Thread: Obama's illegal amnesty heads to Supreme Court

Larry Klayman explains appeal on behalf of Sheriff Joe

Published: 18 hours ago
Larry Klayman

Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Freedom Watch’s legal team are now filing his petition with the Supreme Court to challenge President Barack Obama’s executive grant of amnesty for illegal aliens. Doing the job most U.S. politicians won’t do, Sheriff Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, was the first to bring a challenge when Obama ordered his Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on Nov. 20, 2014, to rewrite and circumvent the laws passed by Congress. Now Arpaio, with Freedom Watch as his counsel, is the first to go to the Supreme Court!

In essence, we are asking the high court to resolve conflicting approaches among the nation’s appellate court circuits. We are reminding the justices that America’s system of law and order and our nation’s experiment in self-government (unique in human history) cannot long survive if the judiciary refuses to play its part by upholding the Constitution.

The Constitution can only have meaning if we are disciplined to live by it, even when politicians are tempted to cheat. If neither the courts nor elected politicians will protect and defend – and follow – the Constitution, they leave every door closed for a peaceable resolution of our citizens’ refusal to stand by and watch our country slowly die.

Even as Freedom Watch was drafting Sheriff Arpaio’s Supreme Court appeal came more news of Obama’s unbridled arrogance and tyranny. A leaked memorandum from DHS outlined plans for new executive-action usurpations of the role of Congress – which bypasses even the federal court in Texas that ordered Obama and his minions at DHS to cease and desist from implementing his illegal executive amnesty. Thus, some of the plans mapped out at a DHS retreat are designed to barrel full-speed ahead on granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens while technically side-stepping the injunction that is still in place from Judge Hanen in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, as reported in The Hill. A coalition of 26 states led by Texas had sued the Obama administration last December. In the jurisdiction of U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, the Honorable Andrew Hanen issued a preliminary injunction blocking implementation of Obama’s amnesty. The 5th Circuit upheld the preliminary injunction (refused to order a stay) on May 26, 2015.

So in the 5th Circuit, the states were found to have standing to bring a lawsuit from the costs that amnesty imposes on them. In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit), Sheriff Arpaio on almost identical facts – in fact, much stronger –was found not to have standing, and that is why we are going to the Supremes to break this impasse.

How can that be? Different judicial circuits and courts are following widely different and dramatically inconsistent rules and standards to govern standing. That is one reason the Supreme Court must step in and end the judicial chaos.

In the D.C. Circuit, Judge Janice Rogers Brown on the appeals panel explained in her concurring opinion what her problem is:

Some may find today’s outcome perplexing. Certainly Sheriff Arpaio cannot be blamed for believing he had standing. The relevant judicial guide-posts do not exactly “define” standing “with complete consistency.” Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 475 (1982). And some cases suggest standing can be satisfied based on fairly ephemeral injuries and attenuated theories of causation.

Brown stated: “I write separately to … note the consequences of our modern obsession with a myopic and constrained notion of standing.” And: “Today we hold that the elected Sheriff of the nation’s fourth-largest county, located mere miles from our border with Mexico, cannot challenge the federal government’s deliberate (unconstitutional) non-enforcement of the immigration laws.”

For several decades, the federal courts have been building higher walls to avoid doing their jobs and refusing to uphold the Constitution against the lust for power of politicians. As a result, the judicial invention of “standing” has continually grown like a cancer. Lawsuits against the government have become increasingly impossible – unless the plaintiff is pursuing a liberal, big-government agenda.

There is no mention of standing in the Constitution or in laws governing court procedures. Based on nothing, standing rules are completely inconsistent from one circuit to the next and one case to the next. In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 549 U.S. 497, 516–26 (2007), the Supreme Court found that plaintiffs had standing from the mere possibility that in 50-100 years coastline will be lost to a rising ocean. The inconsistency deeply troubled Judge Brown in her dispute in our case with the D.C. Circuit’s thinking.

The D.C. Circuit essentially applied a standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt,” used in criminal cases: “We have required ‘substantial evidence of a causal relationship between the government policy and the third-party conduct, leaving little doubt as to causation and the likelihood of redress,’” wrote the D.C. Circuit in inappropriately dismissing Sheriff Arpaio’s case.

By contrast, the 5th Circuit presented the correct rule of law: “The Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff has standing if the injury alleged is both ‘fairly traceable to the Government conduct … challenge[d] as unlawful. …” “Fairly traceable” is a very different rule of law from “substantial evidence … leaving little doubt as to causation.” The analysis is in sharp conflict among the circuits.

