Another Supreme Court Embarrassment – a 4 to 4 tie on Immigration

Home  »  Diversity & Multiculturalism  »  Another Supreme Court Embarrassment – a 4 to 4 tie on Immigration
Print This Post Print This Post
Jun 25, 2016 No Comments ›› admin

By Lynn Woolley

While I was broadcasting from Washington DC at FAIR’s “Hold Their Feet to the Fire” event– the High Court ruled, literally while we were on the air, against Obama’s de facto amnesty. The Court – which ought to be renamed the Supreme Committee – had four votes on the liberal side and four votes on the side of separation of powers.

This is why it’s such an embarrassment.

This was not a case about immigration. It was a case about whether a president can override the law. Four members of this court actually voted for an imperial president – in effect, a dictator. Why did they? Because that’s what liberals want and it has nothing to do with the law. If the late and much-missed Justice Antonin Scalia were still with us, this would have been a 5 to 4 decision – and that shows why Obama must not get his nominee confirmed.

People walk on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on Saturday April 26, 2014. The Supreme Court is considering whether police may search cellphones found on people they arrest without first getting a warrant. The court’s latest foray into the issue of privacy in the digital age involves two cases being argued Tuesday that arose from searches of phones carried by a gang member and a drug dealer. Police looked through their cellphones after taking the suspects into custody and found evidence that led to their convictions and lengthy prison terms. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

People walk on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on Saturday April 26, 2014.  (AP Photo:  Jacquelyn Martin)

Even if Scalia were still alive, this ruling would STILL be an embarrassment.

The Founders set up three branches of government to be co-equal. One of those branches – the Judicial – they set up to be non-political. That’s why federal judges get lifetime appointments. They are supposed to rule on constitutionality (per Marbury v Madison) and the law – and, to an extent, on precedent.

Here’s what they are NOT supposed to do: make rulings based on political ideology.

Liberals may argue the same for the conservative justices – but I’m telling you now that it isn’t so. Scalia would have almost certainly ruled that Obama’s use of executive power in his 2014 “Deferred Action for Parents of Americans” program was unconstitutional. Scalia may very well have held a personal political belief about this case, but his ruling would have been precisely because of Obama’s power grab. He would have noted that the Constitutional separation of powers does not grant Obama the power to do what he did.

Video: Obama attacks the 4 to 4 tie that stymied his amnesty program — really a separation of powers ruling

That’s what a court does. It rules on law – with Constitution being the final word. A committee votes on what it wants to do. If 4 members of the High School Reunion Committee wants to have the event at the Marriott and 4 want to have it at the Hilton, they vote. If there is a 9th member, he will cast the deciding vote.

Courts are not supposed to function like committees. They are sworn to rule on matters of construction and law. The fact that every pundit or talking head in American could tell you precisely which 4 members of the Supreme Court would vote in opposition to the separation of powers clause is a tragedy for this country.

The liberals on this Court would be outraged if the conservatives did this.

But they don’t. Sometimes, they go out of their way to accommodate Congress as Chief Justice John Roberts did in redefining Obamacare form the bench to help it pass muster. Roberts violated the Constitution by assuming a power not granted to members of the Judiciary. That is rare for a conservative, but routine for the High Court’s liberals.

We have a separation of powers problem in this country – as this case points out.

If constitutional mandates were followed – and if the three branches of government jealously protected their powers as they used to – we would not have Obamacare and we certainly would not have Obama’s amnesty. If we followed the law of the land, we would not have an illegal invasion from other countries such as we have now.

But our wise rulers in Washington play fast and loose with the Constitution and with the law.

Judge Andrew S. Hanen

Judge Andrew S. Hanen

So this case now goes back to U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen in Texas where it will be heard on its merits. That is something of a joke since Obama’s case has no merits. The case should take about ten minutes to try and get a ruling. We either have a Constitution that mandates separation of powers or we don’t.

What we do have is the liberal concept of political correctness. The four liberals on the court voted for chain migration in order not to break up families. They seemed to say — to hell with the law and to hell with separation of powers. Fortunately, the Supreme Committee voted 4 to 4, so now we’re waiting for a 9th committee member to break the tie.

lynn@BeLogical.com

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

%d bloggers like this: