http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/394...c-McCarthy

Merry Christmas.

Nice link to the opinion in that article.

Quote:The requested page "/corner/394799/In%20a%2038-page%20opinion," could not be found.

Pulled up fine for me..

Shows up on Westlaw already.

And just for clarification sake since you didn't mention this for some reason:

Quote:Earlier Tuesday, a federal court in Pennsylvania declared aspects of President Obama’s executive actions on immigration policy unconstitutional.

As I’ve noted before, I’m skeptical of these arguments on the merits (as is Ilya), and wonder whether the states will be able to satisfy the requirements of Article III standing to bring their claims. Yet as this case shows, even if the states don’t have standing, the legality of the president’s actions could nonetheless be decided in federal court.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volok...itutional/

(12-16-2014 03:47 PM)gdunn Wrote:  Pulled up fine for me..

The main story does, but the link to the opinion doesn't, at least not for me. The link is on the first line of the second paragraph of the NR article.

Once any aspect of an action is unconstitutional, Tom. The entire thing is pretty much done for, unless there's that "severability" clause put in (don't remember the exact legal term for it though).

(12-16-2014 03:51 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 03:47 PM)gdunn Wrote:  Pulled up fine for me..

The main story does, but the link to the opinion doesn't, at least not for me. The link is on the first line of the second paragraph of the NR article.

I opened the opinion and briefly scanned it. It seems an illegal who was deported in 2005 managed to come back and his car was stopped as he tried to avoid a check point. The cops noticed open beer cans in the car and he failed a field sobriety test. There was also a minor in the car. I stopped reading at that point out of disgust that Obama would want people like this to remain in the country.

(12-16-2014 03:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And just for clarification sake since you didn't mention this for some reason:

The reason of course is that I didn't mention any specifics. At all.

But keep trying to fabricate some nit to pick at. You don't do very well at real issues.

Judge Who Ruled Against Obama Immigration Action Has Checkered Past

Quote:Schwab was removed from a case in 2008 to bring about what a higher court called "a reduced level of rancor," a rare if not unprecedented move that a law professor told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review at the time was "considered to be a disciplinary action." He was pulled from a case again in 2012. Schwab recused himself from 17 ongoing cases in 2011 because of bias allegations.

More on this judge...it just keeps on getting better...

Judge takes aim at Obama’s immigration policy

Quote:More importantly, it doesn’t seem to have any legal weight – as msnbc’s Amanda Sakuma reported, the opinion “will not likely have any direct impact or serve to invalidate the policy.” The White House policy remains fully intact; Schwab’s angry missive was effectively little more than a press release.

Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, a law professor at Pennsylvania State University and expert in prosecutorial discretion in immigration law, told msnbc, “It strikes me as odd for a single judge to devote so many pages of a memo to his feelings about the president’s executive action when the case itself is about an individual immigrant who faces illegal re-entry charges. There’s a little bit of political theater, and maybe the judge had a bad day.”

Wait, it gets worse. Sahil Kapur added, “In a 2008 survey of lawyers with the Allegheny County Bar Association, Schwab received the lowest ranking among federal judges, according to a June 2008 article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. On a scale of 1 to 5, Schwab ‘received the lowest scores both for impartiality, with an average score of 2.82, and temperament, with an average of 2.21,’ the paper reported.”

And the coup de grace

Quote:Fox News’ Sean Hannity told his audience about the ruling, “I gotta tell you something, it almost could’ve been written by me.”

So Tom, do you want this to go to the Surpremes?

(12-17-2014 10:05 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Judge Who Ruled Against Obama Immigration Action Has Checkered Past

Quote:Schwab was removed from a case in 2008 to bring about what a higher court called "a reduced level of rancor," a rare if not unprecedented move that a law professor told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review at the time was "considered to be a disciplinary action." He was pulled from a case again in 2012. Schwab recused himself from 17 ongoing cases in 2011 because of bias allegations.

That all seems kinda vague... the judge removes himself from court cases because of bias. Isn't that a good thing for a judge to do?

Reading the second article.. .(about the rancor), I'm a bit confused on what he did as the article says "The court didn't spell it out, however, issuing the order with no explanation".

It just seems that some lawyers had a beef with how aggressive he was in his court decisions.

(12-17-2014 12:05 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  So Tom, do you want this to go to the Surpremes?

I couldn't care less. I'd prefer that congress just pass a damned bill.

(12-17-2014 12:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-17-2014 12:05 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  So Tom, do you want this to go to the Surpremes?

I couldn't care less. I'd prefer that congress just pass a damned bill.

What's wrong with the current law other than it's not being enforced and doesn't grant amnesty?

(12-16-2014 03:51 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 03:47 PM)gdunn Wrote:  Pulled up fine for me..

The main story does, but the link to the opinion doesn't, at least not for me. The link is on the first line of the second paragraph of the NR article.

Try this ... http://goo.gl/OOTPKV

(my guess is that you have some plugin or spyware that's redirecting your links because the link you posted bears no resemblance to the one in the actual article).

(12-17-2014 01:59 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 03:51 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 03:47 PM)gdunn Wrote:  Pulled up fine for me..

The main story does, but the link to the opinion doesn't, at least not for me. The link is on the first line of the second paragraph of the NR article.

Try this ... http://goo.gl/OOTPKV

(my guess is that you have some plugin or spyware that's redirecting your links because the link you posted bears no resemblance to the one in the actual article).

Perhaps, but it works now from the link in the original post, so I'm guessing they fixed or changed something.