Those pesky judges
- Thread starter Bowlmania
- Start date
Education devolved to job training..
Job training devolved to baby sitting.
Some of the posters hereabouts demonstrate this daily...
When I came back over here, there were 3 posters I had known, you, brother and Ladoga..and I wanted to see how you were doing..
My curiosity has been answered.
You ever care to talk, you can find me...
In a story book world, we learn from this and tighten up the structure our government. We end up with a new national holiday where we all come together wearing white and light each other’s candles.
In the graphic novel we’re all enslaved or die. lol
The Federal Judicial Center, which is part of the Federal Court System and chaired by the Chief Justice, has a multitude of resources to review, including the court's review of executive orders: https://www.fjc.gov/history/administration/judicial-review-executive-orders
Courts reviewing executive orders and executive actions is literally nothing new. Courts issuing injunctive relief on executive orders and admnistrative actions is similarly not a new thing. It is laughable to say otherwise.
Since 2001, there have been 96 district court nation wide injunctions:
Bush: 6
Obama: 12
Trump 64
Biden 14
I would also point that when the northern district of Texas issued a nationwide injunction in the mifepristone case, the Republicans rejoiced in the "rule of law". That injunction was ultimately stayed by the 5th Circuit, but the hand wringing over a national injunction when it doesn't suit your desires while jumping for joy over a national injunction by district judge over something like mifepristone because it fits your agenda is troubling.
The Alien Enemies Act is a problematic one. It is rife for abuse and that is exactly what Jefferson and Madison pointed out. The actual language is below:
"Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies. The President is authorized in any such event, by his proclamation thereof, or other public act, to direct the conduct to be observed on the part of the United States, toward the aliens who become so liable; the manner and degree of the restraint to which they shall be subject and in what cases, and upon what security their residence shall be permitted, and to provide for the removal of those who, not being permitted to reside within the United States, refuse or neglect to depart therefrom; and to establish any other regulations which are found necessary in the premises and for the public safety." (emphasis added)
The only time this Act has ever been used was during actual war time. The war time that is declared by Congress--so now we just have to look at the second part of the Act "or any invasion or predatory incursion perpetrated, attempted or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or goverment." This part of the Act has never been invoked other than in an official state of war, which is clear by the mandate that the threat/incursion must come by a foreign nation or government. The discussion about this section in the draft centered around attacks by recognized governments/nations in times not in war. Strict reading supported by the legislative intent.
The Act itself has been added to with specific protections over the years such as providing deportees a reasonable time period to get their affairs together.
It is too bad people never bother to read the briefings or the full opinion. Taking snippets and posting it on twitter or message boards just amplifies the misunderstandings.
Courts reviewing executive orders and executive actions is literally nothing new. Courts issuing injunctive relief on executive orders and admnistrative actions is similarly not a new thing. It is laughable to say otherwise.
Since 2001, there have been 96 district court nation wide injunctions:
Bush: 6
Obama: 12
Trump 64
Biden 14
I would also point that when the northern district of Texas issued a nationwide injunction in the mifepristone case, the Republicans rejoiced in the "rule of law". That injunction was ultimately stayed by the 5th Circuit, but the hand wringing over a national injunction when it doesn't suit your desires while jumping for joy over a national injunction by district judge over something like mifepristone because it fits your agenda is troubling.
The Alien Enemies Act is a problematic one. It is rife for abuse and that is exactly what Jefferson and Madison pointed out. The actual language is below:
"Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies. The President is authorized in any such event, by his proclamation thereof, or other public act, to direct the conduct to be observed on the part of the United States, toward the aliens who become so liable; the manner and degree of the restraint to which they shall be subject and in what cases, and upon what security their residence shall be permitted, and to provide for the removal of those who, not being permitted to reside within the United States, refuse or neglect to depart therefrom; and to establish any other regulations which are found necessary in the premises and for the public safety." (emphasis added)
The only time this Act has ever been used was during actual war time. The war time that is declared by Congress--so now we just have to look at the second part of the Act "or any invasion or predatory incursion perpetrated, attempted or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or goverment." This part of the Act has never been invoked other than in an official state of war, which is clear by the mandate that the threat/incursion must come by a foreign nation or government. The discussion about this section in the draft centered around attacks by recognized governments/nations in times not in war. Strict reading supported by the legislative intent.
The Act itself has been added to with specific protections over the years such as providing deportees a reasonable time period to get their affairs together.
It is too bad people never bother to read the briefings or the full opinion. Taking snippets and posting it on twitter or message boards just amplifies the misunderstandings.
My guess is Trump will lose the case of transporting the gang members. But I think he will win on most of the others
How would you know? You have been hanging out the federal bar? Or just one of those guys who loves being a self-professed poly math?
Judge Boasberg is extraordinarily well respected across both parties. He lived with Kavanaugh at Yale. Judge Boasberg is the guy who: (1) ordered Hillary Clinton's emails produced; and (2) precluded trumps tax returns
He sat on the Alien Terrorist Removal Court and was chief judge (selected by Justice Roberts):
He sat on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (again selected by Roberts)
He was appointed to oversee FISA court reforms.
Bush appointed him the Superior Court for the District of Columbia, he was elevated a few years later and confirmed 96-0.
You don't get any of the above appointments or affirmations if you aren't well respected and try to follow the law.
Saying inflammatory comments like this "Judge Boasberg is a Democrat activist. He was appointed by Barack Obama, his wife has donated more than $10,000 to Democrats, and he has consistently shown his disdain for this president and his policies and it’s unacceptable" is apparently totally normal behavior designed to whip up the fanbase and make threats. Similarly, saying "judge boasberg should be removed from the bench, disbarred and spend then years insolation solitary. NO INTERNET. WIPE HIS MIND", is totally cool.
Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, the trump appointed district court judge in Texas issued two national injunctions against the Biden administration, and both decisions were unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court. Kacsmaryk donated thousands to republican candidates --including to Trump. Who cares and what do people expect? Where was the right wing rage when Kacsmaryk issued these nationwide injunctions? Where was dopey Newt Gingrich on twitter back then? He wasn't calling for an overhaul of the judicial system that is for sure like he is now.
Last edited:
There are ways to deport people. It isn't like these Venezuelans or whomever are going to be returned to roam the streets. Oh no, they would go back to detention until someone makes a determination about staying or going. That was Boasberg's point: tell me how you know they are gang members or whoever you think they are, and maybe we can move forward.
There are due process rights and obligations that I would hope everyone would agree should be in place and should be utilized. I don't give two f**cks about whether these people stay or go or leave in a leaky submarine, but we ought to do things in a manner consistent with the law.
Nobody steps on their dick more than Trump. This is all the result of him being pissy that deportation numbers haven't ramped up. So their answer is always to ignore the law, or invoke some absurd emergency power to sidestep the it.
Why do you think autocrats love emergency powers so much?
You’re not entitled to due process if you’re an illegal!
Lucy, just when I think you cannot get any dumber, you go off and do something wonderful and demonstrate to the world that your stupidity has no bottom!
The fifth and fourteenth amendment protects all people residing in the United States, that includes unlawful immigrants and dipshit trump glazers
You need to post this again and again.
He might--tough to predict. Truman's government thought for sure he would win when he issued his executive order seizing control of the steel industry, and the Supremes in a 6-3 decision in Youngstown Sheet & Tube v Sawyer said nope, you can't do that. Justice Jackson's concurrence set the framework for analyzing presidential authority. In Youngstown, the district court issued its nation wide injunction on grounds that that the president acted unconstitutionally, the supreme court took cert after that.
I have no idea how the Supremes will rule.
Illegal presence in the U.S. is grounds for