Once again the Supreme Court bends over backwards to accommodate President Obama by slashing the time the state of Texas was granted to file its reply to Obama’s petition to the Court from the accustomed 30 days to just 8 days.
The Court’s action is specifically designed to allow the Court to rubberstamp Obama’s unconstitutional executive action granting millions of illegal alien amnesty before Obama’s term in office mercifully ends.
Texas asked for an extra 30 days to file its brief responding to the administration’s petition. Such extensions often are granted, but in this case the administration objected, because the practical effect would be to make it harder for the court to hear the case in the current term.
Instead, the court followed the suggestion of U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who proposed granting Texas an eight-day extension. Late Tuesday, the court clerk informed attorneys that Texas had through Dec. 29 to file its brief.
Under Supreme Court procedures, that would allow the justices to consider granting the case at their private conferences on Jan. 15 and 22. Should they agree to hear the case, it almost certainly would be heard in April, the last month the court holds arguments during the current term, with a decision expected in June.
Clearly the inference that can be drawn from the Court’s action is that this was a political decision by the members of the Court to help Barack Obama enforce his unconstitutional dictates before he no longer can impose them. It certainly means the Court is ready to rubberstamp this egregious powergrab and open the barn door on amnesty before a new President would have a chance to overturn these illegal dictates.
This article does not mention the unconventionally long time the 5th Circuit took to hand down its own decision.
Perhaps the 5th Circuit could have ruled sooner if the Obama Administration hadn’t lied to the District Court about issuing work visas.
Let’s put all illegal aliens on an island then blow up the island.
This is a bad sign; they bent over backwards…they are suppose to decide on the merit of the law and that is not what is happening at this point…corrupt SCOTUS? Enough!
I assume that you are referring to the Obama administration extending the DACA work authorizations to 3 years, and that they did in fact recall all of the three year work authorization cards untimely issued. However, I fail to see how that would have impeded the fifth circuit from issuing a timely decision.
Good to see you can’t figure out why an appeals court might take some extra time when the President of the United States through his DoJ lawyers lied directly to the District Court. Not a misunderstanding, an outright lie.
Ok, please explain. The first injunction was sustained within weeks and the second took months, and you are saying that those additional months were because of what the Obama Administration communicated to the District Court?
http://baesic.net/minutemanproject/lawless-dhs-ignored-judges-order-processes-amnesties-for-illegals/
http://baesic.net/minutemanproject/judge-orders-homeland-security-chief-others-to-court/
Yes, in fact when the particulars of a case under adjudication at a higher level are found to be irregular that could explain a delay in issuing a ruling. At least it is a far more plausible explanation that your snide insinuation without any evidence that the Appeals Court was deliberately withholding its ruling.
I apologize if my remarks seemed snide. I am only suggesting, just as Mr. Revere is suggesting that time frames have been manipulated for political reasons.
Also from your article, the following is stated: “The government sincerely regrets these circumstances and is taking immediate steps to remedy these erroneous three-year terms,” the administration lawyers said. With the vast amount of government bureaucracy it is easy to understand that mistakes are made.
I believe that President Obama’s immigration objectives are definitely political, but I think it is important to note that so are the immigration objectives of those opposing the Presidents policies (i.e. the 3 judge panel on the fifth circuit). I just appreciate objective reporting.