The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments Friday over the lifting of the injunction on Obama’s illegal amnesty plan. In most courts like these, where the judges can ask the lawyers questions, you can get a pretty good idea how they plan to vote. If that is true, the Constitutional Scholar in Chief will tell his fawning masses in the media that none of the judges understand the law. Josh Earnest will be out at his podium blaming pressure from the far right on the judge’s decision. And they will say they are confident that the Supreme Court will right the wrong done to them.
Obama’s lawyers made the argument for lifting the injunction and allowing Obama’s Executive Orders to legalize about 5 million illegal aliens. Along with that, they will get work permits and Social Security numbers. Also at that point the illegals can file for every government freebie in the world and register to vote (illegally but impossible to catch). They will also be eligible to collect Social Security and are eligible for big tax refunds for the past three years. Some as high as 36,500 dollars.
That is what hurts Obama’s case. Obama’s lawyers argued that it was an enforcement decision, which the president has a right to make. The 26 states argued that the tax refunds, Social Security money and other benefits are not an enforcement issue but an intentional rewriting of law, which the president is prohibited from doing. The two republican judges questioned the underlying question that Obama’s amnesty plan is unconstitutional, a decision reached by federal judges in both Pennsylvania and Texas.
Judge Jennifer Elrod is the most obviously skeptical of the judges and she was very open about it. She made the point that it was illogical to think this amnesty program wouldn’t convey benefits on the illegal aliens. In order to lift the injunction, that is what the government has to prove. Judge Jerry Smith was a bit more subtle and suggested that a Supreme Court decision was similar in that states would be harmed if an EPA rule went into affect that could be unconstitutional. He said that fact would weigh heavy on his decision.
The third judge , a democrat appointed by Barack Insane Obama, was much more open to the idea. (I’m shocked. You could have knocked me over with a Sherman tank.) She asked Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller if he wasn’t seeking an outcome more appropriately handled by legislation. That’s a lame question because it’s already covered by legislation.
The court should hand down it’s ruling soon, but if you go by what was said in court, Barry is not going to be a happy camper.
Courtesy of Red Statements.