Federal judge stalls Obama's executive action on immigration

[Publicus]

26 States Want Investigation Of Obama’s Amnesty

7:51 AM 03/06/2015

NEIL MUNRO

White House Correspondent

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is asking a judge to allow an investigation of the closed-door workings of President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty, following the discovery that 100,000 illegal immigrants had secretly been given three-year amnesty documents well before a promised start date.

“The Obama Administration appears to have already been issuing expanded work permits, in direct contradiction to what they told a federal judge previously in this litigation,” Paxton said in a Thursday statement describing his legal request, which was signed by the governors or attorneys general of 26 states.

“The circumstances behind this must be investigated, and the motion we seek would help us determine to what extent the Administration might have misrepresented the facts in this case,” he added.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/06/26-states-want-investigation-of-obamas-amnesty/

I doubt it. In fact I don't doubt I doubt it.

These kind of right wing accusations keep coming in an unrelenting succession and variety year in and year out, throughout each year...this is Round Six with Two More to go. The bogus "executive amnesty" is the latest ongoing and interminable rage....until the next one The president's immigration action has nothing whatsoever to do with amnesty.

This one comes from the Daily Caller and the Caller is but one among many right wing media that report on the new creations of the far right. The right wing media that populate the first ten pages of Google wall to wall with the same daily fiction story are themselves often involved in the inventions they so zealously "report."

Let this one unfold too cause it already has failed the smell test that consistently reveals the presence of the fringe extreme right in every claim, or virtually every claim. It's a new week so there must needs be a new fringe right claim against Barack Obama. It's an iron law of the far out right. This is the week that just wuz and back to the future yet again.

Six years now with two more to go.

[chuckd]

<<snip, snip, snip, snip>>

Judge Hanen ruled that Prez Obama's executive action granted federal benefits to certain illegal aliens. This is wrong. The judge is in legal error.

Prez Obama temporarily deferred prosecution of certain illegal aliens. Other federal programs may or may not grant some certain benefits to some resident aliens. Prez Obama's deferral action does not grant social welfare benefits to any aliens.

Judge Hanen is in legal error. Ruling reversed, temporary injunction dissolved. The president's prosecutorial discretion upheld, sustained. The deferral program is reinstated in full.

Judge Hanen to the corner in a dunce cap.

"Judge Hanen ruled that Prez Obama's executive action granted federal benefits to certain illegal aliens. This is wrong. The judge is in legal error."

Somebody needs to sit in the corner, and it isn't Judge Hanen.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

AMNESTY BENEFICIARIES COULD CLAIM MORE THAN $35K IN TAX BENEFITS IN FIRST YEAR

AP

by CAROLINE MAY25 Feb 2015

Illegal immigrants who are able to obtain Social Security Numbers and work permits as a result of President Obama’s executive amnesty could claim tens of thousands of dollars in back tax benefits, a new Congressional Research Service memo obtained first by Breitbart News reveals.

The report comes following the Internal Revenue Service’s confirmation that once illegal immigrants are granted Social Security Numbers — as a result of Obama’s executive actions — they will be able to file back tax returns and obtain up to four years of tax benefits, including the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Child Tax Credit (CTC).

The new CRS report — dated Wednesday and requested to gauge the tax benefits an amnesty beneficiary could potentially accrue — looks at the amount of EITC and CTC for a hypothetical family from from 2011-2014.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/02/25/amnesty-beneficiaries-could-claim-more-than-35k-in-tax-benefits-in-first-year/

More information here: http://dailysignal.com/2015/03/02/irs-says-illegal-immigrants-eligible-tax-credits/

[sdanielmcev]

"The states haven't ever had determining authority in respect of national immigration law or policy, and the states won't ever have either."

...and herein lies yet another wee problem.

If the states have no authority in respect of national immigration law or policy, which by the way I agree with, then who is to enforce those laws which are forced upon the states?

Who is to pay those additional costs which are incurred by the states since the law is not being enforced?

Can the non-enforcement of existing immigration laws by the federal government cause an undue financial burden on individual states treasuries?

The cost of education alone is estimated to be over $761 Million in the US with Texas absorbing costs in 2014 totaling $78 Million. Since Texas has no say in the matter of enacting or enforcing immigration laws, it falls upon the Federal government to do their collective jobs.

Hence, the law suit and the Judge's decision.

The cost to educate young illegal immigrants over $761 million - a bill for all 50 states

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/8/cost-educate-young-illegal-immigrants-over-761-mil/#ixzz3Tch90jOV

I understand your profoundly felt pain for the states but, as with the Republican controlled states themselves, anyone in pain about this will have to tell it to the judge....the nine justices of the SCOTUS.

Keep in mind 24 states did not file in this lawsuit, that the only states to have filed are Republican party controlled states. So not all states are in pain over the president's immigration executive action.

As documented and cited below, SCOTUS has anyway ruled -- and has ruled repeatedly -- that the states have no grievance against federal immigration laws despite the fact the federal immigration laws may increase the population of a state and concomitantly increase each state's use of resources.

The federal judge down there in Texas ignored this body of SCOTUS case law precedent, and the tea party judge will pay for his negligence and for his overt disregard of established and settled case and Constitutional law when the case goes on appeal, even if the case has to go to the SCOTUS. This judge is a narrow judge who wears political blinders when he reads the law....and he is moreover willful about it.

As the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized: a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about governmentclaiming only harm to his and every citizens interest in [the] proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly [or] tangibly benefits him than it does the public at largedoes not state an Article III case or controversy.' Simply put, a state official has not suffered an injury in fact to a legally cognizable interest because a federal government program is anticipated to produce an increase in that states population and a concomitant increase in the need for the states resources.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/federal-judge-dismisses-lawsuit-challenging-obamas-immigration-executive-action/

Conservatives cannot produce any documentation or legal citations of SCOTUS to contradict this because there are not any such SCOTUS cases....none...zero....ziltch....oogats.

There you go again. It reads state official. Not state. So how would it be possible to contradict?

You really should read the 10th amendment.

When the SCOTUS says "state official" it refers to a state, Texas for example, or California, New York etc....the state itself....the whole of it.

Legal language can seem a mite tricky or obscure so it might also be advisable to seek professional help.

