SCOTUS 4-4 on Obama's immigration executive action - killing it.

[glenn1]

No he was not doing "the exact opposite of the law". He was prioritizing resources, which is one of the duties of the executive.

Cool, then the next President can likewise "prioritize resources" to not prosecute election fraud, abortion clinic bombings, racial discrimination cases, or securities fraud. Hell, if you make over $500k annually let's not bother to enforce any laws against you, that should free up tons of resources.

 

[ivwshane]

Cool, then the next President can likewise "prioritize resources" to not prosecute election fraud, abortion clinic bombings, racial discrimination cases, or securities fraud. Hell, if you make over $500k annually let's not bother to enforce any laws against you, that should free up tons of resources.

You are really stuck on stupid today. There is quite a lot of area in between all or nothing.

 

[fskimospy]

No. Obama was doing the exact opposite of the law. If that's executive privilege, then we live in a rotating dictatorship, not a republic of laws.

Are you saying that prioritized enforcement equals dictatorship? If so, how do you explain that literally every single law enforcement agency in the entire history of the world has done this? I mean jaywalking is every bit as illegal as murder but every police department basically ever declines to prosecute it as vigorously as murder. Are they lawless dictators? If not, how do you excuse them ignoring very clear law?

There is a genuine conflict here but what you are saying is ridiculous. The question is not if Obama has the power to decline to enforce certain laws in order to prioritize others. That power is unquestionably his. The question is to what extent.

 

[fskimospy]

Cool, then the next President can likewise "prioritize resources" to not prosecute election fraud, abortion clinic bombings, racial discrimination cases, or securities fraud. Hell, if you make over $500k annually let's not bother to enforce any laws against you, that should free up tons of resources.

I think they should absolutely do that and see what happens. Democrats will get such a crushing majority that they will impeach that president and then pass everything they ever wanted on their wildest wish list. How fun!!

 

[Svnla]

So will we see more of Mexican flags wavings and signs wavings of "Make America Mexico again"?

Watching the news on the big 3 networks now and of course, the signs of "Don't Break Up Families" are out in force again. Hey, how about follow immigration law as million and million of LEGALS are doing right now so you ILLEGALS will not have to worry about deportation (the penalty for being ILLEGALS)? How about respect the US sovereign, rules and laws? Of course ,that would be too much to ask because follow the laws is for losers/chumps.

 

[werepossum]

Are you saying that prioritized enforcement equals dictatorship? If so, how do you explain that literally every single law enforcement agency in the entire history of the world has done this? I mean jaywalking is every bit as illegal as murder but every police department basically ever declines to prosecute it as vigorously as murder. Are they lawless dictators? If not, how do you excuse them ignoring very clear law?

There is a genuine conflict here but what you are saying is ridiculous. The question is not if Obama has the power to decline to enforce certain laws in order to prioritize others. That power is unquestionably his. The question is to what extent.

Okay, let's take jaywalking. We agree that it's illegal. We also agree that it's never going to be 100% prosecuted.

1. Not prioritizing apprehension and prosecution of jaywalkers is prosecutorial discretion.
2. Picking up jaywalkers, giving them an apartment and income for being jaywalkers, and PROTECTING them from prosecution for jaywalking is doing the exact opposite of the law against jaywalking.

If you'll kindly tell me which of these two is beyond your understanding, I'll search for smaller, simpler words.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Technically...the SCOTUS didn't "block" or "kill" anything. A lower court had ruled against Obama. The SCOTUS didn't do anything. A tie is the equivalent of doing nothing. Had they not agreed to hear the case, the outcome would be the same except that no one would be trying to convince people that the SCOTUS had blocked anything when they had done no such thing.

A decision like this affirms the lower court but sets no precedent. It does not serve as binding authority for other cases.

 

[fskimospy]

Okay, let's take jaywalking. We agree that it's illegal. We also agree that it's never going to be 100% prosecuted.

1. Not prioritizing apprehension and prosecution of jaywalkers is prosecutorial discretion.
2. Picking up jaywalkers, giving them an apartment and income for being jaywalkers, and PROTECTING them from prosecution for jaywalking is doing the exact opposite of the law against jaywalking.

