Federal judge rules Obama’s executive amnesty orders unconstitutional
This is good news, but it’s probably just the beginning of the battle:
Earlier Tuesday, a federal court in Pennsylvania declared aspects of President Obama’s executive actions on immigration policy unconstitutional.
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.
Jonathan Adler, who wrote the piece, adds that he’s not sure whether states (such as Texas, mounting a suit) will be found to have standing to challenge Obama’s order in the courts. But he thinks this case proves that even if states don’t have standing, there are other ways to get a foot in the courtroom door on this issue.
I keep harping on the importance of electing Republicans in order to appoint more federal judges who are on the right rather than the left, because the judicial system is a huge player in the fight against encroaching leftism and its tyranny. Judge Schwab was appointed by George W. Bush, so this is another indication of that fact.
And don’t give me the old “sometimes the judges Republicans appoint aren’t all that conservative” business. Although that happens, it is very very seldom, and the judges Republicans appoint are always more conservative than those liberals appoint. It matters.
“Although that happens, it is very very seldom, and the judges Republicans appoint are always more conservative than those liberals appoint.”
I don’t know about the lower courts, which really don’t matter. No, they don’t. Even when they decide correctly, for whatever reason, with a leftist supreme court, all that does is spread the decision out over time, weakening resistance while waiting on a preordained outcome, just as when zerocare hit the supreme court already. But for the supreme court, the judges that get through USUALLY turn leftist. And that IS what matters. Which means either Republicans choose known leftists, or have no real power in picking supreme court judges. Believe as you wish, I know what I see.
The way I see it is this.
Judges that conservatives appoint might turn to the left. But judges that liberals appoint *always* are on the left, and never seem to waver.
Even odds beats a sure loss every time.
junior is correct, the odds that a democrat president will nominate a judge that is not left wing activist are zero.
“the judges Republicans appoint are always more conservative than those liberals appoint.”
That is true and valid, unfortunately it is insufficient to turn the tide. It’s the equivalent of putting fingers in a crumbling dike.
It also ignores the price it requires; the constant betrayal of the GOP and the certainty that their collaboration will ultimately be just as deadly as the quick death the dems offer.
Finally, it fails to address that continued support by conservatives for the GOP confers shared responsibility on the GOP for the various ‘policies’ (economic, military and immigration) that are destroying this country.
As example, when millions more illegals have the incentive of amnesty, what will a GOP who was supportive of Amnesty say? That the dems ‘tricked’ them? Why will that have any more credibility then, than with what happened to Reagan?
So when one or more of the coming crises arrive, the GOP will be in no position to offer a credible alternative and a panicked public, assured by the MSM that it is all the fault of the GOP and evil greedy republicans, will turn to the leftist demagogue who promises to save them. One whom the MSM repeatedly insists is the public’s savior…
Doom: “I don’t know about the lower courts, which really don’t matter. No, they don’t.”
Not true. Are you aware of all the injunctions against farming, logging, mining, fishing, and other resource productive activities that are obtained in the lower courts by the Watermelons? The Endangered Species Act allows them to ask Federal judges (and they know which ones are leftists) to order people engaged in resource production to prove that they are not endangering some little known animal or plant. It always costs money to get the proof, and when you do, the Watermelons appeal it to a higher court. In the Western States where most of the cases occur, that is the very liberal Ninth Circuit Court. That’s one of the major reasons why the Watermelons are succeeding in slowing our resource production to a crawl in this country.
How do I know this? I was a member of an irrigation district that was ordered by a liberal judge to show how our irrigation system wasn’t damaging salmon runs. It was a bullshit claim, but it cost us $250,000 to provide the proof. They appealed to the Ninth Circuit and we lost. We had the choice of either shutting down the system or enclosing all our water in pipes – at a cost of a million bucks. Most of the members wanted to raise the money to put pipes in. I voted with my feet and sold out. The irrigation district is still paying on the loan they had to take out.
This is why we’re less productive and growing poorer over time. Liberal judges who kowtow to the Watermelons are a cancer on our system.
Lenin; “The way to crush the bourgeoisie (the middle class) is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation [qualitative easing].” Add excessive, onerous regulation and judicial activism and you have a large slice of the leftist playbook.
Every time MSM reports on this, the Bush appointment will be included.
That will nullify the decision in the minds of their readers.
If you believe that bailing out a sinking ship a thimble full of water at a time will work, all I can say is that I envy your optimism and respect your opinion.
