The PJ Tatler

A Rational, Legal Counter to Obama's Immigration Tantrum Is Underway

Adults in the room.

The morning after President Barack Obama announced his sweeping action to overhaul the U.S. immigration system, conservative groups and states were already pulling together legal strategies to dismantle the plan.

Opponents said there will likely be a three-pronged legal approach to stymie Obama’s moves: Congress could sue the president for constitutional overreach, states could file lawsuits arguing the action strains local finances, or individuals could try to prove they’ve been harmed by the order. Just hours after the speech, an Arizona sheriff filed suit arguing the reform is unconstitutional.

“There is going to be massive litigation all over the place because there is tremendous legal confusion about what the administration is doing and what the states’ obligations will be,” said Dan Stein from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), which calls for restrictions on immigration.

While law scholars say the president is on strong legal footing, a flurry of lawsuits will cause headaches for the Obama administration in its final two years and may stir public opinion against a policy meant to be one of his signature triumphs.

How the members of the MSM don’t sustain orthopedic injuries from the contortions they go through to cover for Obama in everything they write is beyond me. At the end of the above quote we see the standard press contention that public opinion is overwhelmingly on the side of the president when it comes to immigration, which it is not. They’ve also made a host of legal scholars who side with the president appear out of the ether to reassure us that all is legit, a story even the New York Times doesn’t completely buy.

The important thing to note here is that Election Night 2014 also gave the Republicans strength at the state level. There is very little cover beyond the usual suspects in the media for the president on this issue. Were his authority “strong” and clear, they wouldn’t be fretting about what the public thinks when the courts weigh in.