Filed under: 26 States, Amnesty, Congress, Immigration | Tags: Appeals Court, Executive Amnesty, Supreme Court
A federal appeals court has upheld a U.S. district court’s injunction preventing the Obama administration’s executive amnesty programs from moving forward.
U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hannan placed a preliminary injunction on Obama’s executive amnesty programs in February, and denied a second request from the Justice Department in March — ruling that the executive order must not be implemented until the lawsuit from the states is decided, keeping the programs from taking effect. Obama’s attempts at amnesty included the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). Judge blocked the programs after a coalition of 26 states challenged the executive amnesty. The federal government did not help their case by preceding to grant work permits to illegals anyway, in spite of the injunction.
Justice Department lawyers sought a stay on the injunction fro the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court declined to issue a stay on a 2-1 vote because it concluded the government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its appeal. This represents a significant setback for Obama’s executive amnesty plans.
Judge Smith noted that the:
affirmative act of conferring “lawful presence” on a class of unlawfully present aliens. Though revocable, that new designation triggers eligibility for federal and state benefits that would be otherwise available.’
Although prosecutorial discretion is broad, it is not ‘unfettered.’ Declining to prosecute does not convert an act deemed unlawful by Congress into a lawful one and confer eligibility for benefits based on that new classification.
Both the State of Texas and the Obama administration have signaled willingness to take the case to the Supreme Court. The
Texas is leading the 26 state coalition that is challenging the amnesty. Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin are members of the coalition.
Filed under: Conservatism, Law, Liberalism, Politics, The Constitution | Tags: Obama Nomination, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Supreme Court
President Barack Obama nominated Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court today. The nomination is the major news on the internet today. There is much to be troubled by, but it will take time for exploration of her background and qualifications to take place.
Attorney Paul Mirengoff of Power Line wasted no words:
She has no judging experience.
She has little experience as a practicing lawyer.
She has approximately one year of experience as Solicitor General of the United States.
She has lots of experience in academia, but has published only a small amount of scholarly work, none of which seems particularly noteworthy.
As the dean of Harvard Law School, she was tolerant of conservative law professors, but not of the United States military.
This briefly sums up what everyone else has said in a brief space. We will have ample time to fill in the blanks.
A Supreme Court nomination is a very big deal. It is a lifetime appointment, and decisions will influence the country for generations. At present there is a great divide between those who revere the Constitution that has served us so well for 223 years, and those who feel that the Constitution must change and develop in concert with the ideas of the political party in power.
Filed under: Law, Politics, Progressivism, The Constitution | Tags: Democrat Lies/Dirty Tricks, Freedom of Speech, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court handed down a major decision in Citizens United v. FEC, the “Hillary: The Movie” case that was first argued last March, reargued in September, and finally decided last Thursday, January 21, 2010.
Background: During the 2008 election campaign, the nonprofit group Citizens United wanted to make a film available on cable-on-demand that was critical of then-candidate Hillary Clinton. Because Citizens United is organized as a corporation, under the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law, its speech was banned. The movie was not allowed to be shown, and the law was backed by criminal sanctions. Section 441b makes it a felony for all corporations — including nonprofit advocacy corporations — either to expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of a general election.
Citizens United challenged this ban, and the Supreme Court struck down this provision of McCain-Feingold , reversing a previous ruling — Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce —that permitted the government to ban corporations and labor unions from promoting or opposing political candidates.
Paul Sherman, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, which litigates free-speech cases nationwide points out:
The ruling in Citizens United is a straightforward application of basic First Amendment principles: “When Government seeks to use its full power…to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”
The Democrats are OUTRAGED: Corporations are not entitled to free speech, political expenditures are not “speech”, protections of the Free Speech Clause properly apply to individuals not corporations, this will corrupt the democratic process, will radically increase powerful corporate influence in politics, blah, blah, blah. Democrats are afraid that corporations benefit Republicans, and free speech should not apply to anyone who might be critical of Democrats.
The First Amendment is about political speech, and if free speech only applies to speech that is pleasing to you, then it isn’t free, and it isn’t freedom — but tyranny. You might find it interesting to keep track of the numerous and constant efforts of the Democrats to stifle speech that they don’t like. For example, President Obama’s ban on Fox News continues.
