WhatFinger

Don't tell anybody what I want to do. If they find out you know that they'll never let me through.

Deadlocked Supreme Court likely means Obama's executive amnesty is dead

By Dan Calabrese ——--April 19, 2016

American Politics, News | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

Just so you know, when a case reaches the Supreme Court and the Justices deadlock, that means the lower court ruling stands. That was bad news last month when it meant California teachers unions got to continue their shameless extortion racket. But sometimes it's good news, and that appears to be the case when it comes to Obama's executive amnesty. If The Hill's sources are reading the Justices correctly, a lower court ruling halting the practice appears to be generating another 4-4 deadlock at the SCOTUS, which would mean Obama will have to actually enforce the law:
Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is typically the court's swing voter, seemed to side with Texas and the 25 other states arguing the president overstepped his executive authority in granting deferred deportation to nearly 5 million immigrants. Kennedy said the justices were being asked to define the limits of discretion, adding that Obama’s actions seemed more like a legislative act than an executive one. "It's as if the president is setting the policy and the Congress is executing it," he said. "That’s just upside down." A 4-4 split by the court, which has shown signs of struggling to decide cases with just eight justices, would leave in place a lower court decision blocking Obama’s actions. The split outcome would virtually guarantee that Obama's programs wouldn't start until after he leaves office, if at all. The justices spent the majority of the 90-minute arguments Monday grappling with whether Texas has a legal basis to challenge the creation of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) initiative and the expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Both programs have been on hold since February 2015.
The states claim they would be burdened by having to spend more on public services like healthcare, law enforcement and education if undocumented parents of both American citizens and legal permanent residents are allowed to stay in the country. Texas, specifically, said it would be hurt by having to issue more drivers licenses, a benefit that’s now subsidized. “Isn’t losing money the classic case for standing?” Chief Justice John Roberts asked.
The next time someone claims the GOP Senate has no good reason not to confirm Merrick Garland, keep in mind: With Garland on the Court, executive amnesty lives. Now I don't want to be a killjoy here, but riddle me this: If SCOTUS indeed splits 4-4 on this and the lower court ruling stands, exactly what "programs" of Obama's would be killed? All this really comes down to is Obama's intention not to enforce an entire swath of the law. Congress tried to stop him by "using the power of the purse" to supposedly deny him funding for the non-enforcement of the law, which leaves me wondering: What, exactly, does it cost to not enforce the law?

Support Canada Free Press

Donate
Let's say the lower court ruling does indeed stand. All right. What then? If ICE, INS and DHS agents do not suddenly start apprehending and deporting the same illegal aliens who were targeted for amnesty before the courts stepped in, who is going to do something about it? Congress makes the law, and the law already says these people should be deported. Obama doesn't care. The Constitution already says Obama is supposed to enforce the law. Obama doesn't care. If the Supreme Court also affirms that Obama must enforce the law, and Obama's response is to quietly not do so - who can do anything about it? The reason impeachment was established in the Constitution is because enforcement of the law is the responsibility of the executive branch, and thus, of the president. If the president refuses to enforce a duly enacted law, his removal from office via impeachment is the method available to Congress to deal with the situation. But we live in an age in which the president's refusal to enforce laws he doesn't personally agree with is considered no big deal, and thanks to the political skills of Bill Clinton, getting impeached is now a political triumph for a president and a huge bear trap for the Congress that dares to try it. All of which leads us to this question: If the president just plain doesn't want to enforce the law, can anyone do anything about it? And I can't come up with a way to say yes. I bet you can't either. So chances are, these guys have nothing to worry about:
Subscribe

View Comments
Dan Calabrese——

Dan Calabrese’s column is distributed by HermanCain.com, which can be found at HermanCain

Follow all of Dan’s work, including his series of Christian spiritual warfare novels, by liking his page on Facebook.

VIEW Comments

Sponsored