If you'll kindly tell me which of these two is beyond your understanding, I'll search for smaller, simpler words.

#2 is beyond my understanding because it appears to have basically no bearing on reality. Please indulge me.

 

[ivwshane]

Okay, let's take jaywalking. We agree that it's illegal. We also agree that it's never going to be 100% prosecuted.

1. Not prioritizing apprehension and prosecution of jaywalkers is prosecutorial discretion.
2. Picking up jaywalkers, giving them an apartment and income for being jaywalkers, and PROTECTING them from prosecution for jaywalking is doing the exact opposite of the law against jaywalking.

If you'll kindly tell me which of these two is beyond your understanding, I'll search for smaller, simpler words.

Lol no its not a prosecutorial discretion because in order for that to happen a police officer would first need to charge someone. Police, no matter how badly you want it to be in order to make your case, cannot ticket everyone who jaywalks. There simply aren't enough police.
However, let's just pretend that, amazingly, police manage to ticket everyone that jaywalks, now lets pretend that everyone is also required due process (like it is for suspected illegal immigrants) and now you have millions of jaywalkers who are due their time in court. There is, again, zero chance of being able to prosecute all of them. So what do you do then? Fill all the jails? Provide them with food and water until their day in court? How long do you think that will take?

Words don't seem to be the issue with you and others, its the overall concept that you don't seem to understand. Shall I use pictures for you instead?

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-happens-when-undocumented-immigrant-is-caught.html

 

[ivwshane]

Technically...the SCOTUS didn't "block" or "kill" anything. A lower court had ruled against Obama. The SCOTUS didn't do anything. A tie is the equivalent of doing nothing. Had they not agreed to hear the case, the outcome would be the same except that no one would be trying to convince people that the SCOTUS had blocked anything when they had done no such thing.

A decision like this affirms the lower court but sets no precedent. It does not serve as binding authority for other cases.

Facts don't matter here on p&n.

 

[werepossum]

#2 is beyond my understanding because it appears to have basically no bearing on reality. Please indulge me.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/politics/immigration-supreme-court/

What Obama's plans do
The White House announced the programs in November 2014, issuing a five-page guidance memo enabling qualifying undocumented workers to receive temporary relief from the threat of deportation and to apply for programs that could qualify them for work authorization and associated benefits.
The Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) targets the nearly 4.3 million undocumented parents of citizens and lawful residents, and the second program expands the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), initiative aimed at non-citizens who came to the country as children.

As I said, there is a huge difference between ignoring jaywalkers and declaring that jaywalking is now legal and in fact should be subsidized with taxpayers' money.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/4/state-dept-program-would-fly-in-immigrant-children/

A new State Department and Department of Homeland Security Program will fly immigrant children from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador to their parents in the U.S. for free.
Parents can apply to have their children picked up and flown over the border to them on the taxpayer’s dime, as long as they have some kind of legal immigration status, The Daily Caller reported Wednesday.
The program was created in response to a surge of unaccompanied Central American children making the perilous trek to illegally cross the U.S. border that began last summer.
Any permanent resident, parolee or illegal immigrant granted or in the process of being granted a work permit under President Barack Obama’s executive order or his deferred action policy, who have children under age 21 living in Honduras, Guatemala or El Salvador can apply for the program, The Daily Caller reported.
If the application is approved, the child will be granted special refugee status and flown to the U.S. to receive “resettlement assistance” and will be eligible for taxpayer benefits. If the child has children of their own under 21 they can come into the U.S. too, along with parents of the child who is married to the applicant.

Not only declaring jaywalking legal, but actually providing free flights to bring to them their children and get them government benefits. Note that Obama has been importing entire extended families.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ing-illegal-immigrant-children-across-us.html

The Obama administration has spent at least $18.5 million to fly “unaccompanied children” caught crossing into the country illegally to locations inside the United States, according to newly obtained figures.

The numbers, shared with FoxNews.com by the Senate subcommittee on immigration, were provided by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in response to questions from Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.

The numbers shed light on the extent of a program that has drawn scrutiny not just from lawmakers but the federal courts, amid concerns the U.S. government is effectively aiding smugglers.