Where do you come up with this nonsense? In the stated case it refers to the state official that filed. You don't need a law degree for that. And I've been reading legal documents since I could read. Your hatred knows no bounds.

[sdanielmcev]

In the worthy interest toward some day being pithy, the analysis is presented below of Judge Hanen's ruling and temporary injunction.

The quoted statement is by Prof of immigration law Anil Kalhan of the Drexel University School of Law and a Visiting Scholar at the University of California at Berkeley Center for the Study of Law and Society, School of Law.

Judge Hanen writes nonchalantly in his opinion about self-deportation as if that were a completely noncontroversial, ordinary thing to say.

These claims by...Judge Hanen that the Obama administration is trying to grant lawful status to millions of undocumented immigrations are at the core of...objections to both programs. The claims are entirely continuous and of a piece with the kinds of accusations that anti-immigration politicians and opinion writers now casually throw around on a routine basisthat the initiatives amount to executive amnesty, that they turn anchor babies into automatic human shields for their illegal parents (Rep. Steve King), that they amount to an outright refusal to enforce our current immigration laws (Rep. Bob Goodlatte), that they give illegals legal status, (Ben Carson), and even that in effect they involve printing up [and] counterfeiting immigration documents (Sen. Ted Cruz). And on and on and on. As political rhetoric, the charges leveled by...Judge Hanen, and these anti-immigration politicians and opinion writers make for useful talking points and arresting sound bites. As legal claims, however, theyre also completely false.

http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2015/02/is-judge-hanens-smackdown-of-executive.html

What does a tea party Republican federal judge appointed two times by two Bush presidents look like down there in Texas?

US District Court Judge Andrew F. Hanen of the federal Southern District of Texas.

Judge Hanen ruled that Prez Obama's executive action granted federal benefits to certain illegal aliens. This is wrong. The judge is in legal error.

Prez Obama temporarily deferred prosecution of certain illegal aliens. Other federal programs may or may not grant some certain benefits to some resident aliens. Prez Obama's deferral action does not grant social welfare benefits to any aliens.

Judge Hanen is in legal error. Ruling reversed, temporary injunction dissolved. The president's prosecutorial discretion upheld, sustained. The deferral program is reinstated in full.

Judge Hanen to the corner in a dunce cap.

Where and when has has judge Hanen's ruling been reversed? Now you're just lying.

[Publicus]

<<snip, snip, snip, snip>>

Judge Hanen ruled that Prez Obama's executive action granted federal benefits to certain illegal aliens. This is wrong. The judge is in legal error.

Prez Obama temporarily deferred prosecution of certain illegal aliens. Other federal programs may or may not grant some certain benefits to some resident aliens. Prez Obama's deferral action does not grant social welfare benefits to any aliens.

Judge Hanen is in legal error. Ruling reversed, temporary injunction dissolved. The president's prosecutorial discretion upheld, sustained. The deferral program is reinstated in full.

Judge Hanen to the corner in a dunce cap.

"Judge Hanen ruled that Prez Obama's executive action granted federal benefits to certain illegal aliens. This is wrong. The judge is in legal error."

Somebody needs to sit in the corner, and it isn't Judge Hanen.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

AMNESTY BENEFICIARIES COULD CLAIM MORE THAN $35K IN TAX BENEFITS IN FIRST YEAR

AP

by CAROLINE MAY25 Feb 2015

Illegal immigrants who are able to obtain Social Security Numbers and work permits as a result of President Obama’s executive amnesty could claim tens of thousands of dollars in back tax benefits, a new Congressional Research Service memo obtained first by Breitbart News reveals.

The report comes following the Internal Revenue Service’s confirmation that once illegal immigrants are granted Social Security Numbers — as a result of Obama’s executive actions — they will be able to file back tax returns and obtain up to four years of tax benefits, including the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Child Tax Credit (CTC).

The new CRS report — dated Wednesday and requested to gauge the tax benefits an amnesty beneficiary could potentially accrue — looks at the amount of EITC and CTC for a hypothetical family from from 2011-2014.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/02/25/amnesty-beneficiaries-could-claim-more-than-35k-in-tax-benefits-in-first-year/

More information here: http://dailysignal.com/2015/03/02/irs-says-illegal-immigrants-eligible-tax-credits/

The post refers to other federal programs, as does the right wing rag media source that is cited, Breithbart.

Prez Obama's immigration executive action deals only and exclusively with prosecutorial discretion of certain illegal aliens or some families of US citizens.

The president's prosecutorial discretion does not grant fiduciary benefits to anyone. Other federal program may or may not impact some of the illegal aliens.

Other federal programs. Standing alone, the president's immigration action deals with delayed deportation on the basis of the Executive's prosecutorial discretion. That's all it does.

Legally and technically the tea party judge down there Texas way is wrong. So is your post wrong and so certainly is the right wing media rat rag Breithbart that you cite wrong.

And even the tea party federal judge down there Texas way said there is no amnesty in the presidents executive action.

The extremists on the whackjob right keep presenting the same fiction, fantasies, myths, and and I keep citing the law. The extreme right wrongly figures the law will tire first.

[Publicus]

In the worthy interest toward some day being pithy, the analysis is presented below of Judge Hanen's ruling and temporary injunction.

The quoted statement is by Prof of immigration law Anil Kalhan of the Drexel University School of Law and a Visiting Scholar at the University of California at Berkeley Center for the Study of Law and Society, School of Law.

Judge Hanen writes nonchalantly in his opinion about self-deportation as if that were a completely noncontroversial, ordinary thing to say.

These claims by...Judge Hanen that the Obama administration is trying to grant lawful status to millions of undocumented immigrations are at the core of...objections to both programs. The claims are entirely continuous and of a piece with the kinds of accusations that anti-immigration politicians and opinion writers now casually throw around on a routine basisthat the initiatives amount to executive amnesty, that they turn anchor babies into automatic human shields for their illegal parents (Rep. Steve King), that they amount to an outright refusal to enforce our current immigration laws (Rep. Bob Goodlatte), that they give illegals legal status, (Ben Carson), and even that in effect they involve printing up [and] counterfeiting immigration documents (Sen. Ted Cruz). And on and on and on. As political rhetoric, the charges leveled by...Judge Hanen, and these anti-immigration politicians and opinion writers make for useful talking points and arresting sound bites. As legal claims, however, theyre also completely false.

http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2015/02/is-judge-hanens-smackdown-of-executive.html

What does a tea party Republican federal judge appointed two times by two Bush presidents look like down there in Texas?

