Just when you thought Obama’s Department of Justice (DOJ) has hit rock bottom, it surprises with novel ways to break the barriers of unprecedented politicization of our nation’s law enforcement.
Earlier this week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with illegal aliens amnestied by Obama and forced the state of Arizona to offer them driver’s licenses. But the illegal aliens and the corrupt legal profession weren’t alone in the war against Arizona’s sovereignty and security. Early on in this case, the Obama Administration filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs, arguing that Arizona is obligated to provide the illegal aliens with driving privileges, even though the entire issue is within the purview of “core police powers” of the state.
However, as my friend Ian Smith of the Immigration Reform Law Institute has told me, this is the complete opposite position they take in Texas v. US, the multi-state case against Obama’s second executive amnesty which will be appearing before the Supreme Court this very month. DOJ is arguing that Texas has no standing to challenge the DAPA amnesty because they have no legitimate grievance or state interest. In order to arrive at that conclusion, DOJ explicitly argued that a state does NOT have to issue driver’s licenses to recipients of Obama’s executive amnesty.
DOJ argued before the district court that “[F]ederal law establishes a presumption that certain categories of aliens, including the recipients of deferred action, are ‘not eligible for any State or local public benefits.” It further admitted that “[S]tates have a choice to issue driver’s licenses to deferred action beneficiaries, so the costs of doing so are “self-inflicted injuries”.
Hence, when it helps the Obama Administration’s argument to assert that states are free to choose (in order to deny Texas standing), the DOJ admits that states have full power over driver’s licenses. At the same time, when it helps Obama’s cause to assert that states must issue driver’s licenses (in order to screw over Arizona), the DOJ has no shame in countermanding its original argument.
And guess what? The same DOJ lawyer listed on the amicus brief in the Arizona case, Acting Assistance AG Joyce Branda, is also listed as an attorney-of-record in the Texas case.
In a little over a week, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Texas case on Obama’s executive amnesty. In a rational world governed by the rule of law, all eight justices would laugh this case out of court and uphold the 5th Circuit’s inunction on the illegal power grab. Yet, there are at least four justices who share the view of Obama’s inJustice Department: choose a desired outcome first, select the jurisprudence later – even if they contradict each other to get the desired political result.
Daniel Horowitz is a senior editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @RMConservative.