US Supreme Court split on Obama's immigration executive action, meaning block will remain in place - Polidicks

[url]http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/23/politics/immigration-supreme-court/index.html[/url] [quote]In a crushing blow to the White House, the Supreme Court Thursday announced it was evenly divided in a case concerning the President's controversial executive actions on immigration. The ruling means that the programs will remain blocked from going into effect, and the issue will return to the lower court. It is exceedingly unlikely the programs will go into effect for the remainder of the Obama presidency. Obama announced the programs to great fanfare in 2014 as well as to over 4 million immigrants who were prepared to come out from the shadows to apply for the programs and get temporary work authorization and associated benefits. "[/quote] However, a 4-4 split means that there is no national precedent established by this ruling

God fucking dammit Supreme Court

Well if Obama did his job and appoint a new justice, maybe there wouldn't be a tied vote. Maybe if the GOP stopped being such dicks about letting one be appointed, things would get done in that branch of the government.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50574530]Well if Obama did his job and appoint a new justice, maybe there wouldn't be a tied vote.[/QUOTE] He did?

[QUOTE=smurfy;50574539]He did?[/QUOTE] He is supposed to but hasn't, and now apparently they're trying to hold him off so that the next president can do it

[QUOTE=smurfy;50574539]He did?[/QUOTE] He did not.

Yey the system is fucking broken and won't be fixed for another year or two!

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50574592]He did not.[/QUOTE] [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland_Supreme_Court_nomination"]Uh? Are you just being pedantic[/URL] about the distinction between nominate and appoint? Because if you are, you should know the president can only nominate not appoint justices. [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/04/11/can-president-obama-appoint-merrick-garland-to-the-supreme-court-without-the-consent-of-the-senate/"]Probably.[/URL]

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50574530]Well if Obama did his job and appoint a new justice, maybe there wouldn't be a tied vote. Maybe if the GOP stopped being such dicks about letting one be appointed, things would get done in that branch of the government.[/QUOTE] But he did...he nominated a pretty centralist justice actually unlike the Republicans who will never approve of anyone who isn't connected to the illuminutty Federalist law society and is so far right they make Texas look left

[QUOTE=Dolton;50574678][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland_Supreme_Court_nomination"]Uh? Are you just being pedantic[/URL] about the distinction between nominate and appoint? Because if you are, you should know the president can only nominate not appoint justices. [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/04/11/can-president-obama-appoint-merrick-garland-to-the-supreme-court-without-the-consent-of-the-senate/"]Probably.[/URL][/QUOTE] I was under the impression he was one of the possible selections but wasn't formally nominated due to the GOP, my mistake. As for appointment, I seriously hope it doesn't come to that. As much as I hate the GOP from stonewalling, it's the democratic process for them to do so.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50574699]I was under the impression he was one of the possible selections but wasn't formally nominated due to the GOP, my mistake. As for appointment, I seriously hope it doesn't come to that. As much as I hate the GOP from stonewalling, it's the democratic process for them to do so.[/QUOTE] It's in no way democratic it's exploiting a loophole, once hilliary is elected GOP will hurry and confirm Garland because they know he is the best middle ground they will get and hilliary will nominate someone much more liberal.

Someone just pointed it out, This just gave the Democrats another Hispanic outreach tool.

Good, this was an insane proposal start to finish. This sets a precedent that if you come here you'll eventually be made legal, and doesn't do a damn thing about reforming our otherwise terrible immigration system.

[QUOTE=ZachPL;50574755]It's in no way democratic it's exploiting a loophole, once hilliary is elected GOP will hurry and confirm Garland because they know he is the best middle ground they will get and hilliary will nominate someone much more liberal.[/QUOTE] It's not a loophole. If there is a serious issue with the nominee, Congress has the right to not put that person into office. The issue is that they haven't a serious issue other than being the nominee of an opposing party president. The government mechanism is not the issue, it's the reasoning behind using it that is the problem in this instance.

I'm still baffled as to what Obama's trying to push forward? Is he trying to make illegal immigrants become legal citizens? That sounds like a terrible idea.

[QUOTE=Sepia Gnome;50575930]I'm still baffled as to what Obama's trying to push forward? Is he trying to make illegal immigrants become legal citizens? [B]That sounds like a terrible idea.[/B][/QUOTE] ya if they've been here for like 10 years, paid all their back taxes and more importantly, register with the government. i mean thats a good compromise, instead of leaving them to the patchwork of state and federal regulations regarding illegal immigrant status, and having them live in constant fear of ICE kicking in their door any day. Also the fiscal arguments are completely lost on the fiscally conservative republicans of course its not like the republicans supported it.... [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/11/immigration-reform_n_3422781.html[/url] oh wait, that was too close to an election year so they nuked their own bill and complain about how obama hasn't done shit about immigration reform.