Dear Leader Not Amused - States Win Stay on Immigration Decrees

[maxparrish]

Unlike the poorly reasoned attempt of another federal judge some months ago, this has erected a temporary stay to the imperium decrees to ignore the oath of faithful execution of federal law.

When Texas filed a constitutional challenge to President Obama’s executive action on immigration, his supporters scoffed and ridiculed the suit as lacking any merit. First, they argued, states are not injured by the federal policy. Second, they contended that Congress had already given the president the discretion to halt the deportation of millions. Finally, they predicted that the courts would stay out of this important policy debate. The Justice Department’s brief rebuked the suit, alleging that the claims “are based on rhetoric, not law.” Judge Andrew S. Hanen in Brownsville, Texas, disagreed. In a massive 123-page opinion issued on Monday, Judge Hanen thoroughly rejected each of these arguments, vindicating Texas — and 25 other states that joined it — in this challenge to the president’s disregard of the law.

After establishing that Texas had standing to sue in federal court, Judge Hanen turned to the lawfulness of the executive action. DAPA was decreed on November 20, 2014, in a series of memorandums, without any opportunity for the public to comment beforehand. Judge Hanen found fatal the government’s failure to comply with the notice-and-comment requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). But the court went further, finding that DAPA was not an exercise or prosecutorial discretion. Rather, DAPA amounted to a decision to “‘consciously and expressly adopt[] a general policy’ that is so extreme as to amount to an abdication of its statutory responsibilities.” The president was willfully disregarding the laws of Congress that he did not agree with. Specifically, DAPA “does not simply constitute inadequate enforcement; it is an announced program of non-enforcement of the law that contradicts Congress’ statutory goals.” This policy, Hanen concluded, is unlawful and must be halted.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/398820/obamas-complete-abdication-law-josh-blackman

Looks like this might get interesting.

 

[ksen]

"dear leader"

lolol max is such a hoot!

 

[dismal]

"dear leader"

lolol max is such a hoot!

Yeah it's really not fair. Sometimes Obama does get congress to vote on laws he wants.

He's more like that Dos Equis guy:

"I don't always use congress, but when I do it's because they agree with me."

 

[ksen]

heh

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Looks like this might get interesting.

No, not really.

 

[maxparrish]

"dear leader"

lolol max is such a hoot!

Yeah it's really not fair. Sometimes Obama does get congress to vote on laws he wants.

He's more like that Dos Equis guy:

"I don't always use congress, but when I do it's because they agree with me."

I'll remember that one...very funny.

 

[SimpleDon]

This is the theater of the absurd. The judge ruled that Texas had standing because the state would be required to bear the financial burden of issuing the purgatory aliens driver's licenses!

There are Supreme Court decisions standing that require the state to educate the children and to give them medical care.

He didn't even try to address the most pertinent point about standing that immigration is the sole responsibility of the federal government and that the executive branch is responsible for prioritizing the enforcement of the laws. In order to enjoin the orders he had rule that the states have standing to challenge the executive orders and that they will prevail with at least one of their arguments. In spite of a considerable amount of rhetoric in the stay about the failure to secure the borders, certainly no administration has done more in this rather thankless task to try to reduce the approximately one half of the illegal aliens that enter this way. In spite of rhetoric about the sweeping changes to established executive interpretation of the laws and the prioritizing of enforcement, which isn't the case, no administration has targeted these established, law abiding families for deportation. In spite of all of this rhetoric in the stay order about the damage that the executive orders would cause the only argument that he cited as the plaintiffs possibly prevailing on is an administrative one concerning public hearings about the orders, hearings that are universally waived with the simple expedient of declaring that the problem presents an immediate threat that can't wait for Congress to act.

I don't like these executive orders to establish policies that should be set by the Congress. I didn't like them when Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II did them either. But I do understand the frustration in the country and in the administration as the Congress simply refuses to address the problem.

The solution for Congress is simple, pass legislation addressing the problems. It isn't even a matter of the Republican - Democrat partisan divide. It is a problem of the division inside the Republican party between those who believe that we need immigration to suppress the wages in this country and the xenophobic branch who fear immigrants. The Republican leadership must be willing to allow the two sides to try to compromise with enough Democrats to be able to pass a bill. But the leadership to a person is in the pro-immigration, suppress wages to increase profits and income inequity branch of the party who are unlikely to find much help from the Democrats. So we wait.

