A renegade president who violates his oath of office (you know, the one that requires him to uphold and defend the Constitution) is unlikely to be stopped by judges, and the legislative branch, which does have the power to stop him, had better start doing more than they have been.
Today’s news from an appellate court is another brick in the wall:
A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday rejected a challenge to President Barack Obama’s 2012 executive action granting deportation relief to immigrants brought to the United States illegally as children, upholding a lower court’s earlier ruling. <Yahoo News, link>
Of particular interest is the approach taken by the court, which was to declare that the plaintiffs had not shown “sufficient harm” by Barack Obama’s actions.
A panel of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the plaintiffs in the case – the state of Mississippi and a group of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers upset by White House directives – had not shown they had been sufficiently harmed by the rule to keep the case alive.
“We conclude that neither the agents nor the state of Mississippi has demonstrated the concrete and particularized injury required to give them standing to maintain this suit,” the decision stated.
No concrete and particularized injury?
In the case stemming from the 2012 executive action, Mississippi had sought to show it had standing as a plaintiff by arguing illegal immigrants drained state resources, while the ICE agents said they were being forced to violate their oaths to enforce the law.
I guess the diversion of state resources to illegal immigrants, as well as agents being forced to violate the oaths they swore, is not considered injurious.
Such a pretty view as we travel inside the Liberal mind…
It’s terrible that Republicans are in the minority in Congress and can’t stop mr. Obama’s illegal amnesty —-oh wait, Republicans control both houses of Congress.
So what is the problem, again?