Comments on: SCOTUS hears immigration challenge

By: Michael Lonie

Michael Lonie — Tue, 19 Apr 2016 03:38:21 +0000

Progressives tempted to let Obumbler get away with this should reflect what a President Trump could do with such a precedent. Of course, the Jackass party may think that its voting fraud operations will prevent any future Pac President.

I suspect that, if the decision goes against him, Obumbler will just ignore it. Andy Jackson got away with it, why not O?

By: Cornhead

Cornhead — Tue, 19 Apr 2016 00:37:12 +0000

Not only will it be 4-4 but the Libs will spin up standing as the decisive issue so they don’t even reach the merits on constitutionality. A sure thing. Mark it down.

By: Yancey Ward

Yancey Ward — Mon, 18 Apr 2016 22:40:05 +0000

In any event, the 5th circuit’s decision will be overturned by the D.C appeals court, and that will, again, put the ball back into Congress’s hands.

By: Yancey Ward

Yancey Ward — Mon, 18 Apr 2016 22:36:00 +0000

I will predict the court splits 4-4.

However, it really isn’t up to the court to curb the President, and I think it likely he will ignore a decision that goes against him, which will put the onus where it always was- on Congress.

By: parker

parker — Mon, 18 Apr 2016 20:19:17 +0000

I think Roberts is likely to side with bho based on his pretzel logic that turned a mandate into a tax. He is capable of determining faithfully execute only means what POTUS decides is within the definition of “faithfully”. One of those what the meaning of is is cases.

By: Cornhead

Cornhead — Mon, 18 Apr 2016 19:06:53 +0000

Your lawyer friend is correct. The distance between the bench and bar is very tiny. I was shocked at the tight quarters. At the Nebraska Supreme Court, it is at least 3-5 times a greater distance.

By: T

Mon, 18 Apr 2016 18:56:32 +0000

Neo,

I’m sure that’s true (Roberts on Obamacare is a prime example as you point out). I wasn’t implying such, just offering an observation from another qualified observer.

Also, tangentially, last week I spoke to a very good friend of mine who has argued before SCOTUS who impressed upon me how intimate it really is. When one is at the podium one is hardly more than several arm-lengths from the Chief Justice and standing, is at the Chief Justice’s eye level. Apparently most attorneys are quite intimidated by this physical presence the first time they “argue” a case.

Furthermore, my friend noted that these really aren’t arguments, because the Justices already know all of the arguments presented from the filed briefs. Instead, it is more of an interrogation (“You’re there to answer the Justices questions”). I suspect that such an interrogation-like environment enhances the intimidation factor especially for younger and less practiced attorneys.

By: Geoffrey Britain

Geoffrey Britain — Mon, 18 Apr 2016 18:53:48 +0000

Those justices who vote for Obama’s usurpation of powers declare their unfitness for the office they hold. But they are merely agents of the ordinary Americans who through their own actions demonstrate themselves to be unworthy of the heritage they have been bequeathed.

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is whole inadequate to the governance of any other.” John Adams

By: Cornhead

Cornhead — Mon, 18 Apr 2016 18:16:01 +0000

It will be interesting to see how the RBG wing will rationalize its decision.

By: neo-neocon

neo-neocon — Mon, 18 Apr 2016 18:13:21 +0000

One thing I’ve learned is that you can’t tell how justices will rule by listening to the questions they ask the attorneys.