Since last November, we heard tough talk from the Republican-led Congress seeking votes that they would block Obama’s unconstitutional amnesty. Yet Republican leaders in Congress have funded Obama’s amnesty. We still have not seen the lawsuit former Speaker John Boehner promised, and he and his dishonest legacy are now toast. The courts and especially the Supreme Court must now finally do their duty and protect We the People from the tyranny of Obama’s executive branch, which thanks to the cowardly and do nothing Republican Congress who has rolled over to him, likely for fear that they will be branded racists if they challenge and block an African-American president in the years leading up to the presidential elections in 2016. Whether its illegal immigration, Obamacare, the Iran nuclear treaty, or halfhearted and useless congressional hearing allegedly to investigate the myriad of Obama-Hillary Clinton scandals like Benghazi, IRS-gate, or Fast and Furious, this has been the Republican establishment’s modus operandi, which ironically has taken a seat at the back of the proverbial government bus ever since Obama was elected president. It’s why conservative, libertarians, people of faith and anyone who believes in representative government has had it with them and now are prepared, if necessary, to take matters into our own legal hands!

We at Freedom Watch are not cowardly and neither are the readers of this column. Let us hope our Supreme Court finally does its job and steps in to protect the citizenry before revolution eventually breaks out!


http://www.wnd.com/2015/11/obamas-il...supreme-court/

So what happens if they rule that DACA is legitimate?

After the ruling by the Supreme Peoples' Oligarchy (the Supreme Court) that Obama Care was Constitutional, I have no confidence that American citizens can expect justice from our judicial system. The judicial system is shot through with ageing Marxists in black pajamas who have no intention enforcing fair, just and constitutional laws.

When the elections are corrupted by mass voter fraud and the government makes it safe and easy to engage in voter fraud, when the citizens can not go to the courts for justice, when their voice is silenced by omission in the major '"news" media and the government enacts "hate crimes, and hate speech laws to silence descent and the universities punish and ostracize descent, when every avenue of peaceful activity to control the government that controls the lives of ordinary citizens is denied to them, what are the people to do?

When this state of affairs goes on year after year, eventually the average citizen comes to believe that peaceful change is no longer possible--what then?

The frustratration, the anger spawned by it and the pressure it creates must somehow be released. What form will it take? Pray to God violence can be avoided. Pray that things will not become ugly.

Originally Posted by Captainron

So what happens if they rule that DACA is legitimate?

Well if we get an American President with a scrote for a change he could use the ruling to remove a couple of Justices by force. If certain individuals like Sotomayor and even Kegan who Sotomayor was directly involved in supporting the illegal alien agenda to a huge extent and Kegan has had limited involvement with support before aren't recused or recuse themselves that right their is enough to throw them off the bench for bad behavior as they would have then breached their oath of office quite clearly. Its also enough to throw out the Chief Justice also for not recusing them himself or making them recuse themselves. Further any SCOTUS judge who in the past has given support to illegal aliens as well and didn't recuse could be hard pressed as well. I'd however be focusing on those 3 names thou.

Sotomayor actually worked directly with LaRaza along with being a supporter before her appointment which I'd doubt even stopped other then the financial end.

Still another thing is nothing in the Constitution actually says who the final word on the Constitutions meaning actually is. Its been assumed its the SCOTUS since the 1800's due to one old ruling but Congress technically could upend that with an Act defining what the Constitution actually implies and who qualifies for what protections. I'm surprised no one has ever used the Preamble of the Constitution to challenge many of these bogus *Constitutional* issues. The Preamble is clearly defining who it applies to. It says quite clearly its written by Americans (People is capatlized in a sentence meaning its not just any people but a very specific group... I.E. American Citizens) and then goes on to say its for themselves (Citizens) and their children or future generations of *People* (the children of Citizens). In a major way its a definer or who the Constitution protects and doesn't protect.

I'm unclear on why Freedom Watch is doing this? The Fifth Circuit appears to be running out the clock on the Executive Amnesty/DACA decision, and Obama said they would not appeal that. So this lawsuit may be unnecessarily bringing the issue before the Supremes? What is the value to Arpaio for this, and is his question substantially different from that heard in the Fifth Circuit?

