The Supreme Court, tacitly acknowledging that the great Justice Antonin Scalia is still dead, refused on October 3 to reconsider United States v. Texas.  The tie remained at 4-4, same as it was in June when the Court first polled itself, but a petulant Obama Department of Justice asked for the case to be reconsidered.  The Democrats knew what the result would be, but wished publicly to accomplish two things: Carp about the Republican-controlled Senate’s refusal to consider Obama’s lame-duck SCOTUS appointee (the obvious tie-breaker in favor of the left, Merrick Garland), and underscore the Utter Importance of voting for HRC.  The media obliged on both counts, in between spasms of horror at the fact that Donald Trump apparently didn’t elect to donate millions to the federal government in the form of taxes he didn’t legally owe.

The Lone Star State was actually joined by 25 other states (yes, 26 of the 52 states) in suing President Obama over his unconstitutional executive order known as DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents).  In issuing DAPA back in November 2014, the Chief Executive sought to circumvent the Legislative Branch by granting a temporary legal status to a class of illegal aliens—depending on the breathless mood of the journalist reporting, anywhere from 4 to 11 million of them, especially when combined with the President’s attempted expansion of another of his amnesties, DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), which was also challenged in the lawsuit.

Federal judge Andrew S. Hanen of the Southern District of Texas halted the implementation of DAPA, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed Hanen’s ruling when the DOJ appealed.  Meanwhile, despite orders not to do so, while waiting for the Supremes to rule, the Obama Department of Homeland Security [sic] went ahead and temporarily legalized over 2,500 illegals.  In response, Judge Hanen sanctioned members of the DOJ for defying him and ordered them to take a class in legal ethics.

The can is now kicked down the road (“deferred”), awaiting the outcome of the presidential election and the confirmation of the next SCOTUS justice.  Still, this manhandling of the Obama administration would seem like something of a victory against an arrogant executive refusing to do his job.

Except it isn’t.  That’s because “deferred action”—the President’s official nonchalance regarding illegal aliens with anchor babies—is not really being challenged.  Both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush “deferred” the action of deporting illegals, effectively stating that, in view of the fact that the (then) INS didn’t have the resources to round all of them up, the President could just rule out the deportation of entire classes of aliens.  Again, deferred action (a massive amnesty loophole) isn’t on the table.  What’s being challenged in Texas is the fact that the language of DAPA uses the term “lawful status”; that it therefore allows those temporarily amnestied to apply for work visas and even Social Security cards; and that it would cost Texas a lot of money, because the state pays for drivers’ licenses, issuing them free of charge.

In other words, the case against DAPA is not about principle.  It does not address the president’s ability fundamentally to alter the composition of the country and bankrupt it in the process.  It niggles over terminology and money, hoping to win one battle, with no hope of winning the war.

As president, Hillary Clinton vows, she would “defend President Obama’s executive actions—known as DACA and DAPA—against partisan attacks.”  In fact, she’d see Obama’s “deferred action” and raise it, according to her campaign website: “If Congress keeps failing to act on comprehensive immigration reform, Hillary will enact a simple system for those with sympathetic cases.”

With whom does the left not sympathize, besides American citizens?