Sending American planes to foreign countries to bring in yet more illegal aliens is doing the exact opposite of immigration law. No amount of willful stupidity can ignore that simple fact.

 

[buckshot24]

Whatever you guys think Obama was doing it doesn't matter, the courts ruled against it. They didn't buy your arguments.

 

[ivwshane]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/politics/immigration-supreme-court/

As I said, there is a huge difference between ignoring jaywalkers and declaring that jaywalking is now legal and in fact should be subsidized with taxpayers' money.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/4/state-dept-program-would-fly-in-immigrant-children/

Not only declaring jaywalking legal, but actually providing free flights to bring to them their children and get them government benefits. Note that Obama has been importing entire extended families.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ing-illegal-immigrant-children-across-us.html

Sending American planes to foreign countries to bring in yet more illegal aliens is doing the exact opposite of immigration law. No amount of willful stupidity can ignore that simple fact.

Looking at your source and claims it certainly seems to be a repeat of this bullshit:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-humanitarian-aid-not-emmigration-assistance/

I hope for your sake you haven't been duped because that puts you squarely in the Nutter camp.

 

[werepossum]

Looking at your source and claims it certainly seems to be a repeat of this bullshit:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-humanitarian-aid-not-emmigration-assistance/

I hope for your sake you haven't been duped because that puts you squarely in the Nutter camp.

Yeah, me and the Supreme Court totally got duped by that bastion of the vast right wing conspiracy, CNN.

 

[ivwshane]

Yeah, me and the Supreme Court totally got duped by that bastion of the vast right wing conspiracy, CNN.

Supreme court? The supreme court didn't rule on anything and deferred it to the lower courts. Your claims of executive overreach are bullshit.

You also apparently didn't bother reading the article you posted:

But an ICE official told FoxNews.com on Friday they’re only transporting minors to facilities run by Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement, “as dictated by the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA).”

The official added: “ICE does not transport children directly to parents or final destinations. We should also be clear that Congress has appropriated funds for the sole purpose of transporting these unaccompanied minors—that funding is separate from ICE’s enforcement and other funding. ICE is directed in this process by laws that Congress enacts and with funds they appropriate for that specific purpose.”

So, it's not like anything you claimed it to be at all, as ICE is actually following the law.

Your downward spiral hasn't been as fun to watch as has been legendkillers downward spiral, it has been rather sad however.

 

[sportage]

Thank god R Reagan is not president during this time.
If he tried anything like this with illegals or mentioning amnesty, Ronnie would be ran out of town.

Oh, never mind.
Ronnie actually did, and he wasn't.
Republicans built their entire ideology and party philosophy around Ronnie.
They praise him.

Just maybe, after Obama is gone, they will praise Obama as well?
Ya think?
Or might something "color" their memory?

 

[Pneumothorax]

Thank god R Reagan is not president during this time.
If he tried anything like this with illegals or mentioning amnesty, Ronnie would be ran out of town.

Oh, never mind.
Ronnie actually did, and he wasn't.
Republicans built their entire ideology and party philosophy around Ronnie.
They praise him.

Just maybe, after Obama is gone, they will praise Obama as well?
Ya think?
Or might something "color" their memory?

Oh you mean the law that Reagan signed that was supposed to get tough on employers hiring illegals and to increase the security at the border? We're doing the same damn !@#$ again and you expect a different outcome?! The difference is this time there's at least 4-5X more people who will get amnesty, the next time there will be an additional 50 million waiting as both parties aren't going to do jack!@#$

 

[ivwshane]

Oh you mean the law that Reagan signed that was supposed to get tough on employers hiring illegals and to increase the security at the border? We're doing the same damn !@#$ again and you expect a different outcome?! The difference is this time there's at least 4-5X more people who will get amnesty, the next time there will be an additional 50 million waiting as both parties aren't going to do jack!@#$

That's because low information voters like you keep electing politicians who refuse to actually address the issues.

In 2013 a bi partisan bill passed the senate that not only addressed the issue of employers hiring illegals, border security, and a whole host of other issues, it made any "amnesty" dependent on those issues being addressed.

