Clarice Feldman has a good question for Chief Justice Roberts:
When Obama didn’t like a court order,he ignored it.
In fact , he exceeded the constitutional bounds of his office at least 10 times,notes Ilya Shapiro. He did it in intervening in Libya without even notifying Congress; in subverting creditors’ rights in the Chrysler bailout; in his administration’s implementation of ObamaCare; In the political profiling by the IRS; in illegally appointing three members of the NLRB and the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Board when Congress was not in recess; in directing “the Department of Homeland Security to issue work and residence permits” to the so-called Dreamers (Deferred Action to Childhood Arrivals); in assaulting free speech and due process on college campuses; in creating and implementing his clean power plan; in his overly expansive clean water plan to cover water which is not navigable; in adopting a net neutrality rule; in implementing a cap-and-trade rule.
After the 2014 midterms, the president decided that he had been wrong 22 times in saying he couldn’t give temporary legal status to illegal immigrants. The administration engineered this Deferred Action for Parents of Americans in the wake of Congress’ rejection of the same policies, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, immigration law, and the Constitution’s Take Care Clause.
By contrast, although hampered at every turn by Obama-appointed district court judges assuming themselves to be commanders-in-chief and issuing nationwide injunctions against presidential actions on spurious grounds, this administration has continued to follow the accepted path of appealing those rulings, despite the delays that entails.
Oddly, Chief Justice Roberts took issue with the notion that these usurpers are Obama judges, claiming the federal judiciary is politically neutral. I say oddly, because twice Roberts has not been politically neutral — once in affirming the constitutionality of ObamaCare’s mandatory insurance on grounds not argued by the government and now in deciding that including a question about citizenship while constitutionally permissible and done according to the relevant statutes might have been done for an undeclared motive, partisan advantage.
Read more: American Thinker
Image credit: National Review.