The Supreme Court clocked Obama’s dictatorial plan to allow unlimited numbers of illegals to come, go or stay as they please in our country. The vote was a tie with the usual Supreme Court traitors voting to effectively give Obama dictatorial powers and the patriots and freedom loving justices voted to stop him in his tracks. The tie leaves in place the previous ruling of the federal appeals court in New Orleans which ruled that Obama lacked the authority to shield millions of illegals from deportation.
Already Obama declared that the enforcement priorities will not change and one can assume that neither will the numbers of those deported.
This is where Paul Ryan comes in and has to decide if he will enforce and fund the rule of law or if he sides with this La Raza backers and refuse to fund and spearhead the deportation program demanded by the American people.
”
The decision upheld a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in favor of the states in a lawsuit against Obama’s plan, which he directed through a series of orders from his administrative agencies.
Texas and 25 other states sued to halt the plan from taking effect, and a federal district judge in Texas ruled the White House could not implement its program.
The tie vote in the Supreme Court means the 5th Circuit ruling holds.
In February 2015, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen granted a temporary injunction halting Obama’s unilateral action to allow as many as 5 million illegal aliens stay in the U.S.
The administration acted apart from Congress, even though Obama had acknowledged he is “not king” and “can’t do these things just by myself.”
With an eight-justice court left by the death of Antonin Scalia, the tie was expected. But it is likely Scalia would have joined his four colleagues on the conservative side of the bench who voted against Obama’s plan.
At issue was the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program, which would allow certain categories of illegal aliens to stay in America to work if they have been in the country for at least five years and have maintained a criminal-free record.
As WND reported, while it was widely reported that Obama signed two executive orders in November 2014 to initiate the controversial plan, no executive orders were ever signed, and the policy was carried out through a Department of Homeland Security memorandum signed by Secretary Jeh Johnson.
The case drew attention when Hanen chastised Justice Department attorneys for being “intentionally deceptive,” at one point ordering ethics classes for them.
“Such conduct is certainly not worthy of any department whose name includes the word ‘Justice,’” Hanen wrote.
The Justice Department attorneys had misled the court regarding when the Department of Homeland Security would begin implementing the plan.
In his Texas courtroom, the judge bluntly asked a Justice Department attorney whether or not Obama and federal officials can be believed regarding the administration’s executive action on immigration.
“I can trust what Secretary [Jeh] Johnson says … what President Obama says?” Hanen asked, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Fox News reported the judge even went further, instructing Justice Department attorney Kathleen Hartnett, “That’s a yes or no question.”
She responded, “Yes, your honor.”
Hanen had called a hearing on the issue of the deception. The Justice Department alleged Obama’s planned deportation reprieves would not go forward before he made a ruling. It turned out that federal officials already had delayed deportation for 108,000 people for three years and granted them work permits.
The administration had argued the reprieves were granted under a 2012 program that was not impacted by Hanen’s order. But the 2012 program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, granted only two-year reprieves, while the administration’s November order allows three-year deferrals.
DOJ officials argued “government attorneys hadn’t properly explained this because they had been focused on other parts of the proposed action.”
Hanen remained skeptical, asking, “Can I trust what the president says?”
The 26 states that brought the lawsuit at that time asked for sanctions against the federal government because of the misleading statements. Angela Colmenero, a lawyer from Texas, said the federal government provided “representations” that eventually proved untrue or “less than forthcoming.”
The states had brought the case because of the impact of the Obama policy’s potential impact on them.
