Federal Judge: Obama Amnesty Unconstitutional

[Sean Renaud]

They have many responsibilities. That is certainly one of them. But those are ethical, moral duties. One of their actual jobs is to introduce legislation. But they certainly don't have to, like a homework assignment: every night, make a law. Bring it in by Monday. Lol no.

At the very least the budget they do. And the budget even though we don't tend to think of it as such as technically legislation.

When the House doesn't act, it is in fact acting. Acting out the desires of their constituents.

No, they are leading. There is a difference. But at some point you're just wrecking shit.

 

[Que]

At the very least the budget they do. And the budget even though we don't tend to think of it as such as technically legislation.



No, they are leading. There is a difference. But at some point you're just wrecking shit.

Why didn't the Democrats even vote on a budget then, other than voting down 99-0 against Obamas budget?

 

[Sean Renaud]

Why didn't the Democrats even vote on a budget then, other than voting down 99-0 against Obamas budget?

I said Congress, but we both know what actually happened. The Republicans weren't going to play so they decided to do what they felt was necessary.

 

[Que]

I said Congress, but we both know what actually happened. The Republicans weren't going to play so they decided to do what they felt was necessary.

Republicans passed a budget. The Democrats did not want to have a budget because budgets only take 50 votes and the Republicans could have found a handful of principled Democrats. The Democrats were the ones "weren't going to play." To extend your metaphor- they didn't even suit up.

 

[phrodeau]

When the House doesn't act, it is in fact acting. Acting out the desires of their constituents.

And when the White House doesn't act, that's because he's lazy and shiftless.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Republicans passed a budget. The Democrats did not want to have a budget because budgets only take 50 votes and the Republicans could have found a handful of principled Democrats. The Democrats were the ones "weren't going to play." To extend your metaphor- they didn't even suit up.

The Republicans passed a joke. The Dems made the only play they could. If you want me to tell you it was wrong it was. But in that same way do you let terrorists win? Minority makes the most concessions. Period. Just like itwillbe for the next to years as the Democrats and Obama bow.

 

[Kitty]

Probably because your stupidity frustrates him as an American.

*Copies and pastes the symbol guy you did* Because...¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Busybody]

the prevailing theory is

that Obola wants Judges to declare it unlawful

this way, he and the DISEASED party can say

we wanted INCLUSION

the old white guys stopped it!

 

[RobDownSouth]

UPON FURTHER REVIEW

It appears this "opinion" offered by the judge has no standing, as neither party in the lawsuit brought up President Obama's policy. This was simply the judge taking an opportunity to grandstand.

Even Faux News is scratching its head...

 

[IrezumiKiss]

UPON FURTHER REVIEW

It appears this "opinion" offered by the judge has no standing, as neither party in the lawsuit brought up President Obama's policy. This was simply the judge taking an opportunity to grandstand.

Even Faux News is scratching its head...

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9wofiCO961qa6g1m.gif

http://media.tumblr.com/c88617a3ef8a329f8b5006b1e7367844/tumblr_mvxa6pvKum1rnq0vfo1_250.gif

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1wiloIaJg1r68x0p.gif

http://awesomelyluvvie.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/tumblr_md42dow0sv1r5x5zu.gif

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean Renaud]

By small percentage you mean 60% or more. But keep it up!

 

[Kitty]

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1wiloIaJg1r68x0p.gif

She must be on what Sean is on.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Kitty]

You must be on the same shit that Zumi is on.

Was I talkin' to you, old man?!

Oh. And what shit is that though?

The good, pure, sensible, I smell an old bigot stuff?

 

[Sean Renaud]

THey probably think it is illegal, it may be in some odd way (as you proved with Bush and torture if the Prez okays it it stops being illegal) but what they think is ultimately irrelevant.

But most Americans understand we have no choice in this.

 

[KingOrfeo]

So, you're prepared to refute the story, Action Toy Boy?

Oh, the story is real, but:

Nobody saw this coming because no one actually asked Schwab to weigh in on Obama’s immigration action – he just up and did it on his own, because that’s what judges do, right? They judge things. And so, in a 38-page opinion on the sentencing of an undocumented Honduran immigrant arrested for drunk driving, Judge Schwab laid out his abbreviated take on one of the more controversial presidential actions in recent memory, declaring it “unconstitutional.” But, despite declaring it unlawful, Schwab declined to invalidate the order. “Given that no party was challenging the lawfulness of the President’s action,” writes Jonathan Adler at the Washington Post, “it’s not clear what authority the court would have had to invalidate the policy.”

You should read Elise Foley’s and Ryan Grim’s dive into Schwab’s background to get a sense of why Schwab would set himself on this bizarre path toward confrontation with the president. Basically, Schwab (appointed to the bench by George W. Bush at the recommendation of then-Sen. Rick Santorum) is a conservative crank who is viewed as overly partisan (even for the federal judiciary) and has been disciplined in the past for issues of bias and temperament.

And Schwab pretty clearly went into this with an agenda. He wasted several pages of the opinion quoting Obama’s past statements on how the president can’t change immigration policy unilaterally. While those quotes are politically inconvenient for Obama, they don’t actually say anything about the legality of the president’s actions – which Schwab himself acknowledges: “While President Obama’s historic statements are not dispositive of the constitutionality of his Executive Action on immigration, they cause this Court pause.”

His legal critique of the president’s proposed program encompasses all of five pages, with no precedents cited to back up his claims of presidential overreach. It was as if Schwab, in building his case against the constitutionality of Obama’s executive action, skimmed a few conservative blogs, copy-and-pasted a few old Obama quotes, and called it a day. “Judge Schwab traveled far along a very thin branch to reach this decision,” ThinkProgress’ Ian Millhiser writes, “and he anchored his decision with little grounding in legal authorities.” Basically, it is a political argument masquerading as a legal opinion.

And there’s no better proof of that than the fact that dimwit conservative pundits are celebrating Schwab’s argument for the way it tracks with their own thinking. “It almost could’ve been written by me,” said Fox News’ Sean Hannity, delivering a stronger indictment of Schwab than anything I could hope to muster. “He makes the very arguments that I had been making the entire time.”

Ideally, the federal judiciary should operate at a level of argumentation that is slightly above that of cable news punditry. But as it stands, Schwab’s ruling will stand out as a landmark moment in American history: the first time the courts have Hannitized a sitting president.

 

[Kitty]

THey probably think it is illegal, it may be in some odd way (as you proved with Bush and torture if the Prez okays it it stops being illegal) but what they think is ultimately irrelevant.

But most Americans understand we have no choice in this.

Since you like gifs so much


http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111126173837/glee/images/0/02/Santana_bored.gif


Don't you have another weird story to write?



http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lu7j57tFwG1qjgyuwo1_500.gif

 

[RobDownSouth]

Go here and view page 7, and see the court's rationale for addressing the executive order:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...t/uploads/sites/14/2014/12/Juarez-Escobar.pdf

I recognize that as a Vietnam-era marine, you are not man enough to admit error.

Let's review:

The "Judge" issued an opinion that did NOT address the merits of the charges brought to court, and did NOT cite any precedent in his order.

This is not law, it is not justice, it is a judge issuing an opinion that will be unanimously overturned upon appeal.

Of course, the judge is telling you what you want to hear, so you're defending him.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean Renaud]

Is Kitty confused cus I think she's defending Vette for some reason.

 

[unregistered]

 

[cjh]

Is Kitty confused cus I think she's defending Vette for some reason.

I've given up trying to figure out which way her compass needle points.