US District Court Judge Andrew F. Hanen of the federal Southern District of Texas.

Judge Hanen ruled that Prez Obama's executive action granted federal benefits to certain illegal aliens. This is wrong. The judge is in legal error.

Prez Obama temporarily deferred prosecution of certain illegal aliens. Other federal programs may or may not grant some certain benefits to some resident aliens. Prez Obama's deferral action does not grant social welfare benefits to any aliens.

Judge Hanen is in legal error. Ruling reversed, temporary injunction dissolved. The president's prosecutorial discretion upheld, sustained. The deferral program is reinstated in full.

Judge Hanen to the corner in a dunce cap.

Where and when has has judge Hanen's ruling been reversed? Now you're just lying.

OMG & holy amnesty Batman!

Take some time off....get some rest...you sound tired.

Or I'm afraid you'd have to go sit in the corner alongside the judge himself....

(I can't believe my eyes....did he really post that?!?)

[Publicus]

Judge Hanen is not writing new law, he is enforcing existing law. And, nowhere has the immigrants' rights been violated, so the 14th amendment does not apply, according to this case. The case is State of Texas vs the US. Once again you are off topic obfuscating

Wrong again.

[Publicus]

Given that eligible refers to meeting the stipulated requirements, and that qualify means to define to include restrict, the post is self-contradictory and self-indulgent besides given its convoluted ramblings.

If anyone goes to the news article I cited to read the article, and to read it with comprehension, one can see the discussion of the reasons illegal aliens do not qualify for Obamacare even though they are constitutionally eligible to subscribe to it. I wrote a summary statement that is 100% consistent with the quotes and information presented in the news article concerning exclusion of illegal immigrants from Obamacare.

Pedantics, semantics and some conservative childishness aside, SCOTUS has made itself clear in respect of the 14th Amendment and illegal immigrants, concerning the authority and scope of jurisdiction the Executive Branch has in immigration law and enforcement policies, and that the federal government has absolute authority in immigration law, not the states.

The states haven't ever had determining authority in respect of national immigration law or policy, and the states won't ever have either.

This immigration suit brought by the 26 Republican controlled states to the cherry picked tea party federal judge down there in Texas is a bottom feeder lawsuit and a wave of the wand ruling by the judge who is besides trying to write new law to suit their far right politics and jurisprudence.

"This immigration suit brought by the 26 Republican controlled states to the cherry picked tea party federal judge down there in Texas is a bottom feeder lawsuit and a wave of the wand ruling by the judge who is besides trying to write new law to suit their far right politics and jurisprudence."

Go to sleepy dreaming of this simplistic analysis of the Judicial Action -- which includes that the Judge has already turned down an appeal to remove the Restraining Order...

Because that is all you can do is have dreams and daydreams -- as the Judge is not going to let obama off the hook....

AND when the 5th. Circuit Court Panel reviews it -- obama's AMNESTY will be denied AGAIN... Even possible they will turn it back to the lower Federal court with prejudice - meaning it cannot come up again -- FINAL .. DONE ... And it would never make it to SCOTUS....

Judge Hanen in his ruling and temporary injunction made absolutely clear he made no ruling on 'amnesty' because there is no amnesty in the president's immigration executive action that he could rule on...and everyone knows this judge looked high and low for it.

So give up the ghost on this amnesty baloney, come down the beanstalk, get feet on the ground, accept fact, reality, truth. The judge was honest with himself in this particular respect, so why can't his tea party minions also be honest with themselves. It's really not too much to ask of a reasonable person in the society.

As Prez Obama pointed out, this is one judge at the lowest level of the federal courts system. The next level is the appellate court, which sits in New Orleans. After that comes to Supreme Court. Why does your post say of the president's appeal of Judge Hanen's ruling....." FINAL .. DONE ... And it would never make it to SCOTUS.." Why would any appeal by either party never make it to SCOTUS??????? Is a vigilante posse galloping from Texas going to head it off at the pass?

A Judge’s Assault on Immigration

Judge Hanen — who last month invoked a biblical flood in describing illegal immigration into that community — has spoken out aggressively against Mr. Obama’s immigration policy in the past, saying it “endangers America” and is “an open invitation to the most dangerous criminals in society.” Indeed, his earlier opinions were the reason Republican governors and attorneys general pushed to get their suit into his district.

He danced around the fundamental point — as the Supreme Court reiterated as recently as 2012 — that setting immigration policy is the prerogative of the federal government, not the states.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/18/opinion/a-judges-assault-on-immigration.html?_r=0

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

ARIZONA v. UNITED STATES

"The [uS district] court enjoined provisions that (1) created a state-law crime for being unlawfully present in the United States, (2) created a state-law crime for working or seeking work while not authorized to do so, (3) required state and local officers to verify the citizenship or alien status of anyone who was lawfully arrested or detained, and (4) authorized warrantless arrests of aliens believed to be removable from the United States [14th Amendment]."

Decided

Monday, June 25, 2012

Decision: For the United States

Legal provision: Supremacy Clause

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2011/2011_11_182

THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE Article. VI.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/preemption.htm

Give up the ghost.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Publicus

[Publicus]

Well well, the tea party Judge Hanen has ordered administration lawyers to present in his court at a special hearing March 19 an explanation of the 100,000 deportation deferrals of illegal immigrant parents of children US citizens which occurred immediately before the judge enjoined the government implementing Prez Obama's immigration executive order.

Seems the judge believes he may have been had before issuing the ruling against the Administration and issuing the temporary injunction stopping the president's program.

Hanen said he wuz double crossed by the president's lawyers who had assured the judge no deferrals of deportation would be issued before his ruling, which then led the judge to allow the 26 states a little more time to complete their filings with the court.

Sounds like a little tit for tat.

