Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted June 23, 2016 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted June 23, 2016 (edited) 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 June 23, 2016 by Highmark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oleroule Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 (edited) i wonder if hillary thinks roe vs wade, gay marriage, or the obamacare rulings were "purely procedural" . Edited June 23, 2016 by oleroule Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 Yes. Go Paul Ryan. ! They should all get jobs or get out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member SnowRider Posted June 23, 2016 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted June 23, 2016 Another black eye for R obstructionism 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 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 9 minutes ago, SnowRider said: Another black eye for R obstructionism 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 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 1 minute ago, Snake said: Holy shit! 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racer254 Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 How many supreme court decisions has Obama lost? And snowbeavis somehow thinks this is a black eye for R's? Can you be more out to lunch? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainecat Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 Jesus they didnt block it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cold War Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 No one finds it concerning that four justices found this to be Constitutional.............Right down party lines? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt.Storm Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 I thought the president could just give amnesty to illegals anytime he felt like it...clarification please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racer254 Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt.Storm Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 I thought the president could just give amnesty to illegals anytime he felt like it...clarification please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ebsell Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt.Storm Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 Barry says he could appoint the 9th member to the court..is that correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ebsell Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt.Storm Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 (edited) 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 June 23, 2016 by Capt.Storm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snoughnut Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 4 hours ago, SnowRider said: Another black eye for R obstructionism 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 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ebsell Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 4 minutes ago, Capt.Storm said: Right. I'm saying that he said he could appoint one before he leaves..but yet he doesn't ..why is that? Read this. He could but it would be a bold move. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/15/obama-could-fill-supreme-court-vacancy-with-recess/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 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 Nice move on their part. Lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ebsell Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 (edited) Garland is known not to toe party lines to either side. He would make a good judge. Edited June 23, 2016 by Ebsell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 I think it says he can "appoint" someone but that person wont be confirmed by the senate. Not sure what limitations that has. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt.Storm Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 4 minutes ago, Ebsell said: Read this. He could but it would be a bold move. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/15/obama-could-fill-supreme-court-vacancy-with-recess/ Interesting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ebsell Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 3 minutes ago, Capt.Storm said: Interesting Kind of have to give him a little credit for not pulling a Putin move and doing it anyways Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cold War Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.