Obama Loses Round One

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

The emperor wannabee loses round one in federal court.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/12/16/federal-judge-obama-immigration-actions-unconstitutional/

[cooltigger21 0]

The emperor wannabee loses round one in federal court.

http://www.foxnews.c...constitutional/

He's going to lose more on this.

[AURaptor 1,122]

The emperor wannabee loses round one in federal court.

http://www.foxnews.c...constitutional/

He's going to lose more on this.

He doesn't' care. The damage is done. Not only will he not run for re-election, he knows the old guard GOP will do absolutely nothing to uphold the law.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Where are all the lib experts who were defending him so vigorously on the EO?

[AUDub 11,147]

Where are all the lib experts who were defending him so vigorously on the EO?

What EO?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

The EO re..immigration. As you sometimes ask people did you read the article?

[AUDub 11,147]

The EO re..immigration. As you sometimes ask people did you read the article?

Yeah. I'm just being pedantic. Obama hasn't signed anything. It's an Executive Action, not an Executive Order.

As for its legality, I can't really comment. It may very well be illegal. I do know the judge is throwing around 40 years of precedent out the window.

[TheBlueVue 177]

The EO re..immigration. As you sometimes ask people did you read the article?

Yeah. I'm just being pedantic. Obama hasn't signed anything. It's an Executive Action, not an Executive Order.

As for its legality, I can't really comment. It may very well be illegal. I do know the judge is throwing around 40 years of precedent out the window.

Yeah, Obama was SO confident in its legality he had Jeh Johnson issue a memo outlining the details of the laws the Chief Executive has unilaterally decided not to enforce. Which, in effect, changes the law but last I checked, at least according to the Constitution, its Congress's job to change laws not the Presidents..

[AUtiger98 24]

An organization I work with has talked to Dem. Legislators in other states, and while many of them agree with the president, they are very apprehensive about the precedent being set here. They understand the power that is being removed from Congress and they don't want a Republican to have the same authority. Heck, I've even told my wife that I don't want a Republican President to have that much power.

Believe me, its not just the conservatives worried about the actions of this president.

[AUtiger98 24]

The EO re..immigration. As you sometimes ask people did you read the article?

Yeah. I'm just being pedantic. Obama hasn't signed anything. It's an Executive Action, not an Executive Order.

As for its legality, I can't really comment. It may very well be illegal. I do know the judge is throwing around 40 years of precedent out the window.

Executive Actions carry no legal weight, so please explain how the judge is throwing 40 years of precedent out the window.

[cooltigger21 0]

The one part of this ruling that stands out to me is when he said that inaction by Congress does not give the executive the right to do something.

[AUUSN 823]

[AUDub 11,147]

Why is his hand white?!

[AUDub 11,147]

The EO re..immigration. As you sometimes ask people did you read the article?

Yeah. I'm just being pedantic. Obama hasn't signed anything. It's an Executive Action, not an Executive Order.

As for its legality, I can't really comment. It may very well be illegal. I do know the judge is throwing around 40 years of precedent out the window.

Executive Actions carry no legal weight, so please explain how the judge is throwing 40 years of precedent out the window.

Executive actions on immigration are not exactly a new phenomenon.

[cooltigger21 0]

Yep. He's not done tearing this country apart yet. Still two more years. Lots of damage can take place in two years.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/12/16/obama-presidential-memoranda-executive-orders/20191805/

[TheBlueVue 177]

Yep. He's not done tearing this country apart yet. Still two more years. Lots of damage can take place in two years.

Irony abounds when one who, presumably, took an oath to defend the Constitution against enemies domestic and abroad actually cheers for the reckless lawlessness that best characterizes this admin's trampling all over that sacred document. Sad.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

http://www.salon.com/2014/12/17/sean_hannity_federal_judge_how_a_right_wing_jurist_just_disqualified_himself/

The legal wrangling over President Obama’s recently announced executive actions on immigration got off to an early and unexpected start yesterday when Judge Arthur Schwab, a district court judge in Pennsylvania, declared Obama’s actions to be unlawful.

