US: GOP leader offers immigration vote to try to resolve impasse

[Scott]

Inflammatory post removed.

[Publicus]

It does not have a lot to do with Boehner. The Republicans want to stop Obama's unconstitutional action and are not going to just ignore it. They will do anything they can to stop it and rightly.

The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the issues written up by the activist conservative federal district judge down there in Texas, so there has not been a final or ultimate determination by a court of law as to whether the president's immigration executive action is constitutional.

If the tea party federal judge down there in Texas is right -- and he is wrong -- then all executive orders, actions, memorandums by the president would henceforward become subject to a period of public review and comment before they could take effect. The White House would then have to respond to the public comment and review. The the public would get their response. The White House would then be allowed to issue a final executive order, action, memorandum.

The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946, which the tea party judge cited down there in Texas, has never applied to the president himself or to a president's executive orders, actions, memoranda, so the judge is attempting to write new law which makes him a conservative activist judge.

It is highly unlikely the Supreme Court will agree with the federal district judge down there in Texas that the White House and the president, not to mention the general public, should be tied up in the indefinite future in the way Judge Henan would like due to his very conservative politics that he applied to his jurisprudence in this narrow case brought by the Republican leaders of 26 states.

[chuckd]

When did President Obama sign ANYTHING to execute this immigration prosecutorial discretion?

There is no Executive Order, Executive Memoranda or, as far as is known, even an e-mail instructing Secretary Johnson to send his memo to his DHS executives. Can you provide us copies or links to any of them?

Judge Henan did specifically not rule on anything President Obama is alleged to have done.

He ruled on an inter-office Memorandum issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson.

How can the Supreme Court rule on Executive Orders when there are none in sight on this case?

[sdanielmcev]

It does not have a lot to do with Boehner. The Republicans want to stop Obama's unconstitutional action and are not going to just ignore it. They will do anything they can to stop it and rightly.

The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the issues written up by the activist conservative federal district judge down there in Texas, so there has not been a final or ultimate determination by a court of law as to whether the president's immigration executive action is constitutional.

If the tea party federal judge down there in Texas is right -- and he is wrong -- then all executive orders, actions, memorandums by the president would henceforward become subject to a period of public review and comment before they could take effect. The White House would then have to respond to the public comment and review. The the public would get their response. The White House would then be allowed to issue a final executive order, action, memorandum.

The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946, which the tea party judge cited down there in Texas, has never applied to the president himself or to a president's executive orders, actions, memoranda, so the judge is attempting to write new law which makes him a conservative activist judge.

It is highly unlikely the Supreme Court will agree with the federal district judge down there in Texas that the White House and the president, not to mention the general public, should be tied up in the indefinite future in the way Judge Henan would like due to his very conservative politics that he applied to his jurisprudence in this narrow case brought by the Republican leaders of 26 states.

Obama's already dropped it. So has the DOJ except for formalities. Why would the Supreme Court take it up? And, bringing up the general public, as you did, is overwhelmingly against Obamas' order. As in 74%.

[Publicus]

When did President Obama sign ANYTHING to execute this immigration prosecutorial discretion?

There is no Executive Order, Executive Memoranda or, as far as is known, even an e-mail instructing Secretary Johnson to send his memo to his DHS executives. Can you provide us copies or links to any of them?

Judge Henan did specifically not rule on anything President Obama is alleged to have done.

He ruled on an inter-office Memorandum issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson.

How can the Supreme Court rule on Executive Orders when there are none in sight on this case?

"Inter-office Memorandum," Executive Order, Executive Memorandum, Executive Action, all of these and anything of any such character or nature.....same same same same same.

The judge cited the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 saying that the "inter-office Memorandum" that you describe falls within the scope and jurisdiction of the Act.

However, the APA specifically applies to new laws and the new rules and new regs written pursuant thereof.

The APA has never included or applied to an executive action of any kind taken within the Executive Branch. The federal district judge down there in Texas is trying to write new law and it is a radically new law that would tie up all presidents beyond Prez Obama whether Democratic of Republican presidents.

