SCOTUS–Round 2: Obama vs. Arizona or Verilli vs. Clement?

By: Jeffrey Klein
Political Buzz Examiner

Well, this Wednesday it will be Round 2 for the Obama Administration, appearing before the United States Supreme Court to plead its’ case for governing against the will of the people, and not upholding the laws of the Constitution of the United States.

In the plaintiff’s corner is Eric Holder’s Department of Justice (DOJ), represented by Donald Verilli, U.S. Solicitor General (the position that Justice Helena Kagan held in the Obama Administration–before he appointed her to the SCOTUS), according to a FOXNews article today.

The Great State of Arizona, governed by Republican Jan Brewer, is in the defendant’s corner, being represented by former GOP Solicitor General, Paul Clement, who is now well known for his Perry Mason-like performance before the court two weeks ago, while representing 26 U.S. states (over half of America) in their lawsuit against Obamacare, with most observers saying he rolled a strike.

In that same set of hearings, Donald Verilli was roundly criticized from both sides of the aisle for his now famous Barney Fife-like performance–attempting to defend Obamacare for the Obama Administration.

Those on the right understood that Verilli had a losing hand–especially after one Justice questioned him on how that day he could argue that the Mandate is a tax, so that he could squeeze his argument into a Commerce Clause of the Constitution legal theory…then, on the next day pivot, to argue that the very same Mandate is not a tax–to shoe horn it into a different legal theory.

This time Verilli’s position is equally tentative, as he tries to defend the “do nothing” border security position of the Obama Administration, which states … “the borders are secure,” relying on a totally manufactured statistic touted by DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, who says … “arrests of illegals at the border are down to the lowest point in 40 years.”

The DHS’s own Inspector General investigated and developed a 40-page report late last year, after it was alerted by whistle-blowers within the Immigration Service, regarding the operational objective of Obama’s political appointee to head the organization, Alejandro Mayorkas. The IG survey found that nearly 25 percent of all officers were pushed on the processing of immigrant VISAs to … “get it to yes.” Another 14 percent reported that the pressure was so great as to short-cut internal protocols that guard against fraud, eligibility and security.

Finally, after President Obama spoke about [illegal] immigration before the National Council of La Raza (which translates to “the Race”), the largest Hispanic civil rights and advocacy group in the U.S., their collective response to him was that they wanted him to circumvent U.S. immigration law to allow [Hispanic] illegal aliens to remain in the U.S., according to reporting in an August 29, 2011 American Spectator article by W. James Antle III.

Shortly thereafter, a letter dated August 18, 2011 from DHS Secretary to Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and 21 other Senators (presumably Democrats), advised [only] them that DHS was focused on removing only illegal immigrants who were violent criminals, convicted felons, or repeat violators.

Additionally, over 300,000 illegal immigrants already in deportation proceedings, who would likely get a pass Obama’s new priorities, would also have been “amnestied” by the DREAM Act, which Congress has repeatedly defeated under both Democratic and Republican majorities.

This action by President Obama, by and through DHS and Napolitano, knowingly telegraphed to all past, present and future illegal aliens that unless they do or have committed violent crimes, they will not be disturbed in the U.S.–regardless of their VISA or immigrant status.

All that having been said–how do you think Donald Vertilli will do this time around?


Donate to
NoisyRoom.net

Support American Values...


Purchase “The Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists and Progressives in the U.S. Congress,” by Trevor Loudon