Texas Gov. Greg Abbott: ‘Federal Judge Just Granted My Request to Halt Obama’s Executive Amnesty

[DigitalDrifter]

Many of the Latino immigrants are far preferable to HereWeGoAgain and that ilk.

And I would trade you fucking liberals for most immigrants in a heartbeat !!!!

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I'm certain that eventually Obama and liberals will get their precious illegals amnesty, this is America 2015 after all, and up is down and nothing makes sense anymore.
BUT, it may not be a slam dunk anyway.

Texas judge's immigration rebuke may be hard to challenge

NEW YORK (Reuters) - President Barack Obama's administration faces a difficult and possibly lengthy legal battle to overturn a Texas court ruling that blocked his landmark immigration overhaul, since the judge based his decision on an obscure and unsettled area of administrative law, lawyers said.

In his ruling on Monday that upended plans to shield millions of people from deportation, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen avoided diving into sweeping constitutional questions or tackling presidential powers head-on. Instead, he faulted Obama for not giving public notice of his plans.

The failure to do so, Hanen wrote, was a violation of the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act, which requires notice in a publication called the Federal Register as well as an opportunity for people to submit views in writing.

The ruling, however narrow, marked an initial victory for 26 states that brought the case alleging Obama had exceeded his powers with executive orders that would let up to 4.7 million illegal immigrants stay without threat of deportation.

"It's a very procedural point – that he did this too quickly," said Michael Kagan, a law professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Hanen's ruling left in disarray U.S. policy toward the roughly 11 million people in the country illegally. Obama said on Tuesday he disagreed with the ruling and expected his administration to prevail in the courts.

The U.S. Justice Department was preparing an appeal of Hanen's temporary injunction to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, Obama said. The court could consider an emergency request to block Hanen's ruling, potentially within days, although most of the 23 judges on the court were appointed by Republican presidents.

There was no consensus among lawyers with expertise in administrative law and immigration law on whether Hanen would be reversed on appeal. But they said the judge was wise to focus on an area of administrative law where legal precedent is sometimes fuzzy.

In the near term, the narrow approach allowed Hanen to issue a temporary injunction barring federal agencies from putting Obama's plans into place. An appointee of President George W. Bush, Hanen had previously criticized U.S. immigration enforcement as too lax.

BRAKE ON PRESIDENTIAL ACTION

Hanen's ruling turned on the Administrative Procedure Act's requirement that a proposed rule or regulation appear in the Federal Register so people have a chance to comment. The Federal Register is a daily journal of U.S. government proceedings.

The "notice and comment" requirement acts as a brake on all presidents, slowing their plans by months or years.

The requirement, though, does not apply to "interpretative rules" or general statements of policy, an exception that Justice Department lawyers said applied to Obama's announcement in November. Rules that must be submitted for notice and comment are sometimes known as "legislative rules."

For Hanen, the pivotal question became whether the new rules, such as granting work permits to potentially millions of illegal immigrants, was binding on federal agents or merely general guidance. He ruled that they were binding, and that Obama should have allowed for notice and comment.

Lawyers with expertise in administrative law said there was little guidance from the U.S. Supreme Court on what qualifies as a rule that needs to be published, leaving disagreement among lower courts and a grey area for Hanen to work in.

"The case law as to what qualifies as a legislative rule is remarkably unclear," said Anne Joseph O'Connell, a University of California Berkeley law professor.

LENGTHY PROCESS LOOMS

O'Connell said it was hard to predict how the appeals court would rule in the end, although she thought it was likely the court would lift Hanen's temporary injunction and allow the Obama administration to begin putting its program in place.

The subject is not strictly partisan, she said, because sometimes a liberal interest group might favor a strict requirement for notice and comment.

An appeal before the 5th Circuit could take months, as lawyers file written briefs and the court holds oral argument and comes to a decision.

The appeals court could also consider other questions, such as whether the states that brought the lawsuit had what is known as standing to sue or whether Obama violated the clause of the U.S. Constitution that requires presidents to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

There is no chance Obama would begin the notice-and-comment period now, because U.S. immigration policy would be frozen in place during the lengthy process, said Peter Margulies, an immigration expert at Roger Williams University School of Law in Rhode Island.