I used to think that people who thought both parties were the same were crazy. I might not completely agree with them but I no longer think they they’re crazy. I see two sides scrimmaging over control of the big government football. They may not be the same but there is not enough difference between them.
I glanced at it and see it is a criminal case. About 30 state AGs have a case pending in the federal court located in Brownsville, TX. This case is one precedent that can be used.
I’m just waiting for the day for Obama to defy a district court’s injunction.
And Justice John Paul Stevens was Jerry Ford’s worst mistake although it was not really foreseeable.
Stevens wrote the opinion that held that the EPA could categorize carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
Cornhead Says:
December 16th, 2014 at 7:38 pm
You needn’t look any further than that to see how absurd our government has become.
A naturally-occurring gas that is an integral part of Earth’s atmosphere and is essential for plant life was redefined as a pollutant and hence subject to government regulation, all on the say-so of a few judges, or “lawyers in black robes” as Mark Levin calls them.
These people really believe they can shape reality with their words. We’re in big trouble if that attitude doesn’t change, because nature doesn’t care about our sophistry.
rickl:
They have also ruled that human life is either a product of spontaneous conception or maintains a variable value determined solely by the mother over an extended period of its evolution from conception to birth.
It’s telling when they deny self-evident truths, while at other times corrupting reality with leaps outside of the scientific domain (i.e. constrained in time and space), posing as a valid scientific “theory”. They offer a religion (i.e. libertinism) coupled with a faith (i.e. atheism), that supposes to displace and replace the Judeo-Christian foundation of Western civilization.
Anyway, people will consume their opiate, that promises dissociation of risk and material fulfillment.
You are correct on the judges. In fact, I’ve been voting Republican for the judges issue since 1988. Both Bushes did ok judge wise, but each also oversaw and sometimes championed the expansion of government and the reduction of freedom.
Now another Bush is making noise. I’ll stay home this time.
J.J.,
The problem with lower courts is that the supreme court can overturn anything they do. They don’t even have to hear the whole case, they can simply overturn and send it back down. My point wasn’t that lower courts aren’t important, either, simply on balance not as important. Further, Republicans seem to be able to fit conservative justices in, in the lower courts. So, the question begged, was what their problem was with getting reliably conservative judges on the s.c. I am suggesting that they don’t want them, honestly. They are just dem lights.
Rinos are dem lite. Primary them. It takes money from people like us, attending meetings, and knocking on doors. That is what put Joni Ernst in tom harkins senate seat. It ain’t over until its over.
You’re on the money, parker. It has to come from the grass roots and we aren’t ever going to get perfect candidates or office holders. And the work never ends. There will always be those who want to expand the role of government. Always! They never sleep. If we want less government, we have to work to make it happen.
Of course, for Republicans to get the chance to appoint judges, they have to have the stones not to throw away the nuclear option.
Who do the GOP ‘centrists’ appeal to? The left? The right? They piss off both sides. Great strategy for building a ‘conservative’ consensus. The GOP leadership is not going to change stripes, so let’s vote them out the same way that Cantor was voted out when he came out in favor of immigration reform. Make it clear to Boehner that he will not be Speaker next term. We’ll get a tea party challenger to primary him. If that fails, we’ll vote for the dem candidate. No way is he staying. We’re not going to vote dems in everywhere, but we’re going to vote out the current leadership.
The obama administration says that the judges do not have the power or standing to decide what they decided…
(but thats ok… obama is using memoranda, executive orders and various other equivalents to rewrite how our government works)
“Make it clear to Boehner… We’ll get a tea party challenger to primary him.”
In order to do that, you will have to live in or move to his district. Ohio’s 8th district is just north of Cincinnati and wraps around the west and north side of Dayton. Are you willing to move to a place like Hamilton or Springfield, Ohio in order to accomplish your goal?
(I once lived there 35 years ago and it is a very nice part of Ohio. You could do a lot worse.)
People easily forget that congressmen are elected locally, not nationally.
Roy, do you think people moved to Eric Cantor’s district to remove him? The GOP establishment had to throw everything it had (including turning to dems in the primary) to get Pat Roberts re-elected. I don’t think it is impossible for the tea party to do the same in reverse (focus resources, align with dems) to get rid of Boehner.
“Even odds beats a sure loss every time.”
At the Supreme Court level, over the last 50 years or so it had seemed like Republican-nominated members split evenly between conservatives and people who “grew in office”. I think that with the Federalist Society and the emergence of a more systematic originalism, the recent Republican-nominated judges throughout the system are increasingly stably conservative.