 

[maxparrish]

This is the theater of the absurd. The judge ruled that Texas had standing because the state would be required to bear the financial burden of issuing the purgatory aliens driver's licenses!

There are Supreme Court decisions standing that require the state to educate the children and to give them medical care.

He didn't even try to address the most pertinent point about standing that immigration is the sole responsibility of the federal government and that the executive branch is responsible for prioritizing the enforcement of the laws. In order to enjoin the orders he had rule that the states have standing to challenge the executive orders and that they will prevail with at least one of their arguments.

Standing is, of course, the tricky issue that often denies the general public the right to undo illegal and unconstitutional exercises of essentially autocratic decrees of law (be it by the 'chosen one' or the nomenklatura of our "Red bourgeoisie"). Bad legal doctrine makes it difficult, although not impossible, to right even the most grotesque of constitutional wrongs.

That said, the failure of administrations and Congress to fulfill the desires of the people to do much more to secure our national borders against illegal immigration is no excuse for an executive to violate Constitutional understanding and the powers of Congress, and to do so in pursuit of policies that the public is clearly against (and which, by the way, is actually representing the first order interests of foreign citizens and illegal aliens).

Moreover, while it may be that "the damage that the executive orders would cause (is) the only argument" declaring an immediate threat that can't wait for the Constitution and democracy is a pretty lame legal and moral excuse - especially when such actions are taken to undermine, not to save, the law being threatened.

I don't like these executive orders to establish policies that should be set by the Congress. I didn't like them when Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II did them either. But I do understand the frustration in the country and in the administration as the Congress simply refuses to address the problem.

The solution for Congress is simple, pass legislation addressing the problems. It isn't even a matter of the Republican - Democrat partisan divide. It is a problem of the division inside the Republican party between those who believe that we need immigration to suppress the wages in this country and the xenophobic branch who fear immigrants. The Republican leadership must be willing to allow the two sides to try to compromise with enough Democrats to be able to pass a bill. But the leadership to a person is in the pro-immigration, suppress wages to increase profits and income inequity branch of the party who are unlikely to find much help from the Democrats. So we wait.

Then we wait for democracy to change its mind about the laws (if it wishes). And while we wait we expect our President to restrain himself as American Caesar, and to "faithfully execute the laws of the United States", not to take a page from Hugo Chavez and his ilk.

And if he chooses to ignore a federal court injunction, who will stop him? No one. Obama has revealed the ugly truth about the American legal structure - if a President has one third of Congress in his pocket he can do whatever he pleases. The only prior restraint on Presidents have been respect for Constitution and separation of powers. The moment he/she does not give a shit there is nothing (other than a coup) to stop a President.

 

[laughing dog]

I don't understand the OP title. Why would the leader of North Korea care about US immigration policy?

 

[Ford]

I don't understand the OP title. Why would the leader of North Korea care about US immigration policy?

See, the idea is that Barack Obama is exactly as horrible a dictator as Kim Il Sung...the "dear leader" of North Korea.


There are people - and this may be hard to believe - that feel the present President of the United States is every bit as much a tyrant as the founder of one of the worst regimes the world has ever known.


Barack Obama has (apparently) done enough evil in the world to justify comparing him to a dictator who sent dissenters to prison camps.


Remember how Obama sent dissenters to prison camps?

 

[laughing dog]

I don't understand the OP title. Why would the leader of North Korea care about US immigration policy?

See, the idea is that Barack Obama is exactly as horrible a dictator as Kim Il Sung...the "dear leader" of North Korea.


There are people - and this may be hard to believe - that feel the present President of the United States is every bit as much a tyrant as the founder of one of the worst regimes the world has ever known.


Barack Obama has (apparently) done enough evil in the world to justify comparing him to a dictator who sent dissenters to prison camps.


Remember how Obama sent dissenters to prison camps?

No.

There are people who wish to be taken seriously as insightful analysts who compare a POTUS to the founding leader of North Korea? Amazing.

 

[Ford]

See, the idea is that Barack Obama is exactly as horrible a dictator as Kim Il Sung...the "dear leader" of North Korea.


There are people - and this may be hard to believe - that feel the present President of the United States is every bit as much a tyrant as the founder of one of the worst regimes the world has ever known.