Originally Posted by Captainron

I'm unclear on why Freedom Watch is doing this? The Fifth Circuit appears to be running out the clock on the Executive Amnesty/DACA decision, and Obama said they would not appeal that. So this lawsuit may be unnecessarily bringing the issue before the Supremes? What is the value to Arpaio for this, and is his question substantially different from that heard in the Fifth Circuit?

Obama plans to not appeal because he's already working on a go around to end up doing it anyways. So much has been leaked out a few times already.Taking it to the SCOTUS would be about hopefully getting a ruling that would be a bigger hamper on Obama's actions saying outright they are illegal. It would also be very useful in the future with Obama's work around if a ruling came out against is DACA/DAPA forcing lower courts to rule against him. Then always the near nonexistent hope of a ruling simply citing Congressionally passed law is the law and Obama doesn't have the authority to issue EO's that go against the spirit of the law or ignore the law.

ReformUSA2012 wrote:

Well if we get an American President with a scrote for a change he could use the ruling to remove a couple of Justices by force. If certain individuals like Sotomayor and even Kegan who Sotomayor was directly involved in supporting the illegal alien agenda to a huge extent and Kegan has had limited involvement with support before aren't recused or recuse themselves that right their is enough to throw them off the bench for bad behavior as they would have then breached their oath of office quite clearly. Its also enough to throw out the Chief Justice also for not recusing them himself or making them recuse themselves. Further any SCOTUS judge who in the past has given support to illegal aliens as well and didn't recuse could be hard pressed as well. I'd however be focusing on those 3 names thou.

I hear what you're saying and I would have agreed with you before the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on homosexual marriage. Justices Ginsburg and Kagan should have recused themselves in the gay marriage case. However, both chose not to do so and there has been no consequences for their actions!

Court again blocks Obama's plan to protect undocumented migrants

Injunction is upheld against president’s measures that could prevent millions, including people who arrived illegally as children, being thrown out of the US

Barack Obama’s executive action to shield millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation has suffered a legal setback with an appeal to the supreme court now the administration’s only option.

A 2-1 decision by the fifth US circuit court of appeals in New Orleans has upheld a previous injunction – dealing a blow to Obama’s plan, which is opposed by Republicans and challenged by 26 states.

The states, all led by Republican governors, said the federal government exceeded its authority in demanding whole categories of immigrants be protected.

The Obama administration has said it is within its rights to ask the Department of Homeland Security to use discretion before deporting non-violent migrants with US family ties.

The case has become the focal point of the Democratic president’s efforts to change US immigration policy.

Seeing no progress on legislative reform in Congress, Obama announced in November 2014 that he would take executive action to help immigrants.

He has faced criticism from Republicans who say the program grants amnesty to lawbreakers.

Part of the initiative included expansion of a program called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, protecting young immigrants from deportation if they were brought to the US illegally as children.

In its ruling the appeals court said it was denying the government’s appeal to stay the May injunction “after determining that the appeal was unlikely to succeed on its merits”.

Republicans hailed the ruling as a victory against the Obama administration.

John Scalise, the number three Republican in the House of Representatives, said the court decision was “a major victory for the rule of law”.

The Texas attorney general, Ken Paxton, said in a statement that the ruling meant the state, which has led the legal challenge, “has secured an important victory to put a halt to the president’s lawlessness”.

Court again blocks Obama's plan to protect undocumented migrants | US news | The Guardian

Obama To Appeal Ruling On Immigration Plan

WASHINGTON (November 10, 2015) The Obama administration will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on the president's plan to shield as many as 5 million immigrants living in the country
illegally from deportation.

The appeal comes after the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, in a 2-1 decision, upheld a Texas-based judge's injunction blocking the Obama administration's immigration initiative.

Republicans had criticized the plan as an illegal executive overreach when Mr. Obama announced it last November.

Twenty-six states led by Texas challenged the plan in court.

The administration argued that the executive branch was within its rights in deciding to defer deportation of selected groups of immigrants.

“Today, the Fifth Circuit asserted that the separation of powers remains the law of the land, and the president must follow the rule of law, just like everybody else,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said.

“Throughout this process, the Obama Administration has aggressively disregarded the constitutional limits on executive power, and Texas, leading a charge of 26 states, has secured an important victory

to put a halt to the president’s lawlessness.

Part of the initiative included expansion of a program called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, protecting young immigrants from deportation if they were brought to the U.S. illegally as children.

Obama To Appeal Ruling On Immigration Plan

Obama administration takes immigration battle to Supreme Court

11/20/15