Free Markets, Free People

Interesting, but not surprising

The first shoe drops on the President’s executive amnesty order:

According to the opinion by Judge Arthur Schwab, the president’s policy goes “beyond prosecutorial discretion” in that it provides a relatively rigid framework for considering applications for deferred action, thus obviating any meaningful case-by-case determination as prosecutorial discretion requires, and provides substantive rights to applicable individuals.  As a consequence,  Schwab concluded, the action exceeds the scope of executive authority.

Ya think?  So, now what?  Will this proceed up the line to the Supreme Court?  And if it does, will the “ObamaCare is a tax” court manage to actually rule as this judge has, that the executive has unconstitutionally exceeded his power?

Anymore, you never know.

~McQ

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

6 Responses to Interesting, but not surprising

  • A nice battle, but not the war. The ruling was very sound. And it came out of nowhere in some respects.

  • If the courts do not act in a timely fashion against executive over-reach, they will reveal themselves as simply a rubber stamp for the executive who can put a thumb on the scale in terms of moving first and setting expectations for a mostly uninformed public.

  • Roberts is a business tool. That’s why he struggled to find a way to sign off on Obamacare. Count on hm also swinging the same way Congress just did. If there are 5 votes to support this that can be put together without him, then maybe we have a shot. I think in his position he possibly has a way to ignore this or at least until its too late.

  • The Justice Department said in an e-mailed statement yesterday that Schwab had overreached.

    “The decision is unfounded and the court had no basis to issue such an order,” according to the statement. “No party in the case challenged the constitutionality of the immigration-related executive actions and the department’s filing made it clear that the executive actions did not apply to the criminal matter before the court. Moreover, the court’s analysis of the legality of the executive actions is flatly wrong.”

    Overreach ? … the irony

    • Hey, they’re entitled to their opinion, even if it’s wrong and illegal.

      What they’re not entitled to is what they’re doing – selectively enforcing or not enforcing existing laws and inventing them whole cloth as they go along.