Something else to think about: Which candidate do you TRUST to appoint 3 or 4 new justices to this judicial body? Because it's very likely to happen with the next president. Choose wiser than you have, America.CR: If we are turning to the courts as the last great hope to preserve our sovereignty as a nation-state, we have already lost our sovereignty and right to self-determination.
Across the internet I’m seeing some excitement from my fellow conservatives that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments in the Texas case against Obama’s 2014 amnesty program, known as DAPA. But having the Supreme Court hear this case actually has little upside potential and only the potential to do damage. Moreover, the potential for one short-lived victory in the courts masks the broader long-term problem of the courts being involved in immigration policy — something they declined to do, for the most part, for the first 200 years of our history (as I’ve explained before).
The overarching headline from today is that the Supreme Court has agreed to take up the lawsuit against Obama’s DAPA amnesty, Texas v. United States, with the potential to invalidate his suspension of deportations for five million illegal aliens. Reason to celebrate, right?
In reality, Obama’s DAPA has already been halted by U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen and upheld by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Thus, the status quo is that the executive action is enjoined. It was the Obama Justice Department that appealed to the Supreme Court to overturn the lower court’s ruling and allow this lawlessness to continue. Had the court not taken up the case, the Obama administration would have lost. Now there is a chance they could win and actually implement DAPA before Obama leaves office.
Hence, we are playing defense, not offense at the Supreme Court.
Related link: Supreme Court to rule on Obama’s unconstitutional immigration executive actions