Just watch. There will be a concerted effort on the part of the Democrats to overturn or overrule this decision. The “Democrats” aren’t much on Democracy, the Constitution (needs updating for modern times), especially the First Amendment — although that religion part is useful for getting rid of religious influences. They’re fairly fond of the “establishment” bit but always, always, ignore the — making no law that might “prohibit the free exercise thereof” part.
Progressives are passionately fond of larger government, the growth of government, and the exercise of lots of government power. The Constitution puts some firm limits on what government can and cannot do. They don’t like that.
Filed under: Conservatism, Domestic Policy, Election 2008, Europe, Foreign Policy, Iraq, Liberalism, News, Politics, Terrorism, The Constitution | Tags: Britain, Democrats, liberalism, Liberalism is a Mental Disorder, Osama bin Laden, Support the Troops!, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court’s repugnant, extra-constitutional 5-4 Boumediene decision last week conferred on illegal combatants more rights than were given to even Nazi’s during WWII. It gave foreign born terrorists, fighting in manners violating the Geneva Conventions, and captured on the battlefield access to American civil courts. The most egregious usurpation of constitutionally granted war powers by the courts in our nation’s history.
Democrats were overjoyed with the decision.
As if in response comes this story from Britain:
Abu Qatada, the radical Islamic cleric described as Osama bin Laden’s “right-hand man in Europe”, has been released from jail after a judge ruled that there were no grounds to keep him in prison.
The decision to allow him to return to his home in London – where he will receive around £1,000 per month in state benefits – made a mockery of the government’s promise to crack down on terror suspects, and embarrassed the Home Office, which had pledged to deport Qatada to Jordan to face terror charges.
Qatada is not only known as “Bin Laden’s right-hand man in Europe,” but is wanted in Jordan for terrorist activity and has been accused of inspiring the attacks on America because videos of his sermons were found among the possessions of Mohammad Atta and other 9/11 hijackers.
The same court that released him previously described him as
“a truly dangerous individual” who was “heavily involved, indeed at the centre of terrorist activities associated with al-Qa’eda”.
In other words, everyone knows he’s a terrorist, everyone knows he is dangerous, but the courts refuse to allow him to be extradicted and have now set him free.
This is precisely why the courts have no business whatsoever involving themselves in the war on terror. It’s a war, not a legal matter. Precisely why the constitution granted sole war making powers to the president, and to a lesser degree congress.
As if to emphasize the risibility of the decision, the court also specifically stated that Qatada is prohibited from receiving visits from Ayman al-Zawahiri, Abu Hamza, and… Osama bin Laden!
Phew. That’s a relief!
Filed under: Conservatism, Domestic Policy, Economy, Election 2008, Energy, Environment, Foreign Policy, Liberalism, Politics, Terrorism | Tags: Drilling, Gas Prices, John McCain, Obama, Polls, Supreme Court
Obama-McCain Race Reverts to Virtual Tie
Voters are closely divided between Barack Obama and John McCain in Gallup Poll Daily tracking conducted June 12-14, with 44% of national registered voters favoring Obama for president and 42% backing McCain.
Obama had led by as many as seven percentage points in the first few days following Hillary Clinton’s departure from the race…Although the margin between Obama and McCain is now similar to what it was in the last few weeks of the Democratic primary race, the structure of the race looks slightly different than at any other time this year as a result of the relatively high percentage of voters — 15% — not favoring either major-party candidate.
This election will be decided by those “none of the above” voters, and that is good news for John McCain. There is no question the left is very happy with their candidate. Why shouldn’t they be? He is easily the most radical liberal to win the Democrat nomination since at least George McGovern.
So who, then, are these “none of the above” voters? Easy. Moderates of both parties, and conservative Republicans. And while McCain and Obama will split the former — Obama will get none of the latter, they will either vote for McCain, a third party, or no one.
And it looks as though McCain may finally be learning that the way to win is to move right and distinguish himself from Obama rather than trying to move towards the center and out-liberal him. In just one week McCain has done just that on two important issues, first condemning the deplorable Boumediene decision in no uncertain terms, and calling for an end to the moratorium on coastal drilling. Both issues that will go over very well with everyone but the far left.
I wouldn’t be surprised if McCain overtakes Obama in the next round of polling.