So you get the government you vote for so thanks for that! /S

 

[Eli]

If you are worried about the abuse of executive actions by the president, the more dangerous precedent set by Obama is non-enforcement of the CSA (Controlled Substance Act) in states where voters legalized medical marijuana.

WTF? Are you for real? Yes, we must keep the dangerous scourge marijuana off the streets! Think of the children! In case you didn't get the memo, reefer madness doesn't exist. Alcohol is the real gateway drug, and kills about 30k people per year. Nobody argues that marijuana is a dangerous drug anymore.. unless you are a lunatic. Marijuana should have never been added to the CSA in the first place; don't even get me started on the incredibly racist Harry Anslinger.

Also, the first medical marijuana legislation passed ... in 1996. Now medical marijuana is legal in 25 states, and recreational marijuana is legal in 4.

But yes, it's all Obama's fault.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Yep that's it! You nailed it!

As a matter of fact, I did nail it. You beloved Obama has stated (paraphrased) that the constitution limits what the federal government can do. The stupid party is no better these days either, so don't accuse me of siding with them. My comment still stands, the SCOTUS is supposed to be apolitical and not agenda driven.

 

[werepossum]

Supreme court? The supreme court didn't rule on anything and deferred it to the lower courts. Your claims of executive overreach are bullshit.

You also apparently didn't bother reading the article you posted:



So, it's not like anything you claimed it to be at all, as ICE is actually following the law.

Your downward spiral hasn't been as fun to watch as has been legendkillers downward spiral, it has been rather sad however.

You cannot possibly be that stupid. They are traveling to other countries to bring in more illegal aliens and their families. An unnamed official claiming they are following the law in no way changes the fact that they are doing the exact opposite of the law.

 

[JockoJohnson]

So does this mean I get to ignore the law if I don't have the funds to pay for some regulations? Do small businesses get to ignore regulations because they have insufficient resources?

How about we do away with stupid laws that are currently being enforced so that we can focus on enforcing laws that matter --- you know, like illegal invasions?

 

[fskimospy]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/politics/immigration-supreme-court/

As I said, there is a huge difference between ignoring jaywalkers and declaring that jaywalking is now legal and in fact should be subsidized with taxpayers' money.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/4/state-dept-program-would-fly-in-immigrant-children/

Not only declaring jaywalking legal, but actually providing free flights to bring to them their children and get them government benefits. Note that Obama has been importing entire extended families.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ing-illegal-immigrant-children-across-us.html

Sending American planes to foreign countries to bring in yet more illegal aliens is doing the exact opposite of immigration law. No amount of willful stupidity can ignore that simple fact.

So not only did you get called out for providing bullshit links, but work authorization isn't a taxpayer subsidy.

More importantly though, you said that this sort of discretionary enforcement was akin to a dictatorship. You have now shifted to an argument that it's about money. Justify your original statement in light of the fact that every law enforcement agency in history has done this without exception.

Either that or take the more rational stance of "of course Obama has the power to prioritize enforcement however I think it should be more limited than this". Whatever works for you!

 

[fskimospy]

So does this mean I get to ignore the law if I don't have the funds to pay for some regulations? Do small businesses get to ignore regulations because they have insufficient resources?

How about we do away with stupid laws that are currently being enforced so that we can focus on enforcing laws that matter --- you know, like illegal invasions?

Think your logic through for a minute. It would be impossible to stop every violation of the law no matter what your system of laws looks like, right? We could spend 100% of GDP on law enforcement and it wouldn't matter.

Therefore in 100% of circumstances law enforcement agencies will have to prioritize some laws over others, no matter how many laws we have. If you think that law enforcement accepting reality should be cause to ignore laws, well then go ahead and try it and use that argument in court, haha.

 

[buckshot24]

Think your logic through for a minute. It would be impossible to stop every violation of the law no matter what your system of laws looks like, right? We could spend 100% of GDP on law enforcement and it wouldn't matter.

Therefore in 100% of circumstances law enforcement agencies will have to prioritize some laws over others, no matter how many laws we have. If you think that law enforcement accepting reality should be cause to ignore laws, well then go ahead and try it and use that argument in court, haha.

Courts disagreed with your argument. You lost.