Nobody saw this coming because no one actually asked Schwab to weigh in on Obama’s immigration action – he just up and did it on his own, because that’s what judges do, right? They judge things. And so, in a 38-page opinion on the sentencing of an undocumented Honduran immigrant arrested for drunk driving, Judge Schwab laid out his abbreviated take on one of the more controversial presidential actions in recent memory, declaring it “unconstitutional.” But, despite declaring it unlawful, Schwab declined to invalidate the order. “Given that no party was challenging the lawfulness of the President’s action,” writes Jonathan Adler at the Washington Post, “it’s not clear what authority the court would have had to invalidate the policy.”

You should read Elise Foley’s and Ryan Grim’s dive into Schwab’s background to get a sense of why Schwab would set himself on this bizarre path toward confrontation with the president. Basically, Schwab (appointed to the bench by George W. Bush at the recommendation of then-Sen. Rick Santorum) is a conservative crank who is viewed as overly partisan (even for the federal judiciary) and has been disciplined in the past for issues of bias and temperament.

And Schwab pretty clearly went into this with an agenda. He wasted several pages of the opinion quoting Obama’s past statements on how the president can’t change immigration policy unilaterally. While those quotes are politically inconvenient for Obama, they don’t actually say anything about the legality of the president’s actions – which Schwab himself acknowledges: “While President Obama’s historic statements are not dispositive of the constitutionality of his Executive Action on immigration, they cause this Court pause.”

His legal critique of the president’s proposed program encompasses all of five pages, with no precedents cited to back up his claims of presidential overreach. It was as if Schwab, in building his case against the constitutionality of Obama’s executive action, skimmed a few conservative blogs, copy-and-pasted a few old Obama quotes, and called it a day. “Judge Schwab traveled far along a very thin branch to reach this decision,” ThinkProgress’ Ian Millhiser writes, “and he anchored his decision with little grounding in legal authorities.” Basically, it is a political argument masquerading as a legal opinion.

And there’s no better proof of that than the fact that dimwit conservative pundits are celebrating Schwab’s argument for the way it tracks with their own thinking. “It almost could’ve been written by me,” said Fox News’ Sean Hannity, delivering a stronger indictment of Schwab than anything I could hope to muster. “He makes the very arguments that I had been making the entire time.”

Ideally, the federal judiciary should operate at a level of argumentation that is slightly above that of cable news punditry. But as it stands, Schwab’s ruling will stand out as a landmark moment in American history: the first time the courts have Hannitized a sitting president.

[TheBlueVue 177]

http://www.salon.com...lified_himself/

The legal wrangling over President Obama’s recently announced executive actions on immigration got off to an early and unexpected start yesterday when Judge Arthur Schwab, a district court judge in Pennsylvania, declared Obama’s actions to be unlawful.

Nobody saw this coming because no one actually asked Schwab to weigh in on Obama’s immigration action – he just up and did it on his own, because that’s what judges do, right? They judge things. And so, in a 38-page opinion on the sentencing of an undocumented Honduran immigrant arrested for drunk driving, Judge Schwab laid out his abbreviated take on one of the more controversial presidential actions in recent memory, declaring it “unconstitutional.” But, despite declaring it unlawful, Schwab declined to invalidate the order. “Given that no party was challenging the lawfulness of the President’s action,” writes Jonathan Adler at the Washington Post, “it’s not clear what authority the court would have had to invalidate the policy.”

You should read Elise Foley’s and Ryan Grim’s dive into Schwab’s background to get a sense of why Schwab would set himself on this bizarre path toward confrontation with the president. Basically, Schwab (appointed to the bench by George W. Bush at the recommendation of then-Sen. Rick Santorum) is a conservative crank who is viewed as overly partisan (even for the federal judiciary) and has been disciplined in the past for issues of bias and temperament.

And Schwab pretty clearly went into this with an agenda. He wasted several pages of the opinion quoting Obama’s past statements on how the president can’t change immigration policy unilaterally. While those quotes are politically inconvenient for Obama, they don’t actually say anything about the legality of the president’s actions – which Schwab himself acknowledges: “While President Obama’s historic statements are not dispositive of the constitutionality of his Executive Action on immigration, they cause this Court pause.”

