Doesn’t trump ratified text or constitutional statutory language, properly understood.
But, sure, it comes after those things - for a judge doing their job properly, anyway.
For all the Trump apologists
- Thread starter Baller23Boogie
- Start date
But, sure, it comes after those things - for a judge doing their job properly, anyway.
Well the rest of that statute isn't referenced, which discusses very clearly that a court will decide the issues:
(C)Sustaining burden of proof; credibility determinations
In determining whether an alien has demonstrated that the alien’s life or freedom would be threatened for a reason described in subparagraph (A), the trier of fact shall determine whether the alien has sustained the alien’s burden of proof, and shall make credibility determinations, in the manner described in clauses (ii) and (iii) of section 1158(b)(1)(B) of this title.
Once the trier of fact makes that decision, that's it (subject to appea) or further decision of the court in regards to changed circumstances.
I quoted you Robert's order--I don't have to touch any another statement to know what Roberts said--he told us.
You ignore a significant part of judicial rulings--the interpretation of statutes, constitutions, etc that don't offer explicit demandments. If a statute says you have 180 days to file suit and you sue on the 182nd day (assuming no discovery rule), you are ****ed. If the statute says you have 180 days to file suit after discovering the cause of action, well that's another story all together.
Ha. Just ask me.
I obtained a favorable district court ruling for local government in a case that wasn’t appealed. I cited that “common law of Larimer County” often.
It is the immigration courts set up through the executive branch under the AG, so technically yes, but they operate as courts, hear evidence, appeals, bond hearings and issue orders (asylum, etc)
It isn't a good thing if they aren't able to work because projects are canceled, which I am seeing bit of. It would be one thing to a partial union and partial non-union workers. It is another thing altogether to have all union workers in labor intensive jobs such as masonry and framers. Already a shortage of framers and masons--demand has been high for them for 10 years. Unfortuantely, qualified people are not gravitating to the trades nearly as much as before.
I’m not ignoring that at all.
Judges have to color in between the lines. Never said otherwise.
They just can’t color outside the lines — or in Justice Marshall’s case, just simply draw their own lines and wait for the proper line-drawers to “catch up” because he had already done “what he thinks is right.”
This is why, for example, Roe had to go. It was entirely unfounded. I say that as somebody who thinks abortion should be legal. But there was simply no Constitutional foundation for it - which, I would guess, is why its defenders almost never defended it on its contrived reasoning, but rather on its effects.
Another good example is Bakke. No clear-eyed interpretation of “equal protection of the laws” can comport with what the court did there. We can’t pick and choose when to firmly apply the clear meaning of those words. It should always firmly apply - or else the ratified text is rendered meaningless….something to use only when it serves the desired outcome.
about what? a court hears the evidence. The IMMIGRATION COURT hears the evidence--they are a separate department to act independently.
True. Which leaves a very limited area within which the district court can act. One thing for sure, the district court cannot decide the immigration issue.
You said he was 'technically' right. I just couldn't believe what I was reading. lol
The constitution says a lot and doesn't say a lot--that was its design. There is no constitutional provision executive immunity as proscribed by the Supreme's latest ruling re; Trump. The Constiution is also not read to mean "anything listed here is protected; everything that isn't listed, is not protected."
The Ninth Amendment reflects this: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people". James Madison speech discussed this:
"It has been said, by way of objection to a bill of rights ... that in the Federal Government they are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows, that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained; that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and, therefore, a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the Government. I admit that these arguments are not entirely without foundation, but they are not as conclusive to the extent it has been proposed. It is true the powers of the general government are circumscribed; they are directed to particular objects; but even if government keeps within those limits, it has certain discretionary powers with respect to the means, which may admit of abuse"
The ninth amendment of course does not confer a substantive right, but rather a rule as to how to read the constituion.
Last edited:
Well he wasn't wrong --I'm just pointing out that there is whole system in place to effectuate due proces and to protect decision making. A lot harder to challenge on due process grounds when there is a court (in whatever branch), that actually takes testimony.