Edited March 11, 2015 by Publicus

[sdanielmcev]

Well well, the tea party Judge Hanen has ordered administration lawyers to present in his court at a special hearing March 19 an explanation of the 100,000 deportation deferrals of illegal immigrant parents of children US citizens which occurred immediately before the judge enjoined the government implementing Prez Obama's immigration executive order.

Seems the judge believes he may have been had before issuing the ruling against the Administration and issuing the temporary injunction stopping the president's program.

Hanen said he wuz double crossed by the president's lawyers who had assured the judge no deferrals of deportation would be issued before his ruling, which then led the judge to allow the 26 states a little more time to complete their filings with the court.

Sounds like a little tit for tat.

That is not fact. It is a blatant lie.

[Publicus]

This one is in the MSM and not only in the right wing blogs of right wing news that the right wing loves so much out there at the right wing.

This one is reality unless the unreal right wingers show otherwise.

Here is the AP report in the Los Angeles Times for example, dated March 9th.....

Judge orders hearing on allegations in Texas immigration lawsuit

Texas federal judge who suspended Obama's immigration action sets March 19 hearing

U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen ordered Monday that the lawyers for the federal government appear in his court March 19 in Brownsville.

The hearing is in response to a filing last week in which the government acknowledged three-year deportation reprieves were granted before Hanen's Feb. 16 injunction, which temporarily halted Obama's action, sparing from deportation as many as 5 million people in the U.S. illegally.

The Justice Department said in court documents that federal officials had given 100,000 people three-year reprieves from deportation and granted them work permits under the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA, which was not halted by Hanen's injunction. But the 2012 program guidelines provided just two-year deportation reprieves and work permits.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-texas-judge-obama-immigration-20150309-story.html

The Administration can change the guidelines within the laws anytime for any good reason, which means the tea party judge Hanen needs to learn the actual law and not only right wing law that the judge loves so much and which keeps getting reversed by appellate courts.

The extreme far right is erratic and is so off the wall besides in everything it says and does it's too often hard to figure out what its up to or what it will say or do next. But the bottom line about the extreme right wing is that it eventually confuses itself, every time. Which in turn reduces it to garbling.

[Publicus]

Well the tea party Judge Hanen down there Texas way had his hearing yesterday, March 19th as I'd reported back on March 12th.

The judge is doing everything he can to keep this case in his court and away from the SCOTUS where he must know the entirety of the SCOTUS rulings on immigration over 238 years goes against his activist and unprecedented ruling against the federal government in favor of the 26 Republican controlled anti-immigration states.

But Judge Hanen is hanging on to what some people call the Alabama Notion, which puts states rights over the Bill of Rights in the Constitution.

The Alabama Notion also rejects the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which states that in a conflict between the law or the constitution of a state and a federal law or the US Constitution, the federal government prevails, every time, always. To say otherwise is radical, unconstitutional, and was settled for good by the Civil War, which some rednecks are still fighting.

As per the tea party judge Hanen, the order temporarily halting Prez Obama's immigration action will remain in force until he conducts the trial and he himself issues the decision. This will consume many months of time, taking the case well into this year, with the outcome guaranteed to be against the president, immigrants, immigration.

The most conservative US appeals court in the country, the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals which has jurisdiction in this case, has denied the Justice Department's request for an expedited appeal of Hanen's temporary injunction, thus reinforcing its tea party judge in his design to keep the case in his court and away from the SCOTUS indefinitely.

Judge Hanen has thus passed the tea party anti-Obama test and he's done it with flying confederate colors.

Thing is, as reported by Drudge, 20,000 illegal immigrants have crossed the Texas border just in the past two months. So with the president's immigration reform rules the judge says are so awful currently stopped, the judge's order has not resulted in any significant or consequential change.

[Ulysses G.]

So with the president's immigration reform rules the judge says are so awful currently stopped, the judge's order has not resulted in any significant or consequential change.

The judge's order stopped an unconstitutional power grab in its tracks. That seems pretty consequential to me.

[Publicus]

So with the president's immigration reform rules the judge says are so awful currently stopped, the judge's order has not resulted in any significant or consequential change.

The judge's order stopped an unconstitutional power grab in its tracks. That seems pretty consequential to me.

As the Constitution and 238 years of SCOTUS case law precedent establishes, with only the tea party Judge Hanen down there Texas way in dissent, the pronouncement of unconstitutionality is wildly premature and unsustained by the document, the record, the facts.

Hanen and his superior judges on the conservative dominated 5th circuit appeals court are keeping this case as far away from SCOTUS as they can for as long as they can because they know they are going to be reversed and their legal arguments completely negated. They are doing everything they can to delay the president's immigration rules and reforms, for as long as possible.

Judge Hanen believes passionately in his cause which is why he is going ahead to sacrifice his career with this contrary ruling and his highly unusual obstructionist process and judicial procedures to keep this case away from SCOTUS for as long as he can.

The only way to remove a federal judge against his will is by the usual impeachment process and trial by the Senate as applies to removal of a president. While no prez has been removed from office, a dozen or so federal judges have been convicted by the Senate and thus given the boot. This case and Judge Hanen's behaviors will develop over time in their consequential events.

I quote a fellow poster:

JDGRUEN, on 06 Mar 2015 - 22:08, said

AND when the 5th. Circuit Court Panel reviews it -- obama's AMNESTY will be denied AGAIN... Even possible they will turn it back to the lower Federal court with prejudice - meaning it cannot come up again -- FINAL .. DONE ... And it would never make it to SCOTUS....

"And it would never make it to SCOTUS." The whole of the scheme indeed among the 26 Republican controlled states led by Texas, the tea party judge Hanen, the conservative dominated 5th federal circuit court of appeals.

The whole of it.

Judge Hanen must believe he is immune of judicial accountability by Congress or the Justice Department for abuse of judicial authority, processes, procedures -- the Constitution. Not so. After all, impeachment is as political a decision as are the judge's rulings in the case.

[chuckd]

<<snip>>

<<snip>>

<<snip>>

<<snip>>

The only way to remove a federal judge against his will is by the usual impeachment process and trial by the Senate as applies to removal of a president. While no prez has been removed from office, a dozen or so federal judges have been convicted by the Senate and thus given the boot. This case and Judge Hanen's behaviors will develop over time in their consequential events.

