By Dan Calabrese ——Bio and Archives--April 19, 2016
American Politics, News | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
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
View Comments
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.