Huge: Texas Governor Greg Abbott wins federal injunction against Obama amnesty

originally posted by: FalcoFan
a reply to: Xcathdra

Why can't the gov just do what is right and just close the borders already?

The concept of our gov even CONSIDERING voting about giving another multi billion dollar handout to illegal aliens has so many damn things wrong with it.

Because they see lots of new, compliant voters on one side and cheap labor on the other. That's why. We're being sold out because we are no longer politically expedient. We just pay the bills.

a reply to: Xcathdra

www.afj.org... info on 5th circut of appeals judges

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has appellate jurisdiction over the federal courts in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. It often has the last word on questions of federal law, so it’s imperative that the court is staffed with fair-minded judges who uphold the rule of law and treat all litigants equally. Unfortunately, a series of far-right appointments by Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have turned the Fifth Circuit into perhaps the most activist, politically-motivated Circuit Court of Appeals in the country. Ten of its 15 active judges were appointed by Republican Presidents, and its decisions often reflect a concerted effort by Republican administrations to impose a conservative policy agenda through the courts. This heavy imbalance has favored powerful special interests—such as massive corporations, and, in particular, Big Oil companies—at the expense of ordinary Americans. One recent and telling example borders on self-parody: After a group of Hurricane Katrina victims received a favorable ruling from a three-judge panel in their suit against polluter energy companies,1 the court decided to hear the case “en banc”—meaning that the panel decision would be vacated and the court’s full roster of judges would decide the case. But because ties to the energy industry forced so many judges to recuse themselves, there weren’t enough judges left to hear the appeal. The result was that the hurricane victims lost without ever getting their day in court. Their favorable panel decision had already been set aside, and the lost quorum meant that the trial court’s decision—which sided with the energy companies—was reinstated.2 The court’s decisions have also eroded civil rights, marginalized criminal defendants, and demonstrated insensitivity and even outright hostility toward racial minorities and women. Just this past week, a panel of three Republican appointees—Judges Priscilla Owen, Catharina Haynes, and Jennifer Elrod—voted to reinstate a Texas law that places unnecessary, burdensome requirements on abortion providers, and that is already forcing clinics to close down.3 In this report, the court’s 15 active judges and their judicial records are profiled in order of seniority.

if those numbers are still current (10R-5D) it could give the republicans much more of a chance of either upholding this ruling or sending it to the scotus on more favorable terms as it looks like currently team red has 2/3rds of the judicial seats ,any one have any idea of what the implications are if it does go to the supreme court? like what would they be ruling on exactly and how could it effect future acts done by current president or future presidents?

originally posted by: Metallicus
I am surprised they found a judge that could exercise common sense. Thank God there are still sane people in our judicial system.

To bad the entire system is corrupted including the supreme court. Things are really going to get interesting when the lower wage earners are not going to be able to afford food and housing in the very near future.



The ripples this will send will cause waves the likes of which have never been seen in recent time. What happens when people can no longer afford to live? What does that look like for the criminals taking the jobs away and lowering the wages? People are smart enough to figure this one out given enough time and hunger.

He has until Feb 18 ,COB to put in an emergecy injunction to stop this .IF he can't it will be stalled beyond his alloted administrations TIME. He must do so in TEXAS through an snow storm a,d a train wreck in VA. Good luck .
DHS?
Good riddance they called me a potental TERRORIST and shouldn't exist as a body of the US nat=yway WE don't need a GESTAPO.
ALL those VOTERS they were counting on ,GONE.

a reply to: Sremmos80

There are hundreds of thousands of illegals in our prisons that cost the taxpayers at least $30-$40,000 per inmate per year.

That is on the low side,btw.

Can we say savings?

a reply to: buster2010

You wouldn't even see it-how in the world would you be able to feel imprisoned?

Maybe if you pretend hard enough,Sheldon.

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

I hate the fact we have judges with political party affiliation. That gripe aside this is going to end up at SCOTUS doorstep. Regardless of which direction the 5th circuit takes its ruling will be appealed.

This could become more problematic for the administration considering the number of rulings that have gone against Obama's actions relating to other scandals. If this doesn't go in the administrations favor and they push the issue with the courts any ruling could very well deal with how Obama is taking these actions and slam the door closed on them for Executive action.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Napolitano offered the opinion that 5th circuit might refuse to hear an appeal until results of lower court case are decided.

If things go that way Obamas memo driven usurpation of congressional power is done with for his term of office.

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: Xcathdra

Napolitano offered the opinion that 5th circuit might refuse to hear an appeal until results of lower court case are decided.

If things go that way Obamas memo driven usurpation of congressional power is done with for his term of office.

Im not sure what other lower court rulings he is referring to. If you have inconsistent lower court rulings its going to end up in the 5th circuit. Its always possible the 5th circuit is trying to delay the politics that will come along with the case.

I am wondering if he is referring to the judges order. The judge issued the injunction but left the door open for the government to present more info to justify the action to have the injunction removed.