<<snip>>

<<snip>>

<<snip>>

Judge Hanen must believe he is immune of judicial accountability by Congress or the Justice Department for abuse of judicial authority, processes, procedures -- the Constitution. Not so. After all, impeachment is as political a decision as are the judge's rulings in the case.

Addressing only the salient parts of your post...

What makes you think there will be 218 Members of the House of Representatives that will vote to approve Articles of Impeachment against Judge Hanen?

The Democrats total only 188 members so do you really believe there is even the remotest possibility that 30 Republicans will cross party lines to vote for impeaching a Federal Judge?

However, should the unthinkable happen and impeachment is approved by the House, it takes a 2/3rd majority of the US Senate to convict an impeached party. Taking a somewhat realistic view of that situation, there are a total of 44 Democratic Senators, 54 Republican Senators and 2 Independents.

Requiring 67 votes for conviction means 21 Republican Senators would have to cross party lines and vote with the Democrats.

Do you still believe impeachment is something that Judge Hanen should really lose any sleep over?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

On topic but not mentioned in your post is this news item from today. Rather than the judge shaking in his boots fearing retaliation from the DOJ, it would seem the Judge is raising some embarrassing questions for the DOJ to answer...or face sanctions.

Judge: Sanctions possible in Obama immigration court case

Associated Press By JUAN A. LOZANO

15 hours ago



BROWNSVILLE, Texas (AP) — A federal judge who has blocked President Barack Obama's immigration executive action suggested on Thursday that he could order sanctions against the Justice Department if he rules it misled him about when exactly the administration began implementing one of the measures.

During a sometimes testy court hearing, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen went back and forth with the Justice Department over whether it had mislead him into believing that a key part of Obama's program would not be implemented before he made a ruling on a request for a preliminary injunction. In fact, federal officials had given more than 108,000 people three-year reprieves from deportation before that date and granted them work permits under a program that protects young immigrants from deportation if they were brought to the U.S. illegally as children.

http://news.yahoo.com/hearing-set-allegations-immigration-lawsuit-052210088.html

The article went on to detail Kathleen Hartnett, DOJ Attorney, trying to explain why the Judge felt he might have been lied to.

Interesting turn of events, right?

[Publicus]

Well well, the tea party Judge Hanen has ordered administration lawyers to present in his court at a special hearing March 19 an explanation of the 100,000 deportation deferrals of illegal immigrant parents of children US citizens which occurred immediately before the judge enjoined the government implementing Prez Obama's immigration executive order.

Seems the judge believes he may have been had before issuing the ruling against the Administration and issuing the temporary injunction stopping the president's program.

Hanen said he wuz double crossed by the president's lawyers who had assured the judge no deferrals of deportation would be issued before his ruling, which then led the judge to allow the 26 states a little more time to complete their filings with the court.

Sounds like a little tit for tat.

That is not fact. It is a blatant lie.

First off here, I pointed out on March 12th that the judge had called a hearing for the 19th and I stated the reasons for it all, yet I wuz called a liar.

So an honorable person would apologize publicly.

And quickly before too much longer.

[NeverSure]

Geez. Apparently someone put new batteries in Publicus.

The questions is "why"?

[Publicus]

<<snip>>

<<snip>>

<<snip>>

<<snip>>

The only way to remove a federal judge against his will is by the usual impeachment process and trial by the Senate as applies to removal of a president. While no prez has been removed from office, a dozen or so federal judges have been convicted by the Senate and thus given the boot. This case and Judge Hanen's behaviors will develop over time in their consequential events.

<<snip>>

<<snip>>

<<snip>>

Judge Hanen must believe he is immune of judicial accountability by Congress or the Justice Department for abuse of judicial authority, processes, procedures -- the Constitution. Not so. After all, impeachment is as political a decision as are the judge's rulings in the case.

Addressing only the salient parts of your post...

What makes you think there will be 218 Members of the House of Representatives that will vote to approve Articles of Impeachment against Judge Hanen?

The Democrats total only 188 members so do you really believe there is even the remotest possibility that 30 Republicans will cross party lines to vote for impeaching a Federal Judge?

However, should the unthinkable happen and impeachment is approved by the House, it takes a 2/3rd majority of the US Senate to convict an impeached party. Taking a somewhat realistic view of that situation, there are a total of 44 Democratic Senators, 54 Republican Senators and 2 Independents.

Requiring 67 votes for conviction means 21 Republican Senators would have to cross party lines and vote with the Democrats.

Do you still believe impeachment is something that Judge Hanen should really lose any sleep over?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

<<snip>>

Next point is that no one is thinking tomorrow, next week, next month....or even as a Christmas present 2015 to the tea party judge.

It's more like Thailand and you'd know what I mean.

So one might think instead post the 2016 election. Or even post the 2018 elections.....coulda saved all that bandwidth with just some grounded consideration of the obvious political realities you presented. It's what can happen after the forest one is presently staring at admiringly gets burned down in a November fire kind of thing, and forest fires happen naturally and with a certain frequency.

While the Democratic party fire brigade was asleep last November, in November next year they'll be the ones carrying the gasoline cans while the Republican party fire brigades are overwhelmed by the magnitude of the blaze.

[Publicus]

Geez. Apparently someone put new batteries in Publicus.

The questions is "why"?

bu.jpg

Thanks for the question and the opportunity to point out once again that the tea party Judge Hanen will keep the case under wraps in his court for as long as possible to keep it away from and out of SCOTUS. The reason is simple and direct. SCOTUS will reverse Judge Hanen.

Until then, Prez Obama's immigration action is on the hold Judge Hanen put on it, and that will be through the rest of 2015. The right cannot refute the SCOTUS case law precedent I've presented, nor can the right refute the Constitution in these matters. That is because to do so is impossible.

The case has no standing and the case has no merit. SCOTUS will reverse the judge.

If SCOTUS does get the case brought by the 26 Republican controlled states, it will probably be able to announce its decision around June next year, in the middle of the presidential election. Sort of a Sword of Damocles over the GOP.

