![#FreddieGray: Baltimore Police Driver Caesar Goodson Acquitted On ALL Charges [VIDEOS]](https://victorygirlsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Caesar-Goodson-Baltimore-Sun-600x408-400x400.png)
![Stupid Celebrity Tricks: Celebs Pontificate On Gun Control and Fail [VIDEO]](https://victorygirlsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/iu-10-400x400.jpeg)
![Obama Lectures #SCOTUS And GOP On Immigration Ruling [VIDEO]](https://victorygirlsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/courtruling.jpg)
One of Obama’s key legacy items hit a massive roadblock late this morning courtesy of a succinct one-sentence ruling by the United States Supreme Court.
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Well that’s certainly blunt. So, what’s this all about?
The case, United States v. Texas, centered on the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program, known simply as DAPA. Amid years of intense pressure from immigration-reform activists, President Obama unilaterally created the program by executive order in November 2014 shortly after Republican victories in the midterm elections. [emphasis added]
That’s the key right there. Obama wanted DAPA to provide amnesty to all illegal immigrants from deportation for more than three years. Thus, in 2014 he slung his pen across the paper and made a law. No, he didn’t sign a law passed by Congress, he circumvented Congress entirely.
Understandably the lawsuits started immediately, and the case made it all the way to the US Supreme Court due to the fact that all lower courts had placed injunctions on DAPA. In other words, they kept upholding the Constitution and rule of law rather than bowing to Obama’s mighty pen.
The reactions on both sides has been swift. Rightly so, many, including Speaker Paul Ryan are pointing out that Constitutional rule of law, specifically within Article I has been upheld. The President cannot make laws, only Congress can. The Constitution is VERY clear on that. Obama’s not the only one who refuses to grasp that.
Deeply saddened by divided #SCOTUS decision in #USvTexas. We should be keeping families together, not tearing them apart!
— Rep. Barbara Lee (@RepBarbaraLee) June 23, 2016
So I guess she’s fine with ANY President making up laws just to get things done right?
Today's heartbreaking #SCOTUS immigration ruling could tear apart 5 million families facing deportation. We must do better. -H
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 23, 2016
Oh I can just tell the tears are dripping down your face. Meanwhile you are just itching to get into office in January and start making laws of your own, aren’t you? Here’s a couple of reminders why Hillary or anyone else shouldn’t entertain this route
In this country we have a President, not a King. I'm glad the Supreme Court reminded @POTUS of that today by blocking executive amnesty.
— Rep. Jeff Duncan (@RepJeffDuncan) June 23, 2016
Just in: @SenTedCruz calls #SCOTUS immigration ruling a "victory for the rule of law." pic.twitter.com/HooJPyQQJz
— Patrick Svitek (@PatrickSvitek) June 23, 2016
Unfortunately, the Golfer in Chief is not amused and so the scolding temper tantrum lecture began.
Did you get that? First he praises the continuation of discriminatory affirmative action; then he decides its time to lecture the Supreme Court, the GOP, and well anyone else whose gotten in his way -and that includes the Constitution itself!
“The fact that the Supreme Court wasn’t able to issue a decision today doesn’t just set the system back even further, it takes us further from the country that we aspire to be,” he said. The president blamed the Court’s inability to reach a decision on “the Republican failure so far to give a fair hearing to Mr. Merrick Garland, my nominee to the Supreme Court.”
Whether Merrick Garland had been confirmed or not, the confirmation process likely would NOT have been finalized in time for him to have ANY involvement in this decision.
POTUS says Congress left him no option but to take executive action on immigration
— Shannon Bream (@ShannonBream) June 23, 2016
Oh really?
I guess following the law was out of the question. https://t.co/52NMQ1e3IA
— Instapundit.com (@instapundit) June 23, 2016
Instapundit wins that round! Seriously though, he’s correct. President Obama, the Constitutional scholar that he isn’t, should’ve KNOWN that he can’t circumvent the Constitution, but he did it anyway.
The checks and balances written within the Constitution are there for a reason; and President Obama was just handed a blunt reminder of that fact from the Judicial branch.
Jodi says: I see this differently: Lots of people are calling this a win for the constitution; no, this is one liberal judge shy of telling the executive branch that yes, it can indeed make and alter law. Hillary will have a field day with her SCOTUS picks who will give her carte blanche to make whatever law she wants.
Yes she would and that should scare the ever living crap out of us all.
That said, as I posted elsewhere ;-), in a real sense it is a win for the Constitution because there are at least 4 Supremes who understand Obama’s overreach of power and basically slammed a check/block down in front of him. He thought he could sweep away the Constitution altogether (still does in fact) and the Judicial branch had something to say about that.
OC says: What really dismays me is that FOUR, count ’em, FOUR sitting justices DIDN’T see the unconstitutionality of the EO.
Shame on them.
GWB says: I’m with Jodi on the glass-almost-empty response. With Roberts as the SJ, I don’t count it as four Constitutionalists, I count it as three, and one that votes that way when it isn’t a risk to do so.
(BTW, my half-full/half-empty response is entirely based on what’s in the glass. If it’s booze, then it’s not full enough…….)
4 Comments