Posted on 04/18/2016 12:13:57 PM PDT by jazusamo
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. prodded the Obama administration Monday to explain President Obama’s immigration flip-flop, when Mr. Obama in 2014 reversed himself and decided he did, after all, have powers to grant a tentative amnesty to as many as 5 million illegal immigrants.
Mr. Obama had repeatedly denied he had that kind of power, then after the 2014 election, when Congress refused to act on his policies, the president claimed a do-over and said he did have the power.
Chief Justice Roberts wondered what changed in Mr. Obama’s mind, and even read back one of Mr. Obama’s quotes to Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. recounting the president saying he would be “ignoring the law” if he were to grant a broad stay of deportation to millions of illegal immigrants.
“What was he talking about?” the chief justice prodded.
Mr. Verrilli said Mr. Obama may have changed his mind after asking the Justice Department’s legal advisory branch to take a closer look at his powers.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I made a comment on a previous thread that if this is a point of leverage against Justice Roberts, it may disappear once the youngest of his children turns 18.
Another FRiend suggested there may be other closet issues which may compromise Justice Roberts but I haven’t done a lot of research on that front.
It will be deadlocked 4-4. Thus the ruling from the lower court will stand. Obamao loses.
0bama still has the blackmail material on Roberts and no doubt has threatened to use it. Roberts only brought up Hussein's statement so he can claimed to have considered all aspects.
Sadly true
Thanks a bunch Ted
Roberts teed up a complete softball, that required SG Milli Verilli to provide a specific legal argument. Like Roberts, Verilli knows Obama didn’t change his mind about legality. Verilli’s non-answer acknowledged this, and the administration’s case died right there.
Obama knows full well that his orders and non-actions were illegal. His game was to entrench illegal practices by the time a challenge moved through the courts, so that undoing the damage would be nearly impossible, even if the executive branch was energetic. Good luck on that.
I predict that SCOTUS rules 8-0 against Obama.
I lost trust in the SC in 1973, Roe v. Wade.
—
So true.
It is now the Supreme Kangaroo Kourt.
LOL!!! Hilarious.
He has an opinion, but its not a legal one. Its a financial one. Show me the money!
In this day and age of longevity, its ludicrous to have someone serving in a lifetime appointment. If the USSC justices had any respect for our democracy they would willingly step down after 20 years. But they hang on forever.
It is now the Supreme Kangaroo Kourt.
It is not a court of justice or laws. It is now a political activists court.
They use justice as a smokescreen for their political opinions. Its all a big charade.
“In this day and age of longevity, its ludicrous to have someone serving in a lifetime appointment. If the USSC justices had any respect for our democracy they would willingly step down after 20 years. But they hang on forever.”
Yes, and just take a look at the Senate. It’s the same story. The House members “move on up” to the Senate, and then stay long enough to lie in state in the Capitol rotunda at death. And three of the four octogenarians today are Republicans. Only Diane Fineswine has out lived all of them and she’s 83. But she’s only been there 22 years, wheras Hatch has been there 39 years as has Leahy, with Grassley and Cochran, 34. Anyone there who’s been there 20 years needs to go just for starters. And if we did that there would be 12 members on their way out this year! Take it to 15 years, and the number goes up to 22!
I’d like to see a 12 year limit for reps (six terms) and senators (two terms). Only allow them to run again after a four year hiatus away from Washington DC.
“I’d like to see a 12 year limit for reps (six terms) and senators (two terms). Only allow them to run again after a four year hiatus away from Washington DC.”
Maybe, but there also needs to be a caveat that the 12 years is cumulative, otherwise you get what we have here in CA where they term out in the Assembly then move up to the Senate and term out there. In your proposal a smart, and I use that term relatively, House member could parlay his “stay” in Washington into a 24 year gig!
They don’t see the cultural suicide they are committing. They are nowhere near it. It doesn’t exist to them. It’s all theoretical.
They might as well live in castles and never leave the gate.
J-Rob is just sweet talking us before he slips the steak knife between our ribs. He’s a real pro.
Good point. Agree there should be a required “break in service” to prevent the scenario you described. I’m pro freedom and don’t like the idea of constraining people, but in the interest of keeping the water flowing through the swamp, we do need to ensure that our representatives don’t turn their elections into lifelong careers.
If someone actually did a good job representing us (unlikely but possible I suppose) I don’t have a problem with them running again after a mandatory hiatus. They need to go back and walk amongst the people they represent before returning to the Washington cesspool.
The elites don’t want any walls to protect us but they live inside the comfort and security of gated communities or in residences that are far removed from ‘troubled areas’.
Most of our so-called representatives benefit handsomely as a result of their “service” in Washington. Money buys options so they believe they will be able to afford sanctuaries for themselves and their families. They may be right. These people are pretty good at looking out for themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.