He said it could delay Obama's policy for "a minimum of six to eight months, and potentially much longer."

Texas judge s immigration rebuke may be hard to challenge - Yahoo News

 

[Kondor3]

Hurry, January 20, 2017...

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Hurry, January 20, 2017...

Yes, I can't imagine Hillary could be as big a traitorous asswipe as this guy.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Obama is the star witness against his own illegal Executive Order. He's openly admitted on dozens of occassions that he does not have the power to change the law. Then after he issued the EO he announced he'd "changed the law".

Then give us dozens of examples, please. The examples you give are fail. You don't wear hatred well.

Are you saying obama didnt say that?

 

[AgentSparky]

The judge's ruling will fall very quickly.

The congressional attack on EO through the homeland bill has a much better chance of being somewhat successful.

True, as far as that goes. Do you really think the GOP will shut down the government again? That hasn't worked out too well for them in the past

The GOP will not be at fault this time, the public will knows the Dems shut down the government if they hold the bill hostage.

I suppose that is a possibility, but not very likely. Hard right wingers will blame the left, but they do that anyway. Everybody else won't just forget the GOP reputation for obstruction, and shutdowns.

I think your analysis is wrong. The public will certainly remember the previous GOP shutdowns but perceive that this time the Dems are being obstructionist

The main stream media will blame the Republicans if the Government shuts down whether it's the fault of Democrats filibustering or not and unfortunately most of the independents swing/voters (the ones that count the most) will most likely buy into it.

 

[BULLDOG]

The constitution. Get someone to read it to you some time.

Sorry,the president doesnt make law,nor can he change it.

He is certainly able to prioritize the enforcement of it like Reagan and Bush did. Again, you should look at a few facts before you just blindly fall for the shit rush tells you.

Sorry,dont listen to rush.
Sounds like your dream of flooding My country with your trashy brethren has been derailed.
To bad for you pedro.

Not really, My brethren started coming here about 150 to 200 years ago. A couple of them were even elected to high offices, and others made fortunes in the industrial revolution. I, unfortunately have done neither, but I've done OK in this fine country. For all your whining and jaw flapping, any changes you think you might make would be nothing more than temporary at best.

So that is what you're all about. Figures.
So when your spineless brethren turn the US into mexico,where you gonna go then?
Why dont they stop being pussies and fix mexico instead of being the locust they are? We get the worst south america has to offer and you actually expect good things to come?
You're a fool and a traitor to the US.

Sorry, but this is the U.S. and the only way thatwll change is if the crazy right manges n their effort to seceee

Go ahead and have your little happy dance just like you did with that little midterm election. It won't last very long. The circuit court will be reversed, and all those new republicans in the senate won't be able to do much more than be fodder for late night talk show jokes. When that happens, remember I told you it was coming.

Hey Poodle, you are aware that on many occasions Obama has said he didn't have the power to issue executive orders to create his own immigration laws, right ?

He probably didn't have the authority to do everything that needs to be done, but he can certainly do the part that he has done so far. You don't really think he did anything without constitutional experts thoroughly evaluating it first, do you?

He probably didn't have the authority to do everything that needs to be done, but he can certainly do the part that he has done so far. You don't really think he did anything without constitutional experts thoroughly evaluating it first, do you?

Wake the fuck up!

Go the fuck back to sleep.

So you believe Obama should be allowed to unilaterally create immigration law on his own, and you also believe we should reward lawbreakers ?

Well, your accusations are only happening in the imagination of dittoheads, but the president is authorized to do what he has done.

Yet Obama himself has said numerous times he does not have the authority to act alone.
You are in favor of rewarding lawbreakers who sneak into our country and jump in front of those who respect our laws and wish to immigrate through our established legal immigration policies.

Wrong as usual. He said he didn't have the authority to do everything needed to be done, and if the congress didn't act, he would do as much of what needed to be done as he could with the authority available to him. I'm in favor of dealing with an immigration problem that needs fixing. Deporting all of them is not an option. Leaving things as they are is an extremely poor option. So what do you propose?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Sorry,the president doesnt make law,nor can he change it.

He is certainly able to prioritize the enforcement of it like Reagan and Bush did. Again, you should look at a few facts before you just blindly fall for the shit rush tells you.

Sorry,dont listen to rush.
Sounds like your dream of flooding My country with your trashy brethren has been derailed.
To bad for you pedro.

Not really, My brethren started coming here about 150 to 200 years ago. A couple of them were even elected to high offices, and others made fortunes in the industrial revolution. I, unfortunately have done neither, but I've done OK in this fine country. For all your whining and jaw flapping, any changes you think you might make would be nothing more than temporary at best.

So that is what you're all about. Figures.
So when your spineless brethren turn the US into mexico,where you gonna go then?
Why dont they stop being pussies and fix mexico instead of being the locust they are? We get the worst south america has to offer and you actually expect good things to come?
You're a fool and a traitor to the US.

Sorry, but this is the U.S. and the only way thatwll change is if the crazy right manges n their effort to seceee

Hey Poodle, you are aware that on many occasions Obama has said he didn't have the power to issue executive orders to create his own immigration laws, right ?

He probably didn't have the authority to do everything that needs to be done, but he can certainly do the part that he has done so far. You don't really think he did anything without constitutional experts thoroughly evaluating it first, do you?

Wake the fuck up!

Go the fuck back to sleep.

So you believe Obama should be allowed to unilaterally create immigration law on his own, and you also believe we should reward lawbreakers ?

Well, your accusations are only happening in the imagination of dittoheads, but the president is authorized to do what he has done.

Yet Obama himself has said numerous times he does not have the authority to act alone.
You are in favor of rewarding lawbreakers who sneak into our country and jump in front of those who respect our laws and wish to immigrate through our established legal immigration policies.

Wrong as usual. He said he didn't have the authority to do everything needed to be done, and if the congress didn't act, he would do as much of what needed to be done as he could with the authority available to him. I'm in favor of dealing with an immigration problem that needs fixing. Deporting all of them is not an option. Leaving things as they are is an extremely poor option. So what do you propose?

Once more in english please.

 

[BULLDOG]

The judge's ruling will fall very quickly.

The congressional attack on EO through the homeland bill has a much better chance of being somewhat successful.

True, as far as that goes. Do you really think the GOP will shut down the government again? That hasn't worked out too well for them in the past

The GOP will not be at fault this time, the public will knows the Dems shut down the government if they hold the bill hostage.

I suppose that is a possibility, but not very likely. Hard right wingers will blame the left, but they do that anyway. Everybody else won't just forget the GOP reputation for obstruction, and shutdowns.

I think your analysis is wrong. The public will certainly remember the previous GOP shutdowns but perceive that this time the Dems are being obstructionist

The main stream media will blame the Republicans if the Government shuts down whether it's the fault of Democrats filibustering or not and unfortunately most of the independents swing/voters (the ones that count the most) will most likely buy into it.

That's not exactly how it works, but the right wing history of being obstructionist jerks who shut down the government every time they pitch a tantrum will make it nearly impossible to try blaming the Democratic party for it. That doesn't mean they won't try.

 

[BULLDOG]

He is certainly able to prioritize the enforcement of it like Reagan and Bush did. Again, you should look at a few facts before you just blindly fall for the shit rush tells you.

Sorry,dont listen to rush.
Sounds like your dream of flooding My country with your trashy brethren has been derailed.
To bad for you pedro.

Not really, My brethren started coming here about 150 to 200 years ago. A couple of them were even elected to high offices, and others made fortunes in the industrial revolution. I, unfortunately have done neither, but I've done OK in this fine country. For all your whining and jaw flapping, any changes you think you might make would be nothing more than temporary at best.

So that is what you're all about. Figures.
So when your spineless brethren turn the US into mexico,where you gonna go then?
Why dont they stop being pussies and fix mexico instead of being the locust they are? We get the worst south america has to offer and you actually expect good things to come?
You're a fool and a traitor to the US.