[Publicus]

<<snip>>

<<snip>>

<<snip>>

<<snip>>

The only way to remove a federal judge against his will is by the usual impeachment process and trial by the Senate as applies to removal of a president. While no prez has been removed from office, a dozen or so federal judges have been convicted by the Senate and thus given the boot. This case and Judge Hanen's behaviors will develop over time in their consequential events.

<<snip>>

<<snip>>

<<snip>>

Judge Hanen must believe he is immune of judicial accountability by Congress or the Justice Department for abuse of judicial authority, processes, procedures -- the Constitution. Not so. After all, impeachment is as political a decision as are the judge's rulings in the case.

<<snip>>

----------------------------------------------------------------------

On topic but not mentioned in your post is this news item from today. Rather than the judge shaking in his boots fearing retaliation from the DOJ, it would seem the Judge is raising some embarrassing questions for the DOJ to answer...or face sanctions.

Judge: Sanctions possible in Obama immigration court case

Associated Press By JUAN A. LOZANO

15 hours ago



BROWNSVILLE, Texas (AP) — A federal judge who has blocked President Barack Obama's immigration executive action suggested on Thursday that he could order sanctions against the Justice Department if he rules it misled him about when exactly the administration began implementing one of the measures.

During a sometimes testy court hearing, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen went back and forth with the Justice Department over whether it had mislead him into believing that a key part of Obama's program would not be implemented before he made a ruling on a request for a preliminary injunction. In fact, federal officials had given more than 108,000 people three-year reprieves from deportation before that date and granted them work permits under a program that protects young immigrants from deportation if they were brought to the U.S. illegally as children.

http://news.yahoo.com/hearing-set-allegations-immigration-lawsuit-052210088.html

The article went on to detail Kathleen Hartnett, DOJ Attorney, trying to explain why the Judge felt he might have been lied to.

Interesting turn of events, right?

The tea party judge feels he wuz had.

Ninety percent or more of federal judges are moderates, judically prudent. So one can begin to see what happens in the courtroom of a judge who is driven by fringe political extremism. The whole thing breaks down.

Judge Hanen will be reversed by SCOTUS and his career called into question by the legal community throughout the country.

Hanen is a passionate partisan ideologue who skews jurisprudence and legal principles, processes, integrity. By his actions past and present, the tea party judge has called attention to himself. It's somewhat like when everyone talks about the umpire they've got behind the plate for tonight's game because we know his name and his calls. The best ones are the ones we never notice are there.

Judge Hanen is bigger than the case and that is not in the interests of the law, jurisprudence, society. Judge Hanen is making the news, not so much the case is making the news. He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.

[sdanielmcev]

<<snip>>

<<snip>>

<<snip>>

<<snip>>

The only way to remove a federal judge against his will is by the usual impeachment process and trial by the Senate as applies to removal of a president. While no prez has been removed from office, a dozen or so federal judges have been convicted by the Senate and thus given the boot. This case and Judge Hanen's behaviors will develop over time in their consequential events.

<<snip>>

<<snip>>

<<snip>>

Judge Hanen must believe he is immune of judicial accountability by Congress or the Justice Department for abuse of judicial authority, processes, procedures -- the Constitution. Not so. After all, impeachment is as political a decision as are the judge's rulings in the case.

<<snip>>

----------------------------------------------------------------------

On topic but not mentioned in your post is this news item from today. Rather than the judge shaking in his boots fearing retaliation from the DOJ, it would seem the Judge is raising some embarrassing questions for the DOJ to answer...or face sanctions.

Judge: Sanctions possible in Obama immigration court case

Associated Press By JUAN A. LOZANO

15 hours ago



BROWNSVILLE, Texas (AP) — A federal judge who has blocked President Barack Obama's immigration executive action suggested on Thursday that he could order sanctions against the Justice Department if he rules it misled him about when exactly the administration began implementing one of the measures.

During a sometimes testy court hearing, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen went back and forth with the Justice Department over whether it had mislead him into believing that a key part of Obama's program would not be implemented before he made a ruling on a request for a preliminary injunction. In fact, federal officials had given more than 108,000 people three-year reprieves from deportation before that date and granted them work permits under a program that protects young immigrants from deportation if they were brought to the U.S. illegally as children.

http://news.yahoo.com/hearing-set-allegations-immigration-lawsuit-052210088.html

The article went on to detail Kathleen Hartnett, DOJ Attorney, trying to explain why the Judge felt he might have been lied to.

Interesting turn of events, right?

The tea party judge feels he wuz had.

Ninety percent or more of federal judges are moderates, judically prudent. So one can begin to see what happens in the courtroom of a judge who is driven by fringe political extremism. The whole thing breaks down.

Judge Hanen will be reversed by SCOTUS and his career called into question by the legal community throughout the country.

Hanen is a passionate partisan ideologue who skews jurisprudence and legal principles, processes, integrity. By his actions past and present, the tea party judge has called attention to himself. It's somewhat like when everyone talks about the umpire they've got behind the plate for tonight's game because we know his name and his calls. The best ones are the ones we never notice are there.

Judge Hanen is bigger than the case and that is not in the interests of the law, jurisprudence, society. Judge Hanen is making the news, not so much the case is making the news. He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.

Well, seems you were wrong, again. Today is the 20th. And, no, I don't apologize to people that lie, then try to squirm out of it.

By "judically" prudent, you mean those judges you agree with. You are so far to the left, you can't even see the center.

[NeverSure]

Geez. Apparently someone put new batteries in Publicus.

The questions is "why"?

bu.jpg

Thanks for the question and the opportunity to point out once again that the tea party Judge Hanen will keep the case under wraps in his court for as long as possible to keep it away from and out of SCOTUS. The reason is simple and direct. SCOTUS will reverse Judge Hanen.

Until then, Prez Obama's immigration action is on the hold Judge Hanen put on it, and that will be through the rest of 2015. The right cannot refute the SCOTUS case law precedent I've presented, nor can the right refute the Constitution in these matters. That is because to do so is impossible.

The case has no standing and the case has no merit. SCOTUS will reverse the judge.

If SCOTUS does get the case brought by the 26 Republican controlled states, it will probably be able to announce its decision around June next year, in the middle of the presidential election. Sort of a Sword of Damocles over the GOP.

Looks like I was right.

BTW and FWIW, when phrases such as "the tea party Judge" are used I immediately tune the poster out as a desperate one who is attempting to stop his fingernails from sliding down the wall.

Just sayin'.

[Publicus]

Geez. Apparently someone put new batteries in Publicus.

The questions is "why"?

bu.jpg

Thanks for the question and the opportunity to point out once again that the tea party Judge Hanen will keep the case under wraps in his court for as long as possible to keep it away from and out of SCOTUS. The reason is simple and direct. SCOTUS will reverse Judge Hanen.

Until then, Prez Obama's immigration action is on the hold Judge Hanen put on it, and that will be through the rest of 2015. The right cannot refute the SCOTUS case law precedent I've presented, nor can the right refute the Constitution in these matters. That is because to do so is impossible.

The case has no standing and the case has no merit. SCOTUS will reverse the judge.

If SCOTUS does get the case brought by the 26 Republican controlled states, it will probably be able to announce its decision around June next year, in the middle of the presidential election. Sort of a Sword of Damocles over the GOP.

Looks like I was right.

BTW and FWIW, when phrases such as "the tea party Judge" are used I immediately tune the poster out as a desperate one who is attempting to stop his fingernails from sliding down the wall.

Just sayin'.

The right sector posters cannot refute my postings of the SCOTUS case law precedents and the Court's reading of the Constitution since 1789 in respect of this case.

The right sector can however complain that documenting the case law and Constitution does require some band width and some time and effort to post the record, the documents, the rulings, the texts of the rulings, the facts.

However, because today I feel pithy due to the case against the Judge's ruling having been made, that will be all for now thx.

[chuckd]

Perhaps it wouldn't require quite so much band width if it wasn't repeated over and over, ad nauseam.

[Publicus]

<<snip>>

<<snip>>

<<snip>>

<<snip>>

The only way to remove a federal judge against his will is by the usual impeachment process and trial by the Senate as applies to removal of a president. While no prez has been removed from office, a dozen or so federal judges have been convicted by the Senate and thus given the boot. This case and Judge Hanen's behaviors will develop over time in their consequential events.

<<snip>>

<<snip>>

<<snip>>

Judge Hanen must believe he is immune of judicial accountability by Congress or the Justice Department for abuse of judicial authority, processes, procedures -- the Constitution. Not so. After all, impeachment is as political a decision as are the judge's rulings in the case.

<<snip>>

----------------------------------------------------------------------

On topic but not mentioned in your post is this news item from today. Rather than the judge shaking in his boots fearing retaliation from the DOJ, it would seem the Judge is raising some embarrassing questions for the DOJ to answer...or face sanctions.

Judge: Sanctions possible in Obama immigration court case

Associated Press By JUAN A. LOZANO

15 hours ago



BROWNSVILLE, Texas (AP) — A federal judge who has blocked President Barack Obama's immigration executive action suggested on Thursday that he could order sanctions against the Justice Department if he rules it misled him about when exactly the administration began implementing one of the measures.

During a sometimes testy court hearing, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen went back and forth with the Justice Department over whether it had mislead him into believing that a key part of Obama's program would not be implemented before he made a ruling on a request for a preliminary injunction. In fact, federal officials had given more than 108,000 people three-year reprieves from deportation before that date and granted them work permits under a program that protects young immigrants from deportation if they were brought to the U.S. illegally as children.

http://news.yahoo.com/hearing-set-allegations-immigration-lawsuit-052210088.html

The article went on to detail Kathleen Hartnett, DOJ Attorney, trying to explain why the Judge felt he might have been lied to.

Interesting turn of events, right?

The tea party judge feels he wuz had.

Ninety percent or more of federal judges are moderates, judically prudent. So one can begin to see what happens in the courtroom of a judge who is driven by fringe political extremism. The whole thing breaks down.

Judge Hanen will be reversed by SCOTUS and his career called into question by the legal community throughout the country.

Hanen is a passionate partisan ideologue who skews jurisprudence and legal principles, processes, integrity. By his actions past and present, the tea party judge has called attention to himself. It's somewhat like when everyone talks about the umpire they've got behind the plate for tonight's game because we know his name and his calls. The best ones are the ones we never notice are there.

Judge Hanen is bigger than the case and that is not in the interests of the law, jurisprudence, society. Judge Hanen is making the news, not so much the case is making the news. He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.

Well, seems you were wrong, again. Today is the 20th. And, no, I don't apologize to people that lie, then try to squirm out of it.

By "judically" prudent, you mean those judges you agree with. You are so far to the left, you can't even see the center.

I don't apologize to people that lie

The post was on the 20th because the hearing was on the 19th, as I'd posted on the 12th it would be. I did not lie. I do not lie. No poster lies.

You keep posting to this thread and to other threads to call me a "liar" and that I "lie" in my posts. You post this post after post, thread after thread. This is not a healthy approach to posting so it reflects on the poster and it seriously detracts from a respectable, respected forum, its discussions, its posters et al.

Do you think you are privileged that you can consistently post to thread after thread that a particular poster is a liar and that a poster lies? Consistently post in this way only in almost every post to a particular poster? What contribution is that to a thread or to the Forums? Most of your posts to me over recent months say only that I "lie" and that I am a "liar." What are you doing here? Why are you here?

The fact is that no one -- you especially and in particular -- can refute my documentation and presentation of the SCOTUS case law precedents in respect of immigration and that are based in the Constitution. The Constitution and the SCOTUS case law precedents apply to everyone regardless of our political persuasion or individual integrity.

If I happen to be wrong I will own up to it. However, I have no lies to defend....none. You need to get your head screwed on straight.

[Ulysses G.]

No poster lies.

Of course they do and often. What is the point of making such ridiculous claims?

[sdanielmcev]

<<snip>>
<<snip>>
<<snip>>
<<snip>>

The only way to remove a federal judge against his will is by the usual impeachment process and trial by the Senate as applies to removal of a president. While no prez has been removed from office, a dozen or so federal judges have been convicted by the Senate and thus given the boot. This case and Judge Hanen's behaviors will develop over time in their consequential events.

<<snip>>
<<snip>>
<<snip>>

Judge Hanen must believe he is immune of judicial accountability by Congress or the Justice Department for abuse of judicial authority, processes, procedures -- the Constitution. Not so. After all, impeachment is as political a decision as are the judge's rulings in the case.

