you don't have the votes, too bad.

 

It will most likely be overturned.

[B-Man]

Supreme Court must rebuke Obama’s self-coronation: When one man can rewrite the law, that’s the definition of tyranny.

 

 

 

USA TODAY EDITORIALIZES: Obama’s immigration order overreaches: If this president is allowed to reinterpret the law, what about the next one?

 

 

 

Obama’s Unconstitutional Immigration Order.

 

 

 

 

.

[Tiberius]

A vote by Roberts or another conservative justice to deny standing to the states would probably tip the scales in the president’s favor.

In 1993, a year after leaving his job as a high-ranking Justice Department lawyer and 12 years before his appointment to the court, Roberts wrote a law review article saying U.S. courts should take a narrow view of legal standing and limit the right to sue to those who could show a clear prospect of concrete harm. That approach would show “judicial self-restraint,” he wrote, consistent with the philosophy that “judicial power is properly limited in a democratic society.”

As chief justice, he wrote the 5-4 decision in 2013 that cleared the way for same-sex marriage in California by finding that the sponsors of Proposition 8 — private citizens who “answer to no one,” as Roberts put it — lacked standing to represent the voters who had approved the initiative limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.

That same year, he was also part of a 5-4 majority that said human-rights groups and journalists couldn’t prove their overseas phone calls and emails had been intercepted by federal agents, so they lacked standing to challenge a secretive government surveillance program.

And Roberts led conservative justices in dissenting in 2007 when the court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency could regulate greenhouse gases, in a suit by states challenging the EPA’s refusal to address the issue. The court majority said one state, Massachusetts, had established standing to sue because it faced the loss of state tidelands from floods caused by global warming. But Roberts said that was “far too speculative” and argued that none of the states had shown a sufficient likelihood of harm from the EPA’s inaction.

 

http://www.sfchronicle.com/nation/article/John-Roberts-holds-the-key-as-Supreme-Court-takes-7251586.php

[DC Tom]

Roberts....And no way it should be

 

It should be, because reform immigration law is the responsibility of Congress, not the President.

 

It won't be, because the court will find the states don't have standing to bring the suit.

[B-Man]

Supreme Court divided on immigration case, signalling trouble for Obama: http://hill.cm/HiXuS7n

 

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is typically the court's swing voter, seemed to side with Texas and the 25 other states arguing the president overstepped his executive authority in granting deferred deportation to nearly 5 million immigrants.

 

"It seems to me that's a legislative, not an executive, task," he said.

 

"It's as if the president is setting the policy and the Congress is executing it," he said. "That seems upside down."

 

A 4-4 split by justices would leave in place a lower court’s decision blocking Obama’s action in a severe blow to the president.

 

The justices spent the majority of the 90-minute arguments grappling with whether Texas has a legal basis to challenge the creation of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans initiative and the expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals programs that have been on hold since February 2015.

 

 

 

 

 

The Supreme Court is hearing oral argument this morning on Obama's power over immigration policy.

 

FTA:

 

The government lost below, so a 4-4 split would leave in place an injunction barring the policy.

 

There had been some speculation that Justice Roberts might give a 5th vote to the pro-government side using a standing doctrine ground, but he said something that made that seem unlikely:

 

... Mr. Verrilli asserted that the state of Texas should not be allowed to challenge the president’s actions by claiming it would cost the state money to give driver’s licenses to the millions of immigrants affected by the federal policy. Mr. Verrilli argued that Texas could simply change its law to deny driver’s licenses to the immigrants.

“You would sue them instantly,” Chief Justice Roberts said as he repeatedly questioned the government’s arguments.

 

 

.

Edited April 18, 2016 by B-Man

[Tiberius]

Oh well, looks like Congress will have to do something now....

[DC Tom]

Oh well, looks like Congress will have to do something now....

 

Congress doesn't HAVE to do anything.

 

I wish they would, as our immigration policy and bureaucracy is an unholy mess and is desperate for reform (moreso than DOD). But they don't have to.

[Chef Jim]

 

Congress doesn't HAVE to do anything.

 

I wish they would, as our immigration policy and bureaucracy is an unholy mess and is desperate for reform (moreso than DOD). But they don't have to.

 

Yes they have to!! And I demand they do. I will stomp my feet and hold my breath until they do!! [/typical lib]

[B-Man]

Chief Justice Roberts uses Obama’s words against him on immigration case

 

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. prodded the Obama administration Monday to explain President Obama’s immigration flip-flop, when Mr. Obama in 2014 reversed himself and decided he did, after all, have powers to grant a tentative amnesty to as many as 5 million illegal immigrants.

 

Mr. Obama had repeatedly denied he had that kind of power, then after the 2014 election, when Congress refused to act on his policies, the president claimed a do-over and said he did have the power.

 

Chief Justice Roberts wondered what changed in Mr. Obama’s mind, and even read back one of Mr. Obama’s quotes to Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. recounting the president saying he would be “ignoring the law” if he were to grant a broad stay of deportation to millions of illegal immigrants..

 

“What was he talking about?” the chief justice prodded.

 

 

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...