Some perspective on "immigration"?

Rick wrote: This is what you quoted in your post:

"So you believe highly skilled Mexicans (doctors, scientists, etc.) are risking their lives to get into the US illegally? Does that make any sense to you? I know you like to debate in maybes and I don't knows, but at some point a little reason and common sense has to slip in somewhere"

I just kept to that question since it was the actual point I was trying to make.

And the actual point your were trying to make was specifically addressed by me in a previous post to the one being discussed here.

Rick wrote: And on the subject of name abbreviations, it's rally quite simple. If I'm going to call you by your actual screen name, then I'm going to put it as ZHawke, because that's how you want it written out. Problem is, it's not only unnatural to have two capital letters at the beginning of a name, it's just a pain to hold the shift key down for two letters when I'm a crappy two finger typist. Who else on this board has ever complained about a name abbreviation? Nobody. Even SC who is arguably the most respected poster here... who types out Science Chic every time? You are the only member who has a name that starts with Z, so we all know what Z means. I changed my name from Critical Bill to my real name, but before that, I was known as CB. You can call me R or r or rick or Rick... if I know who you are referring to, that's all that matters... it doesn't change the discussion a bit.

So please don't be offended if I don't want to waste the extra steps typing your name as you have it, it's not meant as a insult.

Point taken, and thanks for the explanation. I guess I didn't look at it that way because, since nobody is actually face to face in any of these forums, it seemed to me the letter connotations were being used in a kind of condescending manner. I was wrong, and I won't take "offense" anymore.

ZHawke wrote:

Gregory Siskind, a Memphis-based immigration lawyer, saw partisan undertones in the ruling.

"Wow, this judge really went out of his way to get to issuing this. Neither the government nor the defendant raised this [question about the executive action]," he said in an email. "His language looks pretty partisan — 'sanctuary cities'? Quoting President Obama as a source of legal authority here is also too cute by half. The President is not a court nor was he speaking as a legal scholar. A speech is not a legitimate source to cite here."

talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/judge-obama-imm...ion-unconstitutional

Nothing new under the sun to be seen here. What started with Marbury v Madison has been ongoing since the Constitution was ratified . . .

Chief Justice Marshall's opinion in Marbury has been the object of much criticism. Constitutional historians claim that Marbury represents a paradigm of judicial activism, which is marked by judges who decide cases based on issues not argued before them. This criticism seems to be particularly apt when applied to Marbury because, as constitutional scholar Leonard W. Levy has pointed out, "[In] no other case in our constitutional history has the Court held unconstitutional an act of Congress whose constitutionality was not at issue." Neither Marbury nor Madison had attacked the constitutionality of the Judiciary Act.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Marbury+v.+Madison

I beg to differ on the "nothing new under the sun" posit, P.

Posted earlier: talkingpointsmemo.com/fivepoints/judge-a...schwab-controversies

You can beg all you wish, it doesn't alter reality. The main sticking point with regards to the judge's ruling stems from it not being part of the case in front of him. The rest of it is just more of the politics of personal destruction that permeates the actions of the left these days.

PrintSmith wrote: You can beg all you wish, it doesn't alter reality. The main sticking point with regards to the judge's ruling stems from it not being part of the case in front of him. The rest of it is just more of the politics of personal destruction that permeates the actions of the left these days.

Ok, I will beg, once again, to differ. The reality, as you've stated, is that the argument put forth by Marbury v Madison swirls around judicial legislation from the bench. At least that's my take away from the snippet you provided. Does that mean you now support the idea of judges legislating from the bench?

Marbury v Madison was decided on the basis of the judicial act passed by Congress being unconstitutional and yet neither side argued the constitutionality of the judicial act. Which means that Chief Justice Marshall, who, ironically, was the one responsible for the appointment at issue not being delivered in the first place, not only presided over the proceedings even though he was intimately involved in the case before the court, he went outside of the case before the court and the arguments offered in that case in his ruling.

And you fail to see any parallels between this and what the left objects to about Judge Schwab's ruling?

With regards to legislating from the bench, if that's the only means of addressing legislating from the Oval Office, then we at least have a check on the practice that can be resorted to. It is, perhaps, no more constitutional than Obama using his pen and his phone to write and execute his own version of the laws written by Congress, but at least it is no less constitutional than that practice is and it does serve to restore the checks and balances that the current executive chooses to ignore when it suits him.

I, of course, would prefer that both the judicial and executive branches leave legislating to the legislature, but if neither of them are so inclined, at least some measure of restraint is still possible when both decide to exceed their constitutional mandates.