<<snip>>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
On topic but not mentioned in your post is this news item from today. Rather than the judge shaking in his boots fearing retaliation from the DOJ, it would seem the Judge is raising some embarrassing questions for the DOJ to answer...or face sanctions.


Judge: Sanctions possible in Obama immigration court case

Associated Press By JUAN A. LOZANO

15 hours ago

BROWNSVILLE, Texas (AP) A federal judge who has blocked President Barack Obama's immigration executive action suggested on Thursday that he could order sanctions against the Justice Department if he rules it misled him about when exactly the administration began implementing one of the measures.

During a sometimes testy court hearing, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen went back and forth with the Justice Department over whether it had mislead him into believing that a key part of Obama's program would not be implemented before he made a ruling on a request for a preliminary injunction. In fact, federal officials had given more than 108,000 people three-year reprieves from deportation before that date and granted them work permits under a program that protects young immigrants from deportation if they were brought to the U.S. illegally as children.

http://news.yahoo.com/hearing-set-allegations-immigration-lawsuit-052210088.html

The article went on to detail Kathleen Hartnett, DOJ Attorney, trying to explain why the Judge felt he might have been lied to.

Interesting turn of events, right?

The tea party judge feels he wuz had.

Ninety percent or more of federal judges are moderates, judically prudent. So one can begin to see what happens in the courtroom of a judge who is driven by fringe political extremism. The whole thing breaks down.

Judge Hanen will be reversed by SCOTUS and his career called into question by the legal community throughout the country.

Hanen is a passionate partisan ideologue who skews jurisprudence and legal principles, processes, integrity. By his actions past and present, the tea party judge has called attention to himself. It's somewhat like when everyone talks about the umpire they've got behind the plate for tonight's game because we know his name and his calls. The best ones are the ones we never notice are there.

Judge Hanen is bigger than the case and that is not in the interests of the law, jurisprudence, society. Judge Hanen is making the news, not so much the case is making the news. He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.

Well, seems you were wrong, again. Today is the 20th. And, no, I don't apologize to people that lie, then try to squirm out of it.
By "judically" prudent, you mean those judges you agree with. You are so far to the left, you can't even see the center.

I don't apologize to people that lie


The post was on the 20th because the hearing was on the 19th, as I'd posted on the 12th it would be. I did not lie. I do not lie. No poster lies.

You keep posting to this thread and to other threads to call me a "liar" and that I "lie" in my posts. You post this post after post, thread after thread. This is not a healthy approach to posting so it reflects on the poster and it seriously detracts from a respectable, respected forum, its discussions, its posters et al.

Do you think you are privileged that you can consistently post to thread after thread that a particular poster is a liar and that a poster lies? Consistently post in this way only in almost every post to a particular poster? What contribution is that to a thread or to the Forums? Most of your posts to me over recent months say only that I "lie" and that I am a "liar." What are you doing here? Why are you here?

The fact is that no one -- you especially and in particular -- can refute my documentation and presentation of the SCOTUS case law precedents in respect of immigration and that are based in the Constitution. The Constitution and the SCOTUS case law precedents apply to everyone regardless of our political persuasion or individual integrity.

If I happen to be wrong I will own up to it. However, I have no lies to defend....none. You need to get your head screwed on straight.

I did refute you. But you blithely ignored it. Your statement about the 20th has nothing to with your falsifications. Once again, you twist the facts to suit your position. I'm not one of the easy ones you can intimidate with your verbosity hiding as knowledge. You were wrong. You didn't own up to it. There is a difference between political philosophy and fact, which you seem to ignore.

[JDGRUEN]

The current President's legacy related to this disguised Amnesty he is attempting to pull off is just one strike as it will be held up for at least two years and more ... plus sanctions for violating the court order... coming up

- Next ... His Iran policy has become a disaster...

- and - his prize .. Obamacare -- has become a total Train Wreck ...

Shall we count the ways and this latest attempt at pulling off an Amnesty - done with Executive Orders and no Congressional action is a triumph of failure - done before our eyes.

Thus the reasons for the tones of PANIC that come from his Obama Cult Members -- screeching 'the sky is falling' - this can't be done ... the judge will be impeached ... yada yada yada ... If this wasn't such a serious subject it would be funny,..

[Publicus]

Kindly be specific to support your continuing posts to the various threads that I "lie" and that I am a "liar."

Be completely and thoroughly specific in detail, Choose one post for example to make your case if you can.

Because you cannot make your case.

Make your case then, and in specific terms, to include documentation to support your bold and entirely declaratory assertions. Don't be intimidated or afraid, good, just go ahead and support your assertions in specific and exact terms.

Support your declaratory assertions with specifics, credible evidence, if not proof.

[Publicus]

The current President's legacy related to this disguised Amnesty he is attempting to pull off is just one strike as it will be held up for at least two years and more ... plus sanctions for violating the court order... coming up

- Next ... His Iran policy has become a disaster...

- and - his prize .. Obamacare -- has become a total Train Wreck ...

Shall we count the ways and this latest attempt at pulling off an Amnesty - done with Executive Orders and no Congressional action is a triumph of failure - done before our eyes.

Thus the reasons for the tones of PANIC that come from his Obama Cult Members -- screeching 'the sky is falling' - this can't be done ... the judge will be impeached ... yada yada yada ... If this wasn't such a serious subject it would be funny,..

this latest attempt at pulling off an Amnesty

The judge said he did not rule on amnesty.

The judge said he could not rule on amnesty.

The judge said there is no amnesty in the president's executive action on immigration.

The judge said he could not rule on amnesty in the president's action because there is no amnesty in it.

The judge said he can't rule on something that does not exist.

Whether one is politically left, center, right, it's awfully hard to argue with the judge on that one single point on which everyone agrees except the fringe political far out right.

There is no amnesty in the president's executive action on immigration.

The right wing keeps calling the president's immigration an amnesty, the response keeps coming that there is no amnesty of any kind, shape or form in the president's action. The Big Fiction keeps getting repeated, the Big Fiction keeps getting refuted.

Ad infinitum.