Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In other words, his executive order to shield illegal immigrants was unconstitutional.
No, that is not what happened:
"Note, the high court didn’t strike down the administration’s policy, and if you see anyone saying the Supreme Court concluded that DAPA is unconstitutional, they’re wrong. What the White House hoped to do was begin enforcing its own policy, and because of today’s 4-4 decision, that’s on indefinite hold."
It's ENTIRELY disingenuous for Obama to try to claim that illegal aliens pay taxes.
Illegal aliens run underground economy unlicensed businesses in the U.S., and employ other illegal aliens while paying no FICA, no federal income tax, etc.
"Note, the high court didn’t strike down the administration’s policy, and if you see anyone saying the Supreme Court concluded that DAPA is unconstitutional, they’re wrong. What the White House hoped to do was begin enforcing its own policy, and because of today’s 4-4 decision, that’s on indefinite hold."
In other words, his executive order to shield illegal immigrants was unconstitutional.
NO ...... that is not what the US Supreme Court said. They actually did not issue an "opinion", they just affirmed the Lower Federal Court ruling that stopped TeamObama's "rule". At it's heart - this case was about "Standing" to sue the Federal Government/President for their Un-Constitutional Actions. "Standing" was affirmed by the US Supreme Court when they allowed the Federal Judge's rulings to stand.
From the ScotusBlog:
United States v. Texas
Issue: (1) Whether a state that voluntarily provides a subsidy to all aliens with deferred action has Article III standing and a justiciable cause of action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to challenge the Secretary of Homeland Security’s guidance seeking to establish a process for considering deferred action for certain aliens because it will lead to more aliens having deferred action; (2) whether the guidance is arbitrary and capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law; (3) whether the guidance was subject to the APA’s notice-and-comment procedures; and (4) whether the guidance violates the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, Article II, section 3.
When the Supreme Court accepted the Texas case, the full bench added a provocative question: Whether the president's action violated the constitution by not fully enforcing immigration law and trying to deport all immigrants here illegally.
Many legal experts think Scalia, who died in February, added that directive. Without him, the court appears to have had little appetite to tackle such a consequential issue and possibly set a far-reaching precedent.
The Supreme Court punted this back to Texas (+ the 25 States that joined the suit) and the Federal Judge who issued the ruling & the stay. The case will be in the Supreme Court again at some point. It is an absolute goal of the Leftists to flood the USA with immigrants in the Millions. They plan on doing it without Congressional Law & even breaking the Laws we have. Hillary Clinton will attempt the same thing and she will be able to do it with the new Leftist Judges she will appoint to the bench.
We would essentially end up with a new 'amendment' to the US Constitution - the creation of Supreme Leader, who can do anything he/she wants. Dangerous Times we live in.
No, it doesn't set a precedent in a tie. If Clinton or Trump wins they would take it back before the court to test it again.
It only sets Precedent in Texas, Mississippi & Louisiana ...... because they used the same grounds to establish "standing". It was all about Texas Law & Driver's licenses.
You can take it to the bank that Texas will use this exact Precedent again&again&again to establish "standing" to stop Exective Actions that circumvent US & Texas Law.
The case will continue in the US Federal Court in Brownsville, TX. Judge Hanen has allowed extra time to the DOJ to attend a hearing on his latest order - that the DOJ Attorneys who work any case in 26 States do Mandatory Court Ordered Ethics Training in person, not on a computer ....... Annually, for 5 years.
There is a LOT going on in this case -- and it's continuing.
This shows why it is so important to keep the progressives from taking over the SCOTUS
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
LOL.....A highly one sided reading of the ruling. The lower court did rule it unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled to allow that ruling to stand.
EXACTLY RIGHT! ....and I reiterate the above
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