PrintSmith wrote: Marbury v Madison was decided on the basis of the judicial act passed by Congress being unconstitutional and yet neither side argued the constitutionality of the judicial act. Which means that Chief Justice Marshall, who, ironically, was the one responsible for the appointment at issue not being delivered in the first place, not only presided over the proceedings even though he was intimately involved in the case before the court, he went outside of the case before the court and the arguments offered in that case in his ruling.

And you fail to see any parallels between this and what the left objects to about Judge Schwab's ruling?

That's just it - I DON'T fail to see the parallels. I see them rather clearly, in fact. The issue is whether you see it - especially from a perspective of legislating from the bench. If you're ok with what Schwab ruled, then you're ok with legislating from the bench as far as I'm concerned.

PrintSmith wrote: With regards to legislating from the bench, if that's the only means of addressing legislating from the Oval Office, then we at least have a check on the practice that can be resorted to. It is, perhaps, no more constitutional than Obama using his pen and his phone to write and execute his own version of the laws written by Congress, but at least it is no less constitutional than that practice is and it does serve to restore the checks and balances that the current executive chooses to ignore when it suits him.

This one is easy. Obama hasn't used his pen and his phone to write and execute his own version of the laws written by Congress because Congress didn't, in fact write anything, unless, of course, you consider the bi-partisan Immigration Reform Bill passed by the Senate but languishing unacted upon in the House as something Congress has written.

PrintSmith wrote: I, of course, would prefer that both the judicial and executive branches leave legislating to the legislature, but if neither of them are so inclined, at least some measure of restraint is still possible when both decide to exceed their constitutional mandates.

On this one, we agree. The problem, again, is an inordinately recalcitrant Congress that arguably has done very little by way of actually "legislating" anything.

ZHawke wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: Marbury v Madison was decided on the basis of the judicial act passed by Congress being unconstitutional and yet neither side argued the constitutionality of the judicial act. Which means that Chief Justice Marshall, who, ironically, was the one responsible for the appointment at issue not being delivered in the first place, not only presided over the proceedings even though he was intimately involved in the case before the court, he went outside of the case before the court and the arguments offered in that case in his ruling.

And you fail to see any parallels between this and what the left objects to about Judge Schwab's ruling?

That's just it - I DON'T fail to see the parallels. I see them rather clearly, in fact. The issue is whether you see it - especially from a perspective of legislating from the bench. If you're ok with what Schwab ruled, then you're ok with legislating from the bench as far as I'm concerned.

PrintSmith wrote: With regards to legislating from the bench, if that's the only means of addressing legislating from the Oval Office, then we at least have a check on the practice that can be resorted to. It is, perhaps, no more constitutional than Obama using his pen and his phone to write and execute his own version of the laws written by Congress, but at least it is no less constitutional than that practice is and it does serve to restore the checks and balances that the current executive chooses to ignore when it suits him.

This one is easy. Obama hasn't used his pen and his phone to write and execute his own version of the laws written by Congress because Congress didn't, in fact write anything, unless, of course, you consider the bi-partisan Immigration Reform Bill passed by the Senate but languishing unacted upon in the House as something Congress has written.

PrintSmith wrote: I, of course, would prefer that both the judicial and executive branches leave legislating to the legislature, but if neither of them are so inclined, at least some measure of restraint is still possible when both decide to exceed their constitutional mandates.

On this one, we agree. The problem, again, is an inordinately recalcitrant Congress that arguably has done very little by way of actually "legislating" anything.

Give them a month or two, Obama's veto pen will need a few refills. The president of NO.

I'd say it's been more of a Congress of NO, at least up until this point. I don't agree with everything Obama has done or has tried to do, but I can't abide by a literal "do-nothing" Congress.

Which gives the executive no excuse for exceeding his constitutional abilities and "going it alone" to get it done. The judge in this case has done nothing more, or less, objectionable in "going it alone" to stop that practice or at least to get it into the arena of having the appellate courts decide whether or not a blanket policy that affects every case falls under the meaning of prosecutorial discretion or exceeds any reasonable definition of it.

And, as mentioned, at least it restores some level of the intended checks and balances that are supposed to exist between the co-equal branches of government.

Or, as an alternative, Obama can mimic the other populist president, Jackson, and say that the court has made its ruling, now let's see if they can enforce it and do what he wants to do irrespective of a court calling on him to stop his unconstitutional actions.