The courts…
…get it right on blocking elements of Obama’s amnesty.
For now, anyway:
The decision means that a lower court ruling blocking millions of illegal immigrants from obtaining work permits and otherwise avoiding deportation will be allowed to stand, delaying the implementation until the court case is resolved.
Twenty-six states have joined the suit against the administration’s policy.
Now what?:
The Obama administration can now turn to the U.S. Supreme Court for a green light to proceed with the program, or Justice Department officials could wait until the 5th Circuit rules on the merits of U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen’s legal rationale for the injunction he entered in February. A different panel of the appeals court is expected to hear arguments on those issues in early July.
The three 5th Circuit judges deciding the case were randomly selected. Two of the three judges selected were appointed by Republican presidents, while the other was appointed by Obama.
The vote today was 2-1. The breakdown of who voted for what was exactly as you would expect. That’s one of the reasons that electing Republicans is important—they get to appoint judges, and although it doesn’t always work out perfectly (i.e. Roberts and some others) it usually does make a difference in holding the line.
Two Americas.
One lawless.
The other following the Rule of Law.
…OR, the Obama administration could just ignore the decision like they usually do. Paraphrasing Stalin: “How many divisions does this 5th Circuit have?”
I think it likely they are already ignoring the injunction.
In footnote 15 the Circuit majority had the courage to use the term illegal aliens.
When the Executive doesn’t follow the law anyway, this is a distinction without a difference.
This was a highly technical decision which gave the district judge hints at what to put in his ruling. And yes Obama can ignore it but the states don’t have to pay for the illegals which was the administrations intent since he won’t be getting the funds to pay for them from Congress. It is basically an unfunded mandate ruling as well a separation of powers issue. Hannen is apt to take his time now that he has a circuit appeals court backing him and Scalia is the justice responsible for reviewing an emergency request from DOJ for stay of the injunction for this circuit. He never does that when the district and appeals panel agree so DOJ is up the creek. Obama can continue to let illegals cross an open border but he can’t make the states pay for them. The consequences will become more apparent in the days and weeks ahead.
Two to one. Gives me great comfort, like a 5 to 4 Supreme Court decision. One person (e.g., Roberts or Kennedy) casting the deciding vote that affects 300 million lives? Are we crazy?
One Federal judge deciding something is “unconstitutional”, overturning the vote-expressed will of the people of a state like California? Are we crazy?
@Frog:
And of course the 2 to 1 decision was strictly on party lines (two judges appointed by Republicans, one by Obama).
What scares and angers me is how transparent the judiciary has become given that so many rulings can be predicted strictly based on the party that nominated the judge in question. There are a few exceptions, but how many discussions about the U.S. Supreme Court mention the fact that most decisions hinge on what mood Justice Kennedy happens to be in that day.
Like someone above said: Two worlds.
One would think the definition of “constitutional” would extend beyond party boundaries… and it often did in the past. Nowadays, not so much. It seems to me that these days, most court decisions give the appearance of drawing the conclusion first and then coming up with the logic to justify it ex post facto.
On the plus side, I heard that if the administration wants to kick this up to the Supreme Court, Scalia gets first crack and can decide whether to affirm the decision or pass it on to the whole court. I don’t know how any of this stuff works, or why it’s Scalia in the this case, I’m just reporting what Mark Levin stated. But since Scalia is, in my view, the most consistently “Constitutional” of the justices, along with Thomas, this is also good news.
Yes, appointing judges is important. Conservatives who demand the perfect candidate or they stay home haven’t figured that out.
As already pointed out, The ruling is encouraging, but let’s see the court enforce it.
And let’s see the republicans defund it. i believe They will simply squawk about the president operating above the law, appear incensed for a day or so, then get back to the business of running the country into the ground. A symbolic victory is good enough for a mainstream republican politician.
@Mr. Frank: I wrote an essay for a friend in 2000 about why I was voting for George W. Bush. I forwarded it to my parents later, and they liked it so much they shared it with friends. Although I listed a number of reasons, the main one ended up being because of appointing judges. That aspect of the Presidency seems more important than ever, since it seems we can’t count on Congress to curb the excesses of the White House; we can only hope that good judicial appointments will help during future administrations.
@Starlord: Hey, I liked that movie you were in. You were awesome. 😉
The Republicans in Congress are absolutely supine, and being handed a significant and telling victory, dare I say a mandate, last November hasn’t emboldened them in the least, as far as I can tell.
What does Obama have over these people?! Are they really afraid of being labelled as racist? Or are they afraid to check the President because they are hoping to get their guy installed next time and profit from him abusing the system the way Obama is… either way, the Republic is screwed.
Conceptjunkie:
I don’t really think it’s Obama and the racism charge that has them spooked, although maybe there’s a little bit of that fear. But I think primarily they’re afraid of the money drying up if they take certain principled stands.
I see. So you’re saying will sell the country out to the Democrats (which is the long-term effect, and no mistake) for short term gains.
That’s even more cynical than my second suggestion. It’s probably also a lot more likely to be correct.
I’m happy about this, but do find the notion of ‘holding the line’ to be a sad one. Someday, we need to go on the offense.