President Obama has options on immigration - Page 2

There's one problem with this article. There's a full list of classes of people eligible for work authorization in US in the Federal Register (I really don't feel like looking for the exact section). What this article argues cannot be done right now without changing regulations. Since we're changing regulations they might as well do the correct god damn thing in regards to eDACA and DAPA instead of continuing with this fucking circus.

DACA/DAPA CIRCUS - part two

David Leopold retweeted Wall Street Journal
Will the GOP file a lawsuit in Texas to block the #IranDeal? More Iranian tourists = increase drivers license costs

When is the decision?

Care to tell us dauser?

I think the same reasoning can be used in the immigration case in the Fifth Circuit.

"While the administration may well prevail, it has expressed remarkable pessimism about its options if it does lose. The secretary of health and human services, Sylvia Mathews Burwell, wrote to Congress last month about the administration’s lack of a contingency plan: “We know of no administrative actions that could, and therefore we have no plans that would, undo the massive damage to our health care system that would be caused by an adverse decision.”

But luckily the Constitution supplies a contingency plan, even if the administration doesn’t know it yet: If the administration loses in King, it can announce that it is complying with the Supreme Court’s judgment — but only with respect to the four plaintiffs who brought the suit.

This announcement would not defy a Supreme Court order, since the court has the formal power to order a remedy only for the four people actually before it. The administration would simply be refusing to extend the Supreme Court’s reasoning to the millions of people who, like the plaintiffs, may be eligible for tax credits but, unlike the plaintiffs, did not sue.

To be sure, the government almost always agrees to extend Supreme Court decisions to all similarly situated people. In most cases, it would be pointless to try to limit a decision to the parties to the lawsuit. Each new person who was denied the benefit of the ruling could bring his own lawsuit, and the courts would simply rule the same way. Trying to limit the decision to the parties to the suit would just delay the inevitable.

But the King litigation is different, because almost everybody who is eligible for the tax credits is more than happy to get them. Most people who receive tax credits will never sue to challenge them. Lawsuits can be brought only by those with a personal stake, so in most cases the tax credits will never come before a court. The administration is therefore free to follow its own honest judgment about what the law requires.

This idea may seem radical, but it has a strong legal pedigree. Judicial authority, or jurisdiction, is case-specific and person-specific. That is true even of the Supreme Court, which the Constitution gives “judicial power” to decide “cases” and “controversies.” It is reaffirmed by Marbury v. Madison (1803), which affirmed the power of judicial review by relying on the Supreme Court’s duty to decide “particular cases.”

President Obama could also take a page from President Lincoln. In his first inaugural address, Lincoln discussed a recent Supreme Court decision about slavery. He forswore “any assault upon the court,” but stressed that “the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people” ought not be “irrevocably fixed” by a single suit brought by only a few. He said that Supreme Court opinions were thus “entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases” but were ultimately limited to “the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit.” If the Obama administration thinks the stakes are high enough, it can take the same path."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/17/op...temail0=y&_r=2

collins22

That's essentially that they should've done with Hanen's ruling. They should've said: Your court jurisdiction is Northern Texas. We will implement eDACA/DAPA everywhere else, and then if they lose there simply not appeal. Give the cons a very Pyrrhic victory and leave it at that.

Where would this site be without all the arm-chair lawyers who know more than the justice department and know for sure how to out maneuver rabid Republican lawyers.

arm-chair lawyer


William Baude
Constitutional law and the courts.
William Baude became a contributing opinion writer for The New York Times in March 2015. He is an assistant professor of law at the University of Chicago, where he teaches courses on federal courts and constitutional law.

Before joining the Chicago faculty, he was a law clerk for Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. on the United States Supreme Court and for Michael W. McConnell, who was then a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. Before that, he received a law degree from Yale Law School and a B.S. in mathematics from the University of Chicago. He has also worked as a fellow at the Stanford Constitutional Law Center and as a lawyer in Washington.

His scholarship has appeared in many law journals, including the Yale Law Journal and the Stanford Law Review, and he has also published many articles on law for a general audience.

And where is YOUR law degree? You and the other fellow on here keep quoting the two or three guys you've heard supporting this and running away with it and ignoring every other lawyer and judge.

You guys are to the DAPA/Extended DACA lawsuit what Jenny McCarthy is to vaccinations or what Republicans are to Global Warming. There are also many many scientists who say global warming is happening and vaccines save lives, but there are still a handful of scientists and doctors who deny those things. That's not good company.

Oh and again, your story is from February.

Anger management classes?