How Obama Doomed DAPA
The president's counsel bumbled badly before the Supreme Court
Oral arguments for the president's counsel trying to convince the Supreme Court that DAPA (Deferred Action Against
Parents of Americans) – Obama's executive order offering temporary legal status to four million undocumented – is legal and constitutional did not go well. The justices seemed split along ideological lines, which is bad news for the administration because a 4-4 ruling will leave the lower court's injunction against implementing the order in place.
Liberals will undoubtedly blame conservative partisanship for the outcome. But the fact of the matter is that Solicitor General Verrilli, who argued the case, wrote a poor brief and mounted an even poorer defense. Although the arguments for DAPA are far stronger than for Obamacare, it still seemed like déjà vu with the administration claiming that conferring "lawful" status on the undocumented was not actually making them "legal" – just like when it argued that the fines for violating Obamacare's individual mandate were a tax but also not a tax.
Chief Justice Roberts saved Obamacare by voting with the liberal justices. But his pointed questions to Verrilli suggested that he was not inclined to do so a second time – which leaves Justice Kennedy as the swing vote. But Kennedy too seemed skeptical. Should the decision go against Obama, he'll get his comeuppance given how cynically he's handled the whole issue.
But the price will be paid by hard working undocumented aliens, living in fear of deportation, desperately waiting for relief from government harassment, I note at The Week.
Go here to read the whole thing.