Like I said though this is one of those cases that is going to end up at Scotus. Which ever sides lose appeals will appeal the ruling.

I would say Obama is worried judging by the comments he made. While talking about the law being on his side he also stated that history was on his side. That tells me he views this action of his as morally right, even if its legally wrong.

He is the President - not a Tsar.

I think its time the courts start reminding Obama of that fact.

I hope someone finally puts him in his place and does right by the American people. This rewarding illegal immigrants crap has gone on for far too long.

originally posted by: buster2010

Seeing how much Texas depends on the cheap labor of illegal immigrants I can see why this judge is against the new law. It might actually force the cheap pricks who hire them to pay them higher wages.

Is documented workers a bad thing? To have work visas for a set period of time all above the board is a win for those workers who would actually be in the system and not taken advantage of by your "cheap pricks".

Secure the borders, start a robust work visa program, anyone that is outside of that gets deported with XX number of years they can not apply for a work visa. Gives more people FROM AROUND THE WORLD a chance to work here, and reduces those who are basically criminals or a burden on our society from entering.

originally posted by: buster2010
Sounds like you want to live in a prison. Sorry but everyone born in this country is a citizen of this country. Too bad we didn't have walls and a militarized zone when all the whites decided to come here from Europe and ruin this nation.

You know for ever illegal alien that comes across Mexico there are 1000s around the world that would love to have a chance to work here. Why do we focus on those who break our laws just because they can sneak across Mexico and not provide a fair situation for all?

I have a sister in law that has been in the system for 15 years to work here.... just saying....

a reply to: Xtrozero

Unless its been changed I advocate the US adopting the exact same immigration laws Mexico uses, specifically on their southern border.

People want to call our immigration law increase draconian they should research Mexico's first.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Xtrozero

Unless its been changed I advocate the US adopting the exact same immigration laws Mexico uses, specifically on their southern border.

People want to call our immigration law increase draconian they should research Mexico's first.

I don't see too many trying to sneak into Mexico... hehe

The funny part is we do not even need to get to draconian and we would be 100 times better than what we have right now.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: FalcoFan
a reply to: Xcathdra

Why can't the gov just do what is right and just close the borders already?

The concept of our gov even CONSIDERING voting about giving another multi billion dollar handout to illegal aliens has so many damn things wrong with it.

Define closing the border and who would that closure apply to?

Simple

Put the US Border Patrol under the DoD where it belongs.
Add some Tanks, drones and 50 Cals to the border.

Anyone not coming though a legal border entry point get one warning and then they are shot.

Anyone coming though a legal entry point has to have correct ID for entry (ie Passport, immigration paperwork or the like) or they get turned away.

Very simple actually MOST countries in the world do it very easily.

Once the border is closed and secure I would be happy to talk about changing our messed up immigration policy.

Immigrants are the backbone of the US ILLEGAL immigrants are one of its banes.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Napolitano when saying "lower court" was referring to Hanen court which even though it enacted an injunction has not actually abjudicated the case.

Best I can tell the reasoning used is 5th court can't or won't take an appeal until there is a decision to appeal.

As it stands now all that's really happened is an injunction based on case merit and irreparable harm to states.

But no actual ruling on the case itself.

Therefore the only step for defenders would be to obtain an emergency stay on the injunction until case is ruled upon then appeal if losing that case.

Looks like Obamas gambit on immigration is in limbo as they did not seek stay on injunction.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Xtrozero

Unless its been changed I advocate the US adopting the exact same immigration laws Mexico uses, specifically on their southern border.

People want to call our immigration law increase draconian they should research Mexico's first.

Mexico law on immigration and their swift deportation along with prison for repeat offenders is something I point out to those who think we're to hard on illegals crossing US border.

It galls me when Mexican government complains anytime US takes positive steps to secure border as its 100% self serving hypocrisy on display

originally posted by: dismanrc
Simple

Put the US Border Patrol under the DoD where it belongs.
Add some Tanks, drones and 50 Cals to the border.

Anyone not coming though a legal border entry point get one warning and then they are shot.

Anyone coming though a legal entry point has to have correct ID for entry (ie Passport, immigration paperwork or the like) or they get turned away.

Very simple actually MOST countries in the world do it very easily.

Once the border is closed and secure I would be happy to talk about changing our messed up immigration policy.

Immigrants are the backbone of the US ILLEGAL immigrants are one of its banes.

How much do you trust the government? A secure border that kills people who try to get in can just as easily be focused inward and kill people who try to get out. Remember the Berlin Wall?

I believe a porous border is in our best interests.

Note that this is in addition to the fact that the border cannot be secured. I brought this story up a couple weeks ago too. Back in December I went to Tucson to visit some family for Christmas, actually it was a little south of Tucson, I was very close to the border. While there I learned about an Indian reservation, it belongs to the Tohono O'odham I believe it was. Their reservation is larger than Connecticut and it stretches across the border between the US and Mexico. These Indians and those in their reservation can freely pass through the border, though there is some US regulation it is largely ignored in practice. The route into this reservation is a single 2 lane highway and there is a US checkpoint just outside the reservation.

