Obama tells federal court it "lacks authority to review" his decisions after it ruled parts of his amnesty order unconstitutional. Obama atty says amnesty was needed because border enforcement is too expensive-Washington Times

.
12/16/14, "Amnesty fight: Obama admin tells courts they’re powerless to stop executive order," Washington Times, Stephen Dinan

"The administration warned a federal judge Monday to stay out of the debate over President Obama’s deportation amnesty, saying decisions about whom to deport fall squarely within the executive’s job description, “which this court lacks authority to review.”

In its first extended legal filing in one of the court challenges to the new amnesty, the Justice Department says courts have long held that an agency’s decision whether or not to prosecute someone or to enforce the law is entitled to “absolute discretion.”

“Federal courts sit to decide cases and controversies, not to resolve disagreements about policy or politics,” said Joyce R. Branda, the acting assistant attorney general who took the lead on filing the brief.

Ms. Branda said the administration had to impose the new deportation amnesty because immigration enforcement has become too costly in recent years, outpacing the amount of money Congress provides
,
so picking and choosing which illegal immigrants to deport

is the best use of taxpayers’ money.

Administration lawyers said the new policy is designed to carry out, not to thwart, what they believed was Congress’s intent that the Homeland Security Department only go after recent border crossers and more serious criminals in the interior of the U.S.

And Ms. Branda also said the policy could be “revoked at any time,” arguing that uncertainty also means the program is beyond the court’s scope.

The filing came in a case filed by Sheriff Joe Arpaio from Maricopa County, in Arizona. Sheriff Arpaio argues the president’s amnesty will lead to more illegal immigrants in the future, which means his department will have to deal with more crime and a higher workload. That higher workload, he argues, is an injury that gives him standing to sue.

But the Justice Department said it was speculative to believe the policy would lead to more illegal immigration. Homeland Security has announced it will pull resources from the interior, where they were going after illegal immigrants, and send them to the border, where they may be able to aid the fight against new illegal border crossers.

The case is being heard in federal district court in Washington, D.C. A hearing on Sheriff Arpaio’s request for a preliminary injunction takes place next week.

Another case, filed by Texas and 19 other states, is pending in federal district court in Texas.

In Monday’s filing, administration lawyers bristled at the term “amnesty,” arguing that because officials will have to approve every case, it’s not a blanket forgiveness. They also argued the amnesty “does not grant legal status to any alien.”

The administration considers them “lawfully present,” and eligible for work permits, but says that doesn’t equate with “lawful status.”" via Free Rep. 

================================
=================================

12/16/14, "Federal judge rules Obama amnesty order unconstitutional power grab," Washington Times, Stephen Dinan

"Ruling doesn’t immediately overturn policy."

"A federal judge Tuesday ruled parts of President Obama’s deportation amnesty to be unconstitutional, with a scathing memo dismantling the White House’s legal reasoning and arguing that Mr. Obama tried to steal Congress’ lawmaking powers.
 

The ruling doesn’t invalidate the policy immediately because it was part of a case over a single illegal immigrant’s deportation, but it could serve as a road map for other federal judges who are considering direct challenges to the president’s policy.
.

Judge Arthur J. Schwab, sitting in the Western District of Pennsylvania, said Mr. Obama has some discretion in how to enforce laws, but by setting out a comprehensive system to grant tentative legal status to as many as 5 million illegal immigrants, the president has strayed into trying to write the laws, which is a power reserved for Congress.

“President Obama’s unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause, and therefore is unconstitutional,” Judge Schwab wrote.

Immigrant rights advocates said the ruling was a shocking overstep of the court’s authority. Indeed, the Obama administration has argued in federal court in Washington that judges have no power to review the president’s decision-making....

Mr. Obama’s policy would allow up to 5 million illegal immigrants to apply for “deferred action,” a proactive notice that they won’t be deported, and would grant work permits to allow them to compete for jobs legally.

To qualify, illegal immigrants would need to show they were brought to the U.S. as children, or to show that they have children who are either U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents of the country.

The White House defends the policy as a reasonable use of Mr. Obama’s powers to set priorities for enforcing laws, and to stop the breakup of families because of deportation.

It now faces multiple legal challenges in federal court in southern Texas and one in Washington, D.C. The D.C. challenge, filed by Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, is moving quickly. The judge has scheduled a hearing on a preliminary injunction next week.

The Obama administration filed a brief late Monday in the D.C. case defending the policy.

Joyce R. Branda, the acting assistant attorney general who is leading the case, argued that Congress has provided too little money and the administration can deport fewer than 400,000 immigrants a year out of the total population of more than 11 million."...

========================

Ed. note: The white patch you see above was placed there by my longtime google hackers. 

.