Sorry, but this is the U.S. and the only way thatwll change is if the crazy right manges n their effort to seceee

He probably didn't have the authority to do everything that needs to be done, but he can certainly do the part that he has done so far. You don't really think he did anything without constitutional experts thoroughly evaluating it first, do you?
Go the fuck back to sleep.

So you believe Obama should be allowed to unilaterally create immigration law on his own, and you also believe we should reward lawbreakers ?

Well, your accusations are only happening in the imagination of dittoheads, but the president is authorized to do what he has done.

Yet Obama himself has said numerous times he does not have the authority to act alone.
You are in favor of rewarding lawbreakers who sneak into our country and jump in front of those who respect our laws and wish to immigrate through our established legal immigration policies.

Wrong as usual. He said he didn't have the authority to do everything needed to be done, and if the congress didn't act, he would do as much of what needed to be done as he could with the authority available to him. I'm in favor of dealing with an immigration problem that needs fixing. Deporting all of them is not an option. Leaving things as they are is an extremely poor option. So what do you propose?

Once more in english please.

Get a grown up to explain it to you.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Sorry,dont listen to rush.
Sounds like your dream of flooding My country with your trashy brethren has been derailed.
To bad for you pedro.

Not really, My brethren started coming here about 150 to 200 years ago. A couple of them were even elected to high offices, and others made fortunes in the industrial revolution. I, unfortunately have done neither, but I've done OK in this fine country. For all your whining and jaw flapping, any changes you think you might make would be nothing more than temporary at best.

So that is what you're all about. Figures.
So when your spineless brethren turn the US into mexico,where you gonna go then?
Why dont they stop being pussies and fix mexico instead of being the locust they are? We get the worst south america has to offer and you actually expect good things to come?
You're a fool and a traitor to the US.

Sorry, but this is the U.S. and the only way thatwll change is if the crazy right manges n their effort to seceee

So you believe Obama should be allowed to unilaterally create immigration law on his own, and you also believe we should reward lawbreakers ?

Well, your accusations are only happening in the imagination of dittoheads, but the president is authorized to do what he has done.

Yet Obama himself has said numerous times he does not have the authority to act alone.
You are in favor of rewarding lawbreakers who sneak into our country and jump in front of those who respect our laws and wish to immigrate through our established legal immigration policies.

Wrong as usual. He said he didn't have the authority to do everything needed to be done, and if the congress didn't act, he would do as much of what needed to be done as he could with the authority available to him. I'm in favor of dealing with an immigration problem that needs fixing. Deporting all of them is not an option. Leaving things as they are is an extremely poor option. So what do you propose?

Once more in english please.

Get a grown up to explain it to you.

Grown ups know how to spell...so whats your excuse?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Obama is the star witness against his own illegal Executive Order. He's openly admitted on dozens of occassions that he does not have the power to change the law. Then after he issued the EO he announced he'd "changed the law".

Then give us dozens of examples, please. The examples you give are fail. You don't wear hatred well.

Are you saying obama didnt say that?

Those statements do not prove Zander's thesis.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Sorry,the president doesnt make law,nor can he change it.

He is certainly able to prioritize the enforcement of it like Reagan and Bush did. Again, you should look at a few facts before you just blindly fall for the shit rush tells you.

Sorry,dont listen to rush.
Sounds like your dream of flooding My country with your trashy brethren has been derailed.
To bad for you pedro.

Not really, My brethren started coming here about 150 to 200 years ago. A couple of them were even elected to high offices, and others made fortunes in the industrial revolution. I, unfortunately have done neither, but I've done OK in this fine country. For all your whining and jaw flapping, any changes you think you might make would be nothing more than temporary at best.

So that is what you're all about. Figures.
So when your spineless brethren turn the US into mexico,where you gonna go then?
Why dont they stop being pussies and fix mexico instead of being the locust they are? We get the worst south america has to offer and you actually expect good things to come?
You're a fool and a traitor to the US.

Sorry, but this is the U.S. and the only way thatwll change is if the crazy right manges n their effort to seceee

Hey Poodle, you are aware that on many occasions Obama has said he didn't have the power to issue executive orders to create his own immigration laws, right ?