His legal critique of the president’s proposed program encompasses all of five pages, with no precedents cited to back up his claims of presidential overreach. It was as if Schwab, in building his case against the constitutionality of Obama’s executive action, skimmed a few conservative blogs, copy-and-pasted a few old Obama quotes, and called it a day. “Judge Schwab traveled far along a very thin branch to reach this decision,” ThinkProgress’ Ian Millhiser writes, “and he anchored his decision with little grounding in legal authorities.” Basically, it is a political argument masquerading as a legal opinion.

And there’s no better proof of that than the fact that dimwit conservative pundits are celebrating Schwab’s argument for the way it tracks with their own thinking. “It almost could’ve been written by me,” said Fox News’ Sean Hannity, delivering a stronger indictment of Schwab than anything I could hope to muster. “He makes the very arguments that I had been making the entire time.”

Ideally, the federal judiciary should operate at a level of argumentation that is slightly above that of cable news punditry. But as it stands, Schwab’s ruling will stand out as a landmark moment in American history: the first time the courts have Hannitized a sitting president.

Refutations provided by Think Progress and you ridicule people for watching Fox News. LOL Hypocrite much?

[AUtiger98 24]

The EO re..immigration. As you sometimes ask people did you read the article?

Yeah. I'm just being pedantic. Obama hasn't signed anything. It's an Executive Action, not an Executive Order.

As for its legality, I can't really comment. It may very well be illegal. I do know the judge is throwing around 40 years of precedent out the window.

Executive Actions carry no legal weight, so please explain how the judge is throwing 40 years of precedent out the window.

Executive actions on immigration are not exactly a new phenomenon.

The Exec. Action of Clintion - Reagan (sorry didn't have time to review the others) were done to tidy up legislation create by the existing congress and was done with little fan fair because Congress was involved.

This judge finds this EA to be unconstitutional because this was done to circumvent Congress and change\ignore existing laws. Talk about throwing precedent out the window.

[AUDub 11,147]

http://www.salon.com/2014/12/17/sean_hannity_federal_judge_how_a_right_wing_jurist_just_disqualified_himself/

The legal wrangling over President Obama’s recently announced executive actions on immigration got off to an early and unexpected start yesterday when Judge Arthur Schwab, a district court judge in Pennsylvania, declared Obama’s actions to be unlawful.

Nobody saw this coming because no one actually asked Schwab to weigh in on Obama’s immigration action – he just up and did it on his own, because that’s what judges do, right? They judge things. And so, in a 38-page opinion on the sentencing of an undocumented Honduran immigrant arrested for drunk driving, Judge Schwab laid out his abbreviated take on one of the more controversial presidential actions in recent memory, declaring it “unconstitutional.” But, despite declaring it unlawful, Schwab declined to invalidate the order. “Given that no party was challenging the lawfulness of the President’s action,” writes Jonathan Adler at the Washington Post, “it’s not clear what authority the court would have had to invalidate the policy.”

You should read Elise Foley’s and Ryan Grim’s dive into Schwab’s background to get a sense of why Schwab would set himself on this bizarre path toward confrontation with the president. Basically, Schwab (appointed to the bench by George W. Bush at the recommendation of then-Sen. Rick Santorum) is a conservative crank who is viewed as overly partisan (even for the federal judiciary) and has been disciplined in the past for issues of bias and temperament.

And Schwab pretty clearly went into this with an agenda. He wasted several pages of the opinion quoting Obama’s past statements on how the president can’t change immigration policy unilaterally. While those quotes are politically inconvenient for Obama, they don’t actually say anything about the legality of the president’s actions – which Schwab himself acknowledges: “While President Obama’s historic statements are not dispositive of the constitutionality of his Executive Action on immigration, they cause this Court pause.”

His legal critique of the president’s proposed program encompasses all of five pages, with no precedents cited to back up his claims of presidential overreach. It was as if Schwab, in building his case against the constitutionality of Obama’s executive action, skimmed a few conservative blogs, copy-and-pasted a few old Obama quotes, and called it a day. “Judge Schwab traveled far along a very thin branch to reach this decision,” ThinkProgress’ Ian Millhiser writes, “and he anchored his decision with little grounding in legal authorities.” Basically, it is a political argument masquerading as a legal opinion.

And there’s no better proof of that than the fact that dimwit conservative pundits are celebrating Schwab’s argument for the way it tracks with their own thinking. “It almost could’ve been written by me,” said Fox News’ Sean Hannity, delivering a stronger indictment of Schwab than anything I could hope to muster. “He makes the very arguments that I had been making the entire time.”

Ideally, the federal judiciary should operate at a level of argumentation that is slightly above that of cable news punditry. But as it stands, Schwab’s ruling will stand out as a landmark moment in American history: the first time the courts have Hannitized a sitting president.

In one of the links it says he was removed from two cases and recused himself seventeen times because of bias. This guy may be out there.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

http://www.salon.com...lified_himself/

The legal wrangling over President Obama’s recently announced executive actions on immigration got off to an early and unexpected start yesterday when Judge Arthur Schwab, a district court judge in Pennsylvania, declared Obama’s actions to be unlawful.

Nobody saw this coming because no one actually asked Schwab to weigh in on Obama’s immigration action – he just up and did it on his own, because that’s what judges do, right? They judge things. And so, in a 38-page opinion on the sentencing of an undocumented Honduran immigrant arrested for drunk driving, Judge Schwab laid out his abbreviated take on one of the more controversial presidential actions in recent memory, declaring it “unconstitutional.” But, despite declaring it unlawful, Schwab declined to invalidate the order. “Given that no party was challenging the lawfulness of the President’s action,” writes Jonathan Adler at the Washington Post, “it’s not clear what authority the court would have had to invalidate the policy.”

You should read Elise Foley’s and Ryan Grim’s dive into Schwab’s background to get a sense of why Schwab would set himself on this bizarre path toward confrontation with the president. Basically, Schwab (appointed to the bench by George W. Bush at the recommendation of then-Sen. Rick Santorum) is a conservative crank who is viewed as overly partisan (even for the federal judiciary) and has been disciplined in the past for issues of bias and temperament.

And Schwab pretty clearly went into this with an agenda. He wasted several pages of the opinion quoting Obama’s past statements on how the president can’t change immigration policy unilaterally. While those quotes are politically inconvenient for Obama, they don’t actually say anything about the legality of the president’s actions – which Schwab himself acknowledges: “While President Obama’s historic statements are not dispositive of the constitutionality of his Executive Action on immigration, they cause this Court pause.”

His legal critique of the president’s proposed program encompasses all of five pages, with no precedents cited to back up his claims of presidential overreach. It was as if Schwab, in building his case against the constitutionality of Obama’s executive action, skimmed a few conservative blogs, copy-and-pasted a few old Obama quotes, and called it a day. “Judge Schwab traveled far along a very thin branch to reach this decision,” ThinkProgress’ Ian Millhiser writes, “and he anchored his decision with little grounding in legal authorities.” Basically, it is a political argument masquerading as a legal opinion.

And there’s no better proof of that than the fact that dimwit conservative pundits are celebrating Schwab’s argument for the way it tracks with their own thinking. “It almost could’ve been written by me,” said Fox News’ Sean Hannity, delivering a stronger indictment of Schwab than anything I could hope to muster. “He makes the very arguments that I had been making the entire time.”

Ideally, the federal judiciary should operate at a level of argumentation that is slightly above that of cable news punditry. But as it stands, Schwab’s ruling will stand out as a landmark moment in American history: the first time the courts have Hannitized a sitting president.

Refutations provided by Think Progress and you ridicule people for watching Fox News. LOL Hypocrite much?

I do not ridicule all people who watch Fox. I have cited Fox in the past. I ridicule you for two reasons. First, you watch Fox and are unable to distinguish between the actual news and the propaganda. Second, because you are disgrace to humanity.

