Judge declares Obama immigration action unconstitutional

[obnoxiousdrunk]

Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama's new plan to ease the threat of deportation for 4.7 million undocumented immigrants violates the U.S. Constitution, a federal judge found on Tuesday, handing down the first legal ruling against the plan.

The ruling has no immediate impact, with the government saying there was no reason for Judge Arthur Schwab of the Western District of Pennsylvania to address the issue in the case, which concerns 42-year-old Honduran immigrant Elionardo Juarez-Escobar.

Schwab is the first judge to rule on the legality of the plan Obama announced on Nov. 20. The executive action by the Democratic president is opposed by Republicans and is already subject to other legal challenges.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/judge-declares-obama-immigration-action-unconstitutional-204446914.html

[Sanity Claws]

1. Appointed by George W Bush

What a surprise!
He ruled on something that was not even a question before him.

[AlbertCat]

4. He ruled on something that was not even a question before him.

Then how is it a "rule"?


Seems more like just a "declaration".... until he's on the case.


He "found" it?


"Schwab says he ruled on the executive action issue because he concluded that Juarez-Escobar could be eligible for relief under the executive action.

Government lawyers told Schwab that Juarez-Escobar, who has pleaded guilty to re-entering the country, was not eligible because Obama's order does not affect criminal proceedings."

What does any of Schwab's "ruling" even mean?

Nothing.

[William769]

6. ...

[Ms. Toad]

7. Dicta.

Means nothing, but others will quote it. Some will properly note it was dicta - others will not.

[GeorgeGist]

16. Reprobates are generally stupid at their core.

[Botany]

17. "The ruling has no immediate impact, ...."

But under the "Fox News Legal Team" this will be promoted as a stunning defeat for
the President.

Republicans when the facts are not on your side just make up "new facts" and rinse,
lather, and repeat.

[orleans]

2. humm... let's guess what political party this judge runs with... n/t

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. It may not have any immediate impact, but it sets an unpleasant precedent.

Damn.

[edhopper]

5. The Federalist Society

got to him so they could use the ruling for more action against Obama.

Now a precedent is set that has to be overturned elsewhere.

[AlbertCat]

9. Now a precedent is set that has to be overturned elsewhere.

It already has been shown to be irrelevant.

I repeat:

"Schwab says he ruled on the executive action issue because he concluded that Juarez-Escobar could be eligible for relief under the executive action.

Government lawyers told Schwab that Juarez-Escobar, who has pleaded guilty to re-entering the country, was not eligible because Obama's order does not affect criminal proceedings."



Seems like the judge simply doesn't know what the exec action he's "found" unconstitutional even says.

[edhopper]

10. You don't think

they will cite this in other cases?

The part about it not having a reason is the governments opinion, not a legal ruling.

[AlbertCat]

18. they will cite this in other cases?

I never said that.

But there is a firm solid retort.

[edhopper]

20. I think

we are talking past each other.

No worries, at least we agree the judge is a dolt.

[creeksneakers2]

24. Opinions that aren't central to the holding of the case

are not binding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obiter_dictum

[sinkingfeeling]

8. But Reagan's executive order affecting 3 million was constitutional?

[PatrynXX]

11. end result would be must worse for republicans

Obama is rather smart here I think. If the republicans get whoever to say this is unconstitutional. does that mean that according to the Republicans we have to enforce the law all the way back whatever it was before Regan? That could shatter our economy to nothing. totally destroy our tax base. And who's holding the bag when this bomb goes off? Elephants O_O Republicans who until 2008 courted Hispanics/Latino's don't want to have any part of this... Totally suicidal

[Agnosticsherbet]

12. In North Carolina, a court found "Reasonable mistakes of law by police do not violate the Fourth

Amendment." Clearly, a judge with his head up his ass can rule on anything he wants to.

[George II]

13. Another BAD headline (not yours, Reuters')! He didn't "declare" it unconsitutional, he was just...

...."ruling" in another case which had nothing to do with the substance of the executive action.

[Sunlei]

14. This makes people afraid to register for any plan.

I think everyone who needs 'papers' should buy Cuban citizenship and then touch dry land in the USA.

That is an instant 'safe' and uses the laws of the land today. Cuba could make a big political statement, help a lot of people out.

Raúl Castro would make the global history books as a hero

[steve2470]

15. case is here

http://www.scribd.com/doc/250315492/Juarez-Escobar

[a kennedy]

19. It's going to be a long next two years at least......

I haven't watched ANY talking heads, news reports, C-SPIN anything related to our government, politics, ANYTHING, and I'm having a wonderful time. My blood pressure is fine, no more headaches and I'm getting along with my husband again. I feel great.

[geretogo]

21. Now we know why the Fascists in the House and Senate try to stop Obama from having any Judges

appointed to any court . They need to keep the corrupt political hack judges Bush installed to push
their Tyranny over the People .

[PSPS]

22. Another bad headline. No such thing occurred.