• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal appeals court sides with Texas against Obama on immigration

Ockham

Ockham

Noblesse oblige
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
23,909
Reaction score
11,003
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
This is breaking news with not much follow up yet:

CNN said:
Updated 8:12 AM ET, Wed May 27, 2015

Washington (CNN)A federal appeals court on Tuesday denied a request from Justice Department lawyers to allow President Barack Obama's controversial immigration actions to go into effect pending appeal.

The decision is a victory for Texas and 25 other states that are challenging the Obama administration's actions, which were blocked by a District Court judge in February. Tuesday's decision means that while the issue is appealed, eligible undocumented immigrants will be unable to apply for the programs aimed at easing deportation threats.

"Because the government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its appeal of the injunction, we deny the motion for stay and the request to narrow the scope of the injunction," according to the 2-1 decision by a panel of the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Click to expand...

Court sides with Texas against Obama on immigration - CNNPolitics.com

Interesting that a Constitutional professor from Harvard is finding such a difficult time passing executive actions without Congress through the courts which effectively bypass existing laws or at the very least, ignores enforcement of existing law.
 
Ockham said:
This is breaking news with not much follow up yet:



Court sides with Texas against Obama on immigration - CNNPolitics.com

Interesting that a Constitutional professor from Harvard is finding such a difficult time passing executive actions without Congress through the courts which effectively bypass existing laws or at the very least, ignores enforcement of existing law.
Click to expand...

Lets remember that this is a stay on implementation. It is not a ruling on the merits which is still being litigated.
 
washunut said:
Lets remember that this is a stay on implementation. It is not a ruling on the merits which is still being litigated.
Click to expand...

I guess I'm looking at this holistically given the courts admonition on Obama's EO's in the past 6 1/2 years. This isn't an isolated case.
 
Ockham said:
I guess I'm looking at this holistically given the courts admonition on Obama's EO's in the past 6 1/2 years. This isn't an isolated case.
Click to expand...

Granted. He may well have overreached. That part is still in the courts.
 
washunut said:
Lets remember that this is a stay on implementation. It is not a ruling on the merits which is still being litigated.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but my reading of this is that the District Court ruled on the merits of the case, ruling against the administration, issuing an injunction against implementation of the administration's plans, and the administration has appealed that decision and asked the Federal Appeals Court to suspend the injunction of the District Court until the appeal is heard, enabling the administration to continue implementation. The Federal Appeals Court denied that administration request, stating that the administration is unlikely to succeed in its appeal and the injunction will stand. That pretty much says to me that the administration is going to be knocked down when the Federal Appeals Court hears the appeal and the injunction will stand, pending an appeal by the administration to the Supreme Court.

As such cases go, this is a pretty clear indication the administration has lost this effort.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I could be wrong, but my reading of this is that the District Court ruled on the merits of the case, ruling against the administration, issuing an injunction against implementation of the administration's plans, and the administration has appealed that decision and asked the Federal Appeals Court to suspend the injunction of the District Court until the appeal is heard, enabling the administration to continue implementation. The Federal Appeals Court denied that administration request, stating that the administration is unlikely to succeed in its appeal and the injunction will stand. That pretty much says to me that the administration is going to be knocked down when the Federal Appeals Court hears the appeal and the injunction will stand, pending an appeal by the administration to the Supreme Court.

As such cases go, this is a pretty clear indication the administration has lost this effort.
Click to expand...

I think you are correct that the case is in the appeals court. I think the stay is based on the fact that the states would be harmed if implementation started and then the court ruled in the state's favor. Hard to be drivers licenses back once they are issued, etc.
 
This is basically asking for forgiveness rather than asking for permission. The Obama administration wanted the stay removed so that they could begin implementation and get the country used to the idea. Then when it is litigated they are advocating keeping the status quo. A concept called boiling the frog.
 
Ockham said:
I guess I'm looking at this holistically given the courts admonition on Obama's EO's in the past 6 1/2 years. This isn't an isolated case.
Click to expand...

What percentage of these orders have been blocked, out of curiosity?
 
Why am I not surprised at this.

From the article...

The opinion was written by Judge Jerry Smith, appointed to the bench by President Ronald Reagan, and joined by Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, a George W. Bush appointee. Judge Stephen A. Higginson, who was appointed by Obama, dissented.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom