Jump to content

Supreme Court blocks Obama immigration plan


Recommended Posts

  • Platinum Contributing Member

:good:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/23/supreme-court-blocks-obama-immigration-plan.html

The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked President Obama’s immigration executive actions, in a tie decision that delivers a win to states challenging his plan to give a deportation reprieve to millions of illegal immigrants. 

The justices' one-sentence opinion on Thursday effectively kills the plan for the duration of Obama's presidency.

The 4-4 tie vote sets no national precedent but leaves in place the ruling by the lower court. In this case, the federal appeals court in New Orleans said the Obama administration lacked the authority to shield up to 4 million immigrants from deportation and make them eligible for work permits without approval from Congress.

Texas led 26 Republican-dominated states in challenging the program Obama announced in November 2014. Congressional Republicans also backed the states' lawsuit.  

House Speaker Paul Ryan said Thursday that the court ruling rendered Obama's actions "null and void." 

"The Constitution is clear: The president is not permitted to write laws—only Congress is. This is another major victory in our fight to restore the separation of powers," he said in a statement. 

The decision lands in the middle of a heated election season in which immigration is a central issue. Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, won the primaries while railing against Obama administration immigration policies as dangerous. 

Democrats have, in turn, called his rhetoric racially divisive while defending the administration's move to expand existing programs that would effectively give temporary legal status to some undocumented residents. 

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton countered Ryan's statement saying the decision was "purely procedural" and leaves "no doubt" the programs were within the president's authority. Referencing the 4-4 split on the court, she again urged the Senate to give Obama's nominee to fill the remaining court vacancy a vote. 

"Today’s deadlocked decision from the Supreme Court is unacceptable, and show us all just how high the stakes are in this election," Clinton said in a statement. 

The immigration case dealt with two separate Obama programs. One would allow undocumented immigrants who are parents of either U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents to live and work in the U.S. without the threat of deportation. The other would expand an existing program to protect from deportation a larger population of immigrants who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children. 

Obama decided to move forward after Republicans won control of the Senate in the 2014 midterm elections, and the chances for an immigration overhaul, already remote, were further diminished.

The Senate had passed a broad immigration bill with Democratic and Republican support in 2013, but the measure went nowhere in the GOP-controlled House of Representatives.

The states quickly went to court to block the Obama initiatives.

Their lawsuit was heard initially by U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen in Brownsville, Texas. Hanen previously had criticized the administration for lax immigration enforcement. Hanen sided with the states, blocking the programs from taking effect. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled for the states, and the Justice Department rushed an appeal to the high court so that it could be heard this term.

Edited by Highmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member

Another black eye for R obstructionism :lol: You fuckers flap your lips about the Constitution amd they are blocking the 9th SC nomination.  Can't wait until Hillary nominates a big time lib and they say :bigfinger: to the worthless R's.  Garland will look like Scalia compared to her nominee.  Obama extends an olive branch with his nomination and the R's whine like the fuckers in team buttplugger.  

This is a campaign win for the D's this fall :bc: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, SnowRider said:

Another black eye for R obstructionism :lol: You fuckers flap your lips about the Constitution amd they are blocking the 9th SC nomination.  Can't wait until Hillary nominates a big time lib and they say :bigfinger: to the worthless R's.  Garland will look like Scalia compared to her nominee.  Obama extends an olive branch with his nomination and the R's whine like the fuckers in team buttplugger.  

This is a campaign win for the D's this fall :bc: 

nZQozZL.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Snake said:

nZQozZL.gif

Holy shit!  :lol::lol:

 

Yep, apparently upholding the law and the constitution still has precedence with some....the rest can be executed if you ask me.  Slowly and painfully.  Let's have some fun with it!  :rockernana:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Cold War said:

No one finds it concerning that four justices found this to be Constitutional.............Right down party lines? 

Yeah,

That's the consequences when you appoint activist judges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're here illegally, you don't deserve the same rights that American citizens have. You don't serve in our military or pay taxes or social security, and you don't even support our American heritage. We don't owe you anything, especially when you're breaking the law by being here without a green card, citizenship, or a visa.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why Obamas nomination for Merrick Garland for the ninth Supreme Court judge. Before Obama nominated him the Republicans though highly of him. And so far all they have managed to hold up decisions like this one. It wasn't blocked it was a stalemate tie at 4 judges per side. The Supreme Court is there to make a final ruling. And it is all but worthless 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Capt.Storm said:

Barry says he could appoint the 9th member to the court..is that correct?

Court has always had 9 members. Odd number to prevent a deadlock like this. He nominated one but Republicans have continued to block the conformation process. 

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/mar/16/obama-nominates-merrick-garland-supreme-court-dc-appeals-court-judge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ebsell said:

Court has always had 9 members. Odd number to prevent a deadlock like this. He nominated one but Republicans have continued to block the conformation process. 

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/mar/16/obama-nominates-merrick-garland-supreme-court-dc-appeals-court-judge

Right.

I'm saying that he said he could appoint one before he leaves..but yet he doesn't ..why is that?

EDIT: Gotcha

Edited by Capt.Storm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SnowRider said:

Another black eye for R obstructionism :lol: You fuckers flap your lips about the Constitution amd they are blocking the 9th SC nomination.  Can't wait until Hillary nominates a big time lib and they say :bigfinger: to the worthless R's.  Garland will look like Scalia compared to her nominee.  Obama extends an olive branch with his nomination and the R's whine like the fuckers in team buttplugger.  

This is a campaign win for the D's this fall :bc: 

:fuckyou:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ebsell said:

Court has always had 9 members. Odd number to prevent a deadlock like this. He nominated one but Republicans have continued to block the conformation process. 

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/mar/16/obama-nominates-merrick-garland-supreme-court-dc-appeals-court-judge

xD Nice move on their part. Lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, racer254 said:

Yeah,

That's the consequences when you appoint activist judges.

That does seem to be the case.

It either is or isn't.  A black or white issue and you have 4 justices who are ignoring the law

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Trying to pay the bills, lol



×
×
  • Create New...