Supreme Court should decide immigration case without politics

Home  »  Constitution  »  Supreme Court should decide immigration case without politics
Print This Post Print This Post
Apr 25, 2016 No Comments ›› admin

By Lynn Woolley

News reports breathlessly tell us that the Supreme Court is “sharply divided” over the Texas case challenging Obama’s deferred deportation schemes.

This case ought to be decided 8 to zero in about five minutes.

It would be if the justices were concerned about the Constitution and the laws. It won’t be because the four liberal justices are, in effect, political activists. Of the three branches of government, two of them – the executive and the legislative – are about politics. But the Framers gave lifetime appointments to the justices of the Supreme Court to remove politics from its decisions.

Besides, this case is not really about immigration. It’s about whether the President of the United States – any of them – can twist and turn the laws passed by Congress into whatever he wants them to be. This case is about separation of powers.

Protesters attend the Fight for Families Rally in front of the Supreme Court of the United States on April 18, 2016 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Getty Images)

Protesters attend the Fight for Families Rally in front of the Supreme Court of the United States on April 18, 2016 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Getty Images)

What the case is about on the surface.

President Obama doesn’t want to deport illegal aliens who were brought here as children. He also doesn’t want to split up families by deporting the parents of “anchor babies” who rushed to the United States in time to claim citizenship for a newborn child.

Forget the little factoid that no one in the United State forced any immigrant to break our laws. The current narrative from the Left is that we should not split up families. Please understand that this is precisely what illegals work hard to do. They have a child here, or claim that they’re “dreamers” in order to be allowed to stay. It’s a scheme to break our laws and get away with it. Liberals, who don’t care anything about laws they don’t like, buy into it.

On the surface, this is a case about breaking up families if Obama is forced to obey our immigration laws and actually deport people who are here against our laws. The people marching in front of the Supreme Court carried signs saying – “Don’t break up our families.” So it’s characterized as compassionate liberals who say – screw the immigration laws – against hard-hearted conservatives who say that we have a right to control who comes in.

Imagine that – actually having borders, enforcing them, and actually deciding who we let in.

Video: Published on Apr 19, 2016 – The Supreme Court justices appeared to be divided over a 26-state challenge to the Obama administration’s plans to defer deportation for millions of illegal immigrants whose children are U.S. citizens. Photo: Oliver Contreras/Zuma Press

What the case is REALLY about.

This is a case about laws and whether the President is obligate to enforce them. If Obama wins, the he has greatly increased the power on his office—and Congress becomes an afterthought. Two things to keep in mind:

Obama likes to “prioritize” – that is, he deports those he wants to deport and protects those he thinks should be allowed to stay. Under this doctrine, any president could change any law by prioritizing the parts he likes and degrading the parts he doesn’t. This could backfire on liberals if a conservative like Ted Cruz is elected. He could prioritize Obamacare right out of existence.
Chief Justice John Roberts likes to tamper with laws or executive orders to make them “legal.” He could probably be impeached for this because it violates constitutional separation of powers. He got away with it when he saved Obamacare. He got away with it because of weak Republican leadership.

And so we are left with a possible 4 to 4 split.

That amounts to a Texas win and a defeat for Obama’s deportation deferrals. Of course, Justice Anthony Kennedy might side with the liberals, and if so, Obama gets a victory. A victory for Obama would be a defeat for the rule of law, the Constitution, and separation of powers.

The saddest part of this is that at least four Supreme Court Justices either don’t understand this – or they don’t care.

lynn@BeLogical.com

Tagged with: , , , ,

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

%d bloggers like this: