“Supreme Court sets election-year clash on immigration” read the headline in many media outlets as the Federal Supreme Court has chosen to take up the case on Obama’s executive amnesty which has played out in Federal Court in the Southern District of Texas.
The press in its collective ignorance seems only able to focus on the case being taken up by the Supreme Court as some type of election-year court contest sure to create spectacle and rancor. In so doing they’ve missed a much bigger development in the Justice’s decision to take up the Texas-lead case.
The inclusion of the “faithfully executed” issue by the justices could very well become a major precedent setting item… Maybe the court will push back where the Legislative Branch has been too timid to act.
“The fourth question, added by the justices in their Tuesday order, is whether Obama’s actions violated the Constitutional provision requiring him to “take care that the Laws be faithfully executed”—in essence, whether existing law bars the president from making the kinds of enforcement changes he sought to make,” Politico reported.
“The 26 states backing the lawsuit the court will take up argue that Obama did breach his duty to “take care” that the laws are enforced and that his actions amounted to a power grab that violated “the Constitution’s separation of powers more generally,” Politico added.
The inclusion of the “faithfully executed” issue by the justices could very well become a major precedent setting item with regard to the ever expanding, especially under Obama, idea of picking and choosing just what laws the Executive Branch will actively enforce under the broad idea of prosecutorial discretion. Maybe the court will push back where the Legislative Branch has been too timid to act.
Could Supreme Court justices rein in executive discretion?
Robert Pratt
“Supreme Court sets election-year clash on immigration” read the headline in many media outlets as the Federal Supreme Court has chosen to take up the case on Obama’s executive amnesty which has played out in Federal Court in the Southern District of Texas.
The press in its collective ignorance seems only able to focus on the case being taken up by the Supreme Court as some type of election-year court contest sure to create spectacle and rancor. In so doing they’ve missed a much bigger development in the Justice’s decision to take up the Texas-lead case.
The inclusion of the “faithfully executed” issue by the justices could very well become a major precedent setting item… Maybe the court will push back where the Legislative Branch has been too timid to act.
“The fourth question, added by the justices in their Tuesday order, is whether Obama’s actions violated the Constitutional provision requiring him to “take care that the Laws be faithfully executed”—in essence, whether existing law bars the president from making the kinds of enforcement changes he sought to make,” Politico reported.
“The 26 states backing the lawsuit the court will take up argue that Obama did breach his duty to “take care” that the laws are enforced and that his actions amounted to a power grab that violated “the Constitution’s separation of powers more generally,” Politico added.
The inclusion of the “faithfully executed” issue by the justices could very well become a major precedent setting item with regard to the ever expanding, especially under Obama, idea of picking and choosing just what laws the Executive Branch will actively enforce under the broad idea of prosecutorial discretion. Maybe the court will push back where the Legislative Branch has been too timid to act.