He probably didn't have the authority to do everything that needs to be done, but he can certainly do the part that he has done so far. You don't really think he did anything without constitutional experts thoroughly evaluating it first, do you?

Wake the fuck up!

Go the fuck back to sleep.

So you believe Obama should be allowed to unilaterally create immigration law on his own, and you also believe we should reward lawbreakers ?

Well, your accusations are only happening in the imagination of dittoheads, but the president is authorized to do what he has done.

Yet Obama himself has said numerous times he does not have the authority to act alone.
You are in favor of rewarding lawbreakers who sneak into our country and jump in front of those who respect our laws and wish to immigrate through our established legal immigration policies.

Wrong as usual. He said he didn't have the authority to do everything needed to be done, and if the congress didn't act, he would do as much of what needed to be done as he could with the authority available to him. I'm in favor of dealing with an immigration problem that needs fixing. Deporting all of them is not an option. Leaving things as they are is an extremely poor option. So what do you propose?

WHY DID OBAMA FLIP-FLOP ON IMMIGRATION?

On several occasions over the past few years, President Obama has claimed he didn’t have the legal authority to do pretty much exactly what he told the nation Thursday night he’s going to do on immigration law and policy.

Indeed, when pressed on why the administration wasn’t enacting the law enforcement policies he now has announced the federal government will pursue, he responded that to do so would require him to act like an emperor or king rather than a mere executive faithfully carrying out the laws passed by Congress.


“The problem is that, you know, I’m the president of the United States. I’m not the emperor of the United States,” hesaid. “My job is to execute laws that are passed, and Congress right now has not changed what I consider to be a broken immigration system. And what that means is that we have certain obligations to enforce the laws that are in place, even if we think that in many cases the results may be tragic.”

So does Obama have the legal authority to direct the federal government to enact the immigration law policies he now says the government will pursue? And if the answer to that question is yes, why was Obama claiming otherwise until quite recently?

The answers to these questions are “almost certainly yes” and “the dysfunctional nature of the American political system regularly requires presidents to say things they know aren’t true.”

It’s inevitable in a legal system such as ours, in which lawmaking is technically confined to one branch of government while the execution of those laws is placed in another, that a certain amount of informal lawmaking is going to end up happening in the latter area.

Congress enacts the laws, but deciding how to go about executing those laws by necessity requires the exercise of practical discretion. Enforcing the laws on deportation is a clear example. It’s impossible for the executive branch to deport more than a small fraction of the people the law says ought to be deported. Congress hasn’t authorized anything like the kind of spending that would be necessary even to begin to approach that goal, so the executive branch has to decide how best to go about pursuing partial enforcement.

In practice, this is known as exercising prosecutorial discretion, which is integral to every facet of the American justice system. Now it’s true that, as part of its commitment to execute the laws faithfully, the executive must enact discretionary policies that reflect the goals congressional legislation is intended to advance. Nor can the administration undertake actions—such as granting citizenship or permanent legal status to immigrants—which Congress has explicitly reserved to itself.

Why Did Obama Flip-Flop on Immigration - The Daily Beast

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Obama is the star witness against his own illegal Executive Order. He's openly admitted on dozens of occassions that he does not have the power to change the law. Then after he issued the EO he announced he'd "changed the law".

Then give us dozens of examples, please. The examples you give are fail. You don't wear hatred well.

Are you saying obama didnt say that?

Those statements do not prove Zander's thesis.

You're a dumb fuck fakey. Obama made the statement,we all know he made the statement,so why deny it?

 

[Preacher]

 

[JakeStarkey]

Obama is the star witness against his own illegal Executive Order. He's openly admitted on dozens of occassions that he does not have the power to change the law. Then after he issued the EO he announced he'd "changed the law".

Then give us dozens of examples, please. The examples you give are fail. You don't wear hatred well.

Are you saying obama didnt say that?

Those statements do not prove Zander's thesis.

You're a dumb fuck fakey. Obama made the statement,we all know he made the statement,so why deny it?

Obama had the power to issue the EO.

 

[Vigilante]

My GOD.... the subversive says he might have to vote for someone that has SOME conservative backing. Huntsman is a has been, and no one with any brain at all would vote for him. Mike Lee has a 100% rating on the Conservative Review.... I'd vote for him in a minute!.... Hillary looks like B.J. has FUCKED UP her candidacy, so I guess you'll have to go with Fauxahontis, or the old Pervert, "Uncle JoJo"!

Your drinking is, as usual, affecting your thinking. Huntsman is anything but a has been in Utah, and he will easily kick Lee's ass; Utahns love Huntsman! I hope our ticket with be Kasich and Rubio.

They really can't get dumber than you... Huntsman....

Jon Huntsman The Democrat s Republican Mother Jones

Democratic National Committee s new surrogate Jon Huntsman - Alexander Burns - POLITICO.com

Jon Huntsman Sr. Endorses Democrat Jim Matheson In Utah Congressional Race

Is Jon Huntsman a democrat

A Democrat s Memo to the GOP Please Nominate Jon Huntsman Scott Stenholm

That you clearly don't understand the love of the Utah electorate, GOP and Dem alike, is obvious.

The new primary caucus law here greatly weakens Lee's opportunity to even get out of the caucus into the primary.

You're a Mormon, Republican wannabe from Utah, is that correct, since YOU seem to have your finger on the pulse of those fine folk?.... This the finger you're using?....

I am no type of Mormon. About 40% of us here go to other churches or not at all. I am GOP, you are a pretender TP wannabee. Yes, I understand Utah far better than you. Huntsman says he won't run against Lee, more the worse for Utah. But . . . maybe Mia Love would. Much more preferable than the thug Lee.

You wouldn't vote for a black Republican woman if your life depended on it! After you bashing her as Tea Party!

 

[JakeStarkey]

[QUOTE="JakeStarkey, post: You wouldn't vote for a black Republican woman if your life depended on it! After you bashing her as Tea Party!

Unlike you, I would have certainly voted for her last November if I were in her district.

Stolen Valor Vigilante, where did I bash her as a Tea Party member. Link it. I have known Mia for three years, and I like her. Link it, loser.

You are such a sunshine patriot that you could not even honorably complete a two year draft commitment, and you presume to lecture your betters on this, when we all know what you are: a loser.

 

[Vigilante]

For the Liberals who argue that granting amnesty for illegals will boost the economy.
I agree 100%.
After all, they have turned Mexico into an economic world power.
By the Grace of God, they came to help us.
Praise Jesus! Hallelujah!



Hallelujah Chorus - Mormon Tabernacle Choir - YouTube

 

[Vigilante]

They really can't get dumber than you... Huntsman....

Jon Huntsman The Democrat s Republican Mother Jones

Democratic National Committee s new surrogate Jon Huntsman - Alexander Burns - POLITICO.com

Jon Huntsman Sr. Endorses Democrat Jim Matheson In Utah Congressional Race

Is Jon Huntsman a democrat

A Democrat s Memo to the GOP Please Nominate Jon Huntsman Scott Stenholm

That you clearly don't understand the love of the Utah electorate, GOP and Dem alike, is obvious.

The new primary caucus law here greatly weakens Lee's opportunity to even get out of the caucus into the primary.

You're a Mormon, Republican wannabe from Utah, is that correct, since YOU seem to have your finger on the pulse of those fine folk?.... This the finger you're using?....

I am no type of Mormon. About 40% of us here go to other churches or not at all. I am GOP, you are a pretender TP wannabee. Yes, I understand Utah far better than you. Huntsman says he won't run against Lee, more the worse for Utah. But . . . maybe Mia Love would. Much more preferable than the thug Lee.

You wouldn't vote for a black Republican woman if your life depended on it! After you bashing her as Tea Party!

Unlike you, I would have certainly voted for her last November if I were in her district.

Stolen Valor Vigilante, where did I bash her as a Tea Party member. Link it. I have known Mia for three years, and I like here. Link it, loser.

IS SHE TEA PARTY? AND WHEN DID YOU SERVE YOUR 12 YEAR SERVICE, AND WHAT WAS YOUR COMBAT INJURY????????