In case you skipped quite a few classes in 10th grade government, allow me to explain something: the Judicial Branch exists independently of the Executive Branch. The Legislative Branch exists independently, too.
So, the next time one hears President Obama gripe about how neither Congress nor the Supreme Court appear keen to rubberstamp his radical agenda, remember this: it’s not their job to do his bidding.
Still, Obama appears to labor under the mistaken belief that the highest court in the land exists as a means of facilitating his radical agenda.
President Obama has not only repeatedly violated his oath to uphold and defend the laws of the United States, but now he’s asking the Supreme Court justices to do the same by asking that they rubberstamp his illegal amnesty orders that would reward millions of illegals for their criminality by granting amnesty.
President Obama will ask the Supreme Court to clear the way for his long-delayed immigration overhaul, administration lawyers said Tuesday, setting up another high-stakes legal contest in the nation’s highest court over the fate of one of the president’s signature achievements.
The Department of Justice said in a statement that it will appeal a federal appeals court ruling that blocked Mr. Obama’s plan to provide work permits to as many as five million undocumented immigrants while shielding most of them from deportation.
If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the president’s case during the current term, a ruling could come by next summer, just days before the two political parties hold their nominating conventions for the 2016 presidential campaign. A June decision could ensure a fierce debate on an issue that is critical to partisans on both sides.
“This is the moment that we, along with millions of families, have been waiting for,” said Marielena Hincapié, the executive director of the National Immigration Law Center. “We are more than ready to take this case to the Supreme Court.”
A decision by the court would also have a long-lasting impact on the president’s legacy, shaping how future generations assess Mr. Obama’s ability to confront what he has called one of the generation’s great civil rights issues. And it would mark the latest test of Mr. Obama’s agenda, following Supreme Court rulings on women’s rights, health care, the environment and the exercise of presidential power.
Legal experts said that no matter how the court rules, the decision from the justices could expand or trim the executive authority of future presidents on issues well beyond immigration policy. Walter Dellinger, a former acting solicitor general in the Clinton administration, said a ruling against Mr. Obama would scale back presidential power for generations.
That could put the United States “down a road of vastly increased judicial determination of basic policy questions,” Mr. Dellinger said.
Reaction from the presidential candidates on Tuesday was swift, and underscored the political clash to come. Ted Cruz, a Republican senator from Texas, said in a tweet that the appeals court ruling was a victory in the fight against “Pres. Obama’s illegal & unconstitutional executive amnesty.”
Hillary Rodham Clinton assailed what she called a “politically motivated” lawsuit against the president’s actions, and she called on the court to provide a fair hearing “so that the millions who are affected can stop living in fear of their families being broken apart.”…
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit said in its ruling on Monday that the immigration program set up by the president’s actions — known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans — did not follow proper administrative procedures and went beyond the power that Congress has authorized for a president.
The Justice Department said in a statement on Tuesday that it would appeal the decision by the lower court that blocked Mr. Obama’s executive actions.
“The Department disagrees with the Fifth Circuit’s adverse ruling and intends to seek further review from the Supreme Court of the United States,” said Patrick Rodenbush, a spokesman for the Justice Department.
That review by the Supreme Court is not a foregone conclusion. Monday’s ruling by the appeals court was issued at a preliminary stage of the litigation, and the Supreme Court sometimes prefers to await a final ruling. The justices may have their own reasons to move at a deliberate pace even if they ultimately vote to hear the case.
In truth, few can blame Obama for believing that the Supreme Court is obliged to acquiesce to his unconstitutional demands; after all, the highest court in the land has, in recent years, appeared willing to conjure law in order to bow to political pressures.
The Supreme Court affirmed Obamacare as constitutionally sound as a tax- a position that the Obama Administration actually argued against, but was willing to accept as doing so achieved their political ends.
Further, the Supreme Court caved in June to the political pressures of the radical left and legalized same-sex marriage across all fifty states- an adulteration of the definition of marriage that held no clear basis in law, but was declared legal for the sake of political convenience.