Supreme Court Grants Trump Admin Stay Over DHS Voter Citizenship Verification
“Under section 1373(c), the Federal Government has an obligation to respond to requests from state and local election officials seeking to verify the citizenship of voters.”
The Supreme Court has granted President Donald Trump’s administration a stay on a lower court’s block of DHS implementing an overhaul of its immigration database to combat voter fraud before the November midterms.
“Under section 1373(c), the Federal Government has an obligation to respond to requests from state and local election officials seeking to verify the citizenship of voters,” the majority wrote. “The order below prevents the Federal Government from using the program it believes is best suited to the task.”
Trump expanded the scope of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program, “directing DHS to put new systems in place to allow state and local authorities to verify the citizenship status of registered voters and individuals registering to vote.”
Several organizations sued the administration over the expansion.
The administration went to SCOTUS after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit voted to uphold a district court’s block on the overhaul.
“Lest there be any doubt, section 1373(c) requires DHS to respond to inquiries from state and local agencies ‘seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual,'” the majority explained. “Considered alongside section 1373’s ‘notwithstanding’ clauses, section 1373(c) appears to contemplate an information-sharing regime like the modified SAVE program.”
The majority admitted that SCOTUS will likely “reverse the District Court’s holding that the federal defendants violated the Social Security Act, the Privacy Act, and the APA.”
The justices reminded the plaintiffs: “In 1996, Congress, however, separately and expressly authorized DHS to request and receive information relating to citizenship and immigration status from other agencies, including SSA, in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA).”
IIRIRA provision, 8 U. S. C. § 1373, states that no one, “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law,” can stand in the way of “any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the [DHS] information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.”
In other words, Congress “authorized DHS to request and receive that information.”
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The dissent in this case is absurd. A delusional foray into a process none of the three seem to understand. The speculation that recent naturalized citizens may be denied a right to vote ignores the fact that 1. that citizen could show citizenship ID, 2. that citizen will be handed a provisional ballot in 47 States and this will be used to confirm efficacy. and 3) State participation is voluntary.
The motivation of the dissent is suspect.
“The motivation of the dissent is suspect.”
Suspect?! You are much too kind. Instead of suspect, I believe the correct word should be “obvious”.
It’s the whole reason the democrats opened our southern border up to anybody and everybody and offered free housing, free food, free education, free healthcare, free everything.
Now, they get to vote. Who will all those illegals vote for? The party that gives them everything (dems), or the party that wants them out (patriots).
Yup, the correct word isn’t “suspect” anymore.
Some of the opposition might have some basis for their freak out than we might think at first blush. There’s Red States with significant numbers of illegal aliens, TX and Georgia and pruning the voter registration lists might have some impacts in Senate races and other contests. There’s lots of Purple States as well, NC comes to mind. Seems that the definition of ‘official’ will be important, how far does it stretch? Does it have to be the Gov or might it encompass an appointed ‘poll watcher’ who could then send/receive data to DHS? How about a State Legislator? Sheriff, Constable, Probate Judge, County Clerk?
Bottom line is this removes the excuse that ‘don’t rock the boat rino’ use to avoid using this tool to clean up the voter registration lists. It potentially empowers relatively minor ‘officials’ to act even within Blue or Purple States.
That the democrat justices on the Court are a clown show is not the real problem. The real problem is all the lower court judges who ignored federal law to further their own political agendas. And this case isn’t the only example. Impeachment hearings should be a top congressional priority and the subject is not even on their radar.
Democrats don;t want your vote. They wanted to manufacturer votes. Failing that they want everyone who should be denied a vote to vote. Every action of theirs substantiates this.
That seems like a reasonable synopsis of d/prof intent and actions.
100%
And this would include the D’s most rabid, lawless, political activists who will do absolutely anything to advance their agenda: Sotomayor, Kagan, and the retard KBJ.
The problem isn’t that the plaintiffs had an obviously meritless politically motivated case. The major problem is a hack democrat federal judge that ignored clear statutory law to favor the plaintiffs and an appellate court of hack democrat judges that gleefully went along. The corruption of the federal judiciary is a massive disgrace screaming for congressional oversight and congress does nothing.
Sure but without enough votes (67) in the Senate to remove its a waste of time. There is an option for inferior courts but its super controversial and would end up as tit for tat when Congress changes hands. Congress can, by majority vote in each house, dissolve the inferior courts. This way no judge is removed from ‘office’ rather the ‘office’ is removed from the judge. Then they simply reconfigure the circuits and districts creating new ‘offices’ and thus judicial vacancies across the judiciary (minus SCOTUS) for the President to nominate and the Senate to confirm.
Personally I don’t see Congress with the stones to do it and if they did the eventual payback when the d/prog took back control would be spectacular.
Using supposed senate votes as a prerequisite to House impeachment hearings or an impeachment is absolutely the WRONG way to judge the value of that process. Having such hearings alone would be invaluable in exposing these corrupt hacks and serve as a valuable deterrent to other such judicial sludge sliming around the system regardless of how irresponsible or dismissive the worthless senate acts.
Leave a Comment