When I was there the checkpoint was manned by 4 people who didn't even appear to be armed, and they had nothing but some plastic road cones and a small building that didn't even have electricity, apparently they sometimes have a dog. The people I was with told me many stories of this checkpoint. It is common practice for cars leaving the reservation to stop about a mile down the road, have illegals run into the desert, and get picked up a couple miles down the road on the other side.

In my two trips through the checkpoint I saw this happen once. Additionally I saw many semi's go through the checkpoint (atleast 1 each trip), the tribe manufactures almost nothing but drug runners frequently cross the border, care to guess what those trucks were carrying? The border for this reservation is 75 miles long and the tribe doesn't police it because they don't have the resources (they mostly don't even have water or electricity) and the cartels pay them to look the other way. As near as I can tell, this is the primary source of illegals and drugs into Tucson and we have situations like this all along the Mexican border. How do we go about fixing it? We can't legally secure that portion of the border and covering the entire reservation border effectively doubles the area we have to watch, which doubles the complexity of the problem.

I really don't think it's fixable. I think we need to focus on giving employers an incentive to not hire illegals in the first place.

a reply to: Aazadan

It is completely fixable. IF we have the will to fix it.

Can the border guards be turned inward? Yes, but if it came to that point don't you think they would have already covered the major cities anyway?

Walls. landmines, drones, armed patrols would all work to cover the border. The thing is if we want to do this we HAVE to stop looking at this as a police issue and move the Border Patrol under the DoD and treat it as a military invasion issue.

The military should already be doing this anyway. One of the major roles of he military is protect the borders. It would be perfectly legal for them to do this also. No issues with Posse Comitatus at all. To keep this I would set a limit of how far in land the military had the responsibility to patrol. Say 10-20 miles max. After that point if people did make it pass it would fall under law enforcement. Also I would limit the power of the military to only issues of border security. IE if the threat came from accross the border inside that zone it falls under them. If the act STARTED in the US in that zone it is a law enforcement issue, unless the military came under direct fire.

a reply to: Phoenix

After reading the available info it looks like the judged granted the injunction because apparently, when performing this type of action (Obamas action), a mandatory requirement is feedback.

Administrative Procedure Act - Pub.L. 79–404, 60 Stat. 237

enacted June 11, 1946, is the United States federal statute that governs the way in which administrative agencies of the federal government of the United States may propose and establish regulations. The APA also sets up a process for the United States federal courts to directly review agency decisions. It is one of the most important pieces of United States administrative law. The Act became law in 1946.

The APA applies to both the federal executive departments and the independent agencies. U.S. Senator Pat McCarran called the APA "a bill of rights for the hundreds of thousands of Americans whose affairs are controlled or regulated" by federal government agencies. The text of the APA can be found under Title 5 of the United States Code, beginning at Section 500.

There is a similar Model State Administrative Procedure Act (Model State APA) which was drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws for oversight of state agencies. Not all states have adopted the model law wholesale as of 2007. The federal APA does not require systematic oversight of regulations prior to adoption as suggested by the Model APA.[2]

With that said I still believe they have a constitutional argument as well.


Also from wiki -

The APA requires that in order to set aside agency action not subject to formal trial-like procedures, the court must conclude that the regulation is "arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law."[8] However, Congress may further limit the scope of judicial review of agency actions by including such language in the organic statute. To set aside formal rulemaking or formal adjudication whose procedures are trial-like,[9] a different standard of review allows courts to question agency actions more strongly. For these more formal actions, agency decisions must be supported by "substantial evidence"[10] after the court reads the "whole record",[10] which can be thousands of pages long.

Unlike arbitrary and capricious review, substantial evidence review gives the courts leeway to consider whether an agency's factual and policy determinations were warranted in light of all the information before the agency at the time of decision. Accordingly, arbitrary and capricious review is understood to be more deferential to agencies than substantial evidence review. Arbitrary and capricious review allows agency decisions to stand as long as an agency can give a reasonable explanation for its decision based on the information it had at the time. In contrast, the courts tend to look much harder at decisions resulting from trial-like procedures because those agency procedures resemble actual trial-court procedures, but Article III of the Constitution reserves the judicial powers for actual courts. Accordingly, courts are strict under the substantial evidence standard when agencies acts like courts because being strict gives courts final say, preventing agencies from using too much judicial power in violation of separation of powers.

The separation of powers doctrine is less of an issue with rulemaking not subject to trial-like procedures. Such rulemaking gives agencies more leeway in court because it is similar to the legislative process reserved for Congress. Courts' main role here is ensuring agency rules conform to the Constitution and the agency's statutory powers. Even if a court finds a rule unwise, it will stand as long as it is not "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law".[11]

As always all sources are at the bottom of the entry

The language of the law suggests it could be applied to some of the other actions Obama has taken.