Under the judge's ruling, all presidents would need to subject their executive actions, orders, memoranda, to months and months of public comment and reaction. That is not in the constitution nor is it in any SCOTUS precedents.

The judge's ruling is new law. The judge's new law is awkward to impose on the executive branch. It is cumbersome on the executive branch and the body politic. It is also historically outside of the provisions of the APA. It is moreover unconstitutional. The president will take this all the way to the SCOTUS if necessary or required.

Waiting now for the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals which sits in New Orleans. (The district judge will not reconsider his own order and he will not issue a stay of his own order to enjoin, the reconsideration being the first step of appeals process by the government and which is soon to be concluded.)

Watch this space.

Edited March 1, 2015 by Publicus

[chuckd]

"Watch this space."

My breath is bated.

[beechguy]

When did President Obama sign ANYTHING to execute this immigration prosecutorial discretion?

There is no Executive Order, Executive Memoranda or, as far as is known, even an e-mail instructing Secretary Johnson to send his memo to his DHS executives. Can you provide us copies or links to any of them?

Judge Henan did specifically not rule on anything President Obama is alleged to have done.

He ruled on an inter-office Memorandum issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson.

How can the Supreme Court rule on Executive Orders when there are none in sight on this case?

"Inter-office Memorandum," Executive Order, Executive Memorandum, Executive Action, all of these and anything of any such character or nature.....same same same same same.

The judge cited the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 saying that the "inter-office Memorandum" that you describe falls within the scope and jurisdiction of the Act.

However, the APA specifically applies to new laws and the new rules and new regs written pursuant thereof.

The APA has never included or applied to an executive action of any kind taken within the Executive Branch. The federal district judge down there in Texas is trying to write new law and it is a radically new law that would tie up all presidents beyond Prez Obama whether Democratic of Republican presidents.

Under the judge's ruling, all presidents would need to subject their executive actions, orders, memoranda, to months and months of public comment and reaction. That is not in the constitution nor is it in any SCOTUS precedents.

The judge's ruling is new law. The judge's new law is awkward to impose on the executive branch. It is cumbersome on the executive branch and the body politic. It is also historically outside of the provisions of the APA. It is moreover unconstitutional. The president will take this all the way to the SCOTUS if necessary or required.

Waiting now for the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals which sits in New Orleans. (The district judge will not reconsider his own order and he will not issue a stay of his own order to enjoin, the reconsideration being the first step of appeals process by the government and which is soon to be concluded.)

Watch this space.

Well, considering how wrong you've been so far, as in the Trayvon Martin/Zimmerman case, Ferguson, etc. excuse us if we don't hold our breath.

Frankly, given your track record, I wouldn't ask you to go to City Hall to fix a parking ticket.

[Jai Dee]

One off-topic troll post has been removed from this thread.

[up-country_sinclair]

While some here were of the opinion that this doesn't have "a lot to do with Boehner", those more knowledgeable of how politics actually works in the US knew better:

John Boehner’s big week

The onus will be squarely on the speaker to end the Homeland Security mess.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/john-boehner-dhs-funding-115637.html#ixzz3TF35pL2v

The onus will be squarely on the speaker to end the Homeland Security mess.

Edited March 2, 2015 by up-country_sinclair

[up-country_sinclair]

As anyone with the slightest understanding of the American political process could have predicted, this has ended in an embarrassing retreat for Republicans. A clean bill will come to floor soon and will almost certainly pass.

Speaker Boehner was put into a horrible no-win position by the hyperpartisans in the caucus, and it was all for nothing. Absolutely nothing. Everyone knew it would be addressed by the courts and it was addressed by the courts, but they hyperpartisans still presssed on because they wanted to make a point". Well, the point was made, and it made us all look silly.

Some here said this could all be done "simply" and "without a problem". Well, how'd that work out for you?

And now others are seriously suggesting that Leader McConnell abolish the filibuster. Good god, 24 Republican senators are up for election in 2016. Why can't the hyperpartisans have even the slightest bit of foresight?

SMH at the foolishness.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/dhs-funding-bill-house-vote-115693.html?hp=t1_r