Eh. Isn’t official immunity baked into the constitution? At the time it was written, the ability to sue the government or its agents was almost non-existent.
As for Trump v US, the Justice that I think got it most right was Barrett. There is a separation of powers conflict with Congress impeding on executive authority. But there’s nothing extending it beyond that (such as with the states or with non-official actions).
The point is: she was guided entirely by the text as it exists.
Naturally, different judges can and often do come down in different places when applying this guiding philosophy. And that’s fine. It’s the philosophy I’m advocating - as opposed to the bastardized “living document” philosophy which effectively, IMO, places the people in the judiciary above the ratified text.
As to your second point:
The Constitution empowers all 3 branches of the federal government to serve necessary functions. And obviously it was never intended to cover all aspects of US law. It created a government, defined its powers and mandates, and defined its limits. The fact it wasn’t all-encompassing is the reason they created a Legislative branch - and gave it a limited scope.
It’s also the reason they explicitly delegated everything else to the states in the form of the 10th Amendment.
And yet, you're saying Garcia didn't have due process even when he went before 2 immigration judges?
But they were immigration judges, no?
Are you telling me all the deportees under Obama got a hearing on their deportations?
There is not one word about immunity except the speech and debate clause. If you are referring to Sovereign Immunity as it relates to English law ("the king can do no wrong"), that isn't referenced either.
Danc
the garica written opinions were SOLELY about the bond--that's it. jIt was the precursor to the hearing- He was challenging deportation and the bond hearing was the antecedent.
You have to ask for a hearing challenging deportion, you get one.
No Obama deportees asked for a hearing?
Seems to me 'due process' was never an issue under previous administrations. Doesn't that seem odd?
Can the executive use its powers to encroach upon the powers held by the Legislature?
It’s basically the same question - and what the court was deciding.
Why do you suppose they limited the immunity to his official actions?
You are making an assumption based upon your lack of information. There are also several types of deportation (1) those that live in the US; (2) those that make it to the board and heard interviewed; and (3) those that get inside the US. Those that are sent back at the border are entitled to nothing. The ACLU filed many lawsuits
You are conflating immunity for actions with encroachment.
You went from arguing Roe v Wade was not supported by the constitution because the constitution didn't say it. The constitution doesn't say a word about immunity for executive branch. Even Hamilton points this out as a check against imperial executive power in one of his Federalist papers. Hard to argue for one and not the other given that both rulings require MULTIPLE steps with no textual support.
The president uses his executive powers to encroach upon the powers held by the legislature all the time. The Iraq and afghan war seems to be a pretty good example.
Well, if it’s a correct reading of the text that Congress (and the judiciary) can’t impede on an executive’s powers by way of their own.
If they can, then that’s a whole different story.
The tool Congress has to deal with a lawless president is impeachment.
I am? It was the rationale for the court’s opinion.
Multiple steps are fine, so long as they logically follow. That was clearly not the case with Roe.
Is this OK? Should a president be able to do that?
The courts get to decide what constitutes a constitutional order or law
The legislature gets to decide if they want to pass a law that does away with an imperious executive order that extends to Congress' power of the purse.
This happens all the time.
I'm trying to address my lack of information by asking you the question: did all Obama deportees received due process? Did none of them ask for hearings, if they were caught in the US?
They do, yes. And they should do so within the confines of ratified text and duly-enacted statutory law that fits within Congressional purview.
I couldn't possibly give you answer to that question. No clue. But the absence of information doesn't mean they did or didn't. That was my point.
EFF THAT! It's COH he is the supreme legal authority of the dream team. He is several tiers above the Supremes.
And yet I bet you were one of many that were singing a different tune when Biden was president.
When conservative hacks alito and Thomas even said Trump was wrong, it is pretty clear Trump was wrong. You are just showing how blindly partisan you are in this debate
The odds of all the millions of Obama deportees receiving 'due process', as defined currently, are about that of you and Gojko hanging out and smoking a bowl together.
Similar threads