Barack Obama has (apparently) done enough evil in the world to justify comparing him to a dictator who sent dissenters to prison camps.


Remember how Obama sent dissenters to prison camps?

No.

There are people who wish to be taken seriously as insightful analysts who compare a POTUS to the founding leader of North Korea? Amazing.

Shocking, I know.


To their credit, no critic of Obama has ever compared him to Hitler.


So there's that.

 

[repoman]

Back to point, shitflingers...

 

[Ford]

Back to point, shitflingers...

I'm fairly certain that the point was to portray Obama as a dictator or at the very least a potential dictator who was snubbed by "states rights."

 

[ksen]

Guys, calling the potus a tyrant and actively calling for his assassination is the pefectly reasonable and patriotic thing to do.

 

[funinspace]

Sure, why not...I have even heard from a good source that Obama doesn't even love Amerika.

 

[dismal]

Guys, calling the potus a tyrant and actively calling for his assassination is the pefectly reasonable and patriotic thing to do.

I'd like to welcome all our NSA and Secret Service members to the thread.

If you have any questions about ksen feel free to hit me up on my cell. I'm sure you've got it somewhere.

 

[KeepTalking]

Unlike the poorly reasoned attempt of another federal judge some months ago, this has erected a temporary stay to the imperium decrees to ignore the oath of faithful execution of federal law.

After establishing that Texas had standing to sue in federal court, Judge Hanen turned to the lawfulness of the executive action. DAPA was decreed on November 20, 2014, in a series of memorandums, without any opportunity for the public to comment beforehand. Judge Hanen found fatal the government’s failure to comply with the notice-and-comment requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). But the court went further, finding that DAPA was not an exercise or prosecutorial discretion. Rather, DAPA amounted to a decision to “‘consciously and expressly adopt[] a general policy’ that is so extreme as to amount to an abdication of its statutory responsibilities.” The president was willfully disregarding the laws of Congress that he did not agree with. Specifically, DAPA “does not simply constitute inadequate enforcement; it is an announced program of non-enforcement of the law that contradicts Congress’ statutory goals.” This policy, Hanen concluded, is unlawful and must be halted.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/398820/obamas-complete-abdication-law-josh-blackman

Looks like this might get interesting.

Wait a minute, weren't you one of those conservatives starting threads about how Obama is so weak and pathetic when it comes to Russia, and that he should be more like the King of Jordan, reach for his balls, and go kick Putin's ass all over Western Europe? How the fuck do you people rationalize Obama being this massive tyrant on the one hand, and a spineless, ineffectual world follower on the other hand. Does the cognitive dissonance ever catch up with you?

 

[Bomb#20]

See, the idea is that Barack Obama is exactly as horrible a dictator as Kim Il Sung...the "dear leader" of North Korea.


There are people - and this may be hard to believe - that feel the present President of the United States is every bit as much a tyrant as the founder of one of the worst regimes the world has ever known.


Barack Obama has (apparently) done enough evil in the world to justify comparing him to a dictator who sent dissenters to prison camps.


Remember how Obama sent dissenters to prison camps?

No.

There are people who wish to be taken seriously as insightful analysts who compare a POTUS to the founding leader of North Korea? Amazing.

Shocking, I know.


To their credit, no critic of Obama has ever compared him to Hitler.


So there's that.

What's shocking is the level of sheer ignorance of anything beyond our borders being displayed in this thread. Yeah, I know, we're all supposed to take pride in American Exceptionalism and feel that knowing about world affairs is beneath us and blah blah blah; but come on! You guys are making it embarrassing to be an American.

One more time. Pay attention.

Kim Il Sung was the Great Leader.
Kim Jong Il was the Dear Leader.
Kim Jong Un is the Supreme Leader.

Try to keep up.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Wait a minute, weren't you one of those conservatives starting threads about how Obama is so weak and pathetic when it comes to Russia, and that he should be more like the King of Jordan, reach for his balls, and go kick Putin's ass all over Western Europe? How the fuck do you people rationalize Obama being this massive tyrant on the one hand, and a spineless, ineffectual world follower on the other hand. Does the cognitive dissonance ever catch up with you?

That is pretty much the $21 million question. Ineffective, conniving, spineless, dictator, idiot, constitutional scholar. It seriously requires some peer reviewed study to determine just how it is possible for the partisan mind to be so incredibly out of touch of even what it supposedly thinks.