You invite ridicule. You deserve ridicule.

[AUtiger98 24]

http://www.salon.com...lified_himself/

The legal wrangling over President Obama’s recently announced executive actions on immigration got off to an early and unexpected start yesterday when Judge Arthur Schwab, a district court judge in Pennsylvania, declared Obama’s actions to be unlawful.

Nobody saw this coming because no one actually asked Schwab to weigh in on Obama’s immigration action – he just up and did it on his own, because that’s what judges do, right? They judge things. And so, in a 38-page opinion on the sentencing of an undocumented Honduran immigrant arrested for drunk driving, Judge Schwab laid out his abbreviated take on one of the more controversial presidential actions in recent memory, declaring it “unconstitutional.” But, despite declaring it unlawful, Schwab declined to invalidate the order. “Given that no party was challenging the lawfulness of the President’s action,” writes Jonathan Adler at the Washington Post, “it’s not clear what authority the court would have had to invalidate the policy.”

You should read Elise Foley’s and Ryan Grim’s dive into Schwab’s background to get a sense of why Schwab would set himself on this bizarre path toward confrontation with the president. Basically, Schwab (appointed to the bench by George W. Bush at the recommendation of then-Sen. Rick Santorum) is a conservative crank who is viewed as overly partisan (even for the federal judiciary) and has been disciplined in the past for issues of bias and temperament.

And Schwab pretty clearly went into this with an agenda. He wasted several pages of the opinion quoting Obama’s past statements on how the president can’t change immigration policy unilaterally. While those quotes are politically inconvenient for Obama, they don’t actually say anything about the legality of the president’s actions – which Schwab himself acknowledges: “While President Obama’s historic statements are not dispositive of the constitutionality of his Executive Action on immigration, they cause this Court pause.”

His legal critique of the president’s proposed program encompasses all of five pages, with no precedents cited to back up his claims of presidential overreach. It was as if Schwab, in building his case against the constitutionality of Obama’s executive action, skimmed a few conservative blogs, copy-and-pasted a few old Obama quotes, and called it a day. “Judge Schwab traveled far along a very thin branch to reach this decision,” ThinkProgress’ Ian Millhiser writes, “and he anchored his decision with little grounding in legal authorities.” Basically, it is a political argument masquerading as a legal opinion.

And there’s no better proof of that than the fact that dimwit conservative pundits are celebrating Schwab’s argument for the way it tracks with their own thinking. “It almost could’ve been written by me,” said Fox News’ Sean Hannity, delivering a stronger indictment of Schwab than anything I could hope to muster. “He makes the very arguments that I had been making the entire time.”

Ideally, the federal judiciary should operate at a level of argumentation that is slightly above that of cable news punditry. But as it stands, Schwab’s ruling will stand out as a landmark moment in American history: the first time the courts have Hannitized a sitting president.

Refutations provided by Think Progress and you ridicule people for watching Fox News. LOL Hypocrite much?

I do not ridicule all people who watch Fox. I have cited Fox in the past. I ridicule you for two reasons. First, you watch Fox and are unable to distinguish between the actual news and the propaganda. Second, because you are disgrace to humanity.

You invite ridicule. You deserve ridicule.

Does anyone else see the trend of liberals getting personal with their attacks and start name calling around Happy Hour? Just Saying.

[AUDub 11,147]

Does anyone else see the trend of liberals getting personal with their attacks and start name calling around Happy Hour? Just Saying.

You've apparently never been locked in a debate with Blue. Try it sometime. It'll be a real eye-opener for you.

[TheBlueVue 177]

" I ridicule you for two reasons. First, you watch Fox and are unable to distinguish between the actual news and the propaganda. Second, because you are disgrace to humanity."

This is funny for several reasons but most importantly because it shows how emotional you can get over using false information. I see no reason to ridicule you but i do have moments when I pity your dumb ass. I definitely know a dumb ass when I see one. You quote Think Progress as fact but accuse others of being influenced by propaganda. I also find it typical of your liberal magical thinking that you "know" what I watch on TV, presumably, you people just "know" everything. LOLAY