White House Asks Supreme Court for New Review of Immigration Policy With 9 Justices

July 18, 2016 6:59 p.m. ET
Wall Street Journal

The Obama administration has asked the Supreme Court to rehear the DAPA case after a new Supreme Court Justice is confirmed in response of the 4-4 tie they announced last month. The tie affirmed the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that temporarily blocks implementation of President Obama's DAPA and extended DACA amnesties but leaves no permanent federal ruling on the case.
The Supreme Court currently has only eight members after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia and was just one of the four cases that the Supreme Court has deadlocked on this year.
The Justice Department, who petitioned for the rehearing, said that this case should be reheard because of it national importance and because this case would not be able to return to the court in different cases filed by private parties. A rehearing would put the case back on the Supreme Court docket faster than waiting for the case to go through the federal trial and appellate courts a second time.
“Unless the court resolves this case in a precedential manner, a matter of ‘great national importance’ involving an ‘unprecedented and momentous’ injunction barring implementation of the [immigration policy] will have been effectively resolved for the country as a whole by a court of appeals that has divided twice,” the Justice Department said.
In the petition the Justice Department acknowledged that it is rare that Supreme Court would rehear a case, but asserted that there have been previous cases that have been reheard by the Supreme Court after a tie ruling that had resulted from the death of a Justice.
President Barack Obama nominated U.S. Judge Merrick Garland to replace Justice Scalia but Senate Republicans have said they will wait for the next president before confirming a new Justice.


If Senate Republicans still intend to wait until next November before confirming anyone, then that can only mean Judge Garland is a liberal Democrat.  If he weren't there would b no reason for the Senate to wait.
Obama has said that it is wrong of the Senate to stall the confirmation process until November.  He believes it is an injustice to the people of this country.  Well gee, if he really feels that way, why doesn't he show that he's the better man and nominate a Republican for the post?
Of course it doesn't really matter whether the nominee is a liberal or a con-servative.  They are all system stooges anyway.  But there is one thing to consider:  If a liberal is confirmed (like if Clinton becomes our next president) the SCOTUS will approve Obama's amnesty and every American of every race will be screwed up the ying-yang.  
I don't know.  Maybe it would be best if Obama got his amnesty.  That would make things deteriorate even faster and in the long run be beneficial to us.  The worse things are, the better it will be for National Socialism.
Dan 88!