How Could Anyone Take Issue With What He Just Said And Did?.......

[Yo_Mama]

22. Which is why the SC voted 9-0 that his NLRB recess appointments were invalid? Uh-huh.

I recall that argument being used on DU in reference to that issue also. The courts and the SC have acted rather consistently in powers cases, and I see no indication at all that it will change, or has changed. The SC has slapped the constitutional law professor with several 9-0 rulings when he has overstepped quite recently. Off the top of my head,
United States v. Jones (GPS without warrant):
Sackett v EPA (overreach by EPA)
Hosanna-Tabor (overreach by EEOC)
Gabelli v Tabor (statute of limitations case for federal civil action, overreach by DOJ)
Sekhar (a rather twisted interpretation of a statute by prosecutor was struck because it twisted Congress' meaning)
Arizona, of course. That refers to the immigration laws and intent.
http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Arizona_v_United_States_No_11182_2012_BL_157302_US_June_25_2012_C

NLRB SC opinion (written by Breyer):
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1281_mc8p.pdf

http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/20/dont-count-out-the-court/

This is not that close a call. Youngstown still rules the day, and if anything, the Youngstown spirit is stronger now. The Executive does have some latitude under current federal immigration law. I don't think the SC can swallow the violation of Congressional intent:
Arizona, of course. That refers to the immigration laws and intent.
http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Arizona_v_United_States_No_11182_2012_BL_157302_US_June_25_2012_C
Arizona was decided this summer, and it was interesting. Where the Arizona law contradicted statute, it was struck. Where it contradicted Executive policy, it was upheld. I would consider it a preview of the coming attraction.

Of course we don't have all the details of tonight's policy announcement and they will be material, but what the President just seemed to be announcing was a comprehensive and somewhat formalized enforcement scheme that essentially legalizes persons that Congress has not chosen to legalize. I don't think he can do it!!

The interesting part of this is the political infighting. In fact, the GOP favors further immigration. They just don't want to admit it, but the H1B thing was quietly snuck through with broad GOP support. This was originally a GOP policy designed to break unions and degrade wages, and by God, it has been effective.

So I think he is forcing the GOP to come out of the shadows with this action. And in fact, most in the country do not want people who are basically law abiding and have integrated themselves into the community to be randomly deported.

But I doubt that the SC will be moved by the appeal to humanity, because in fact these people shouldn't be still in this country in quasi-status. If they are to be here legally, they should have all rights. If the SC strikes then Congress will have to act or will bear the responsibility for not acting, which is the legally correct way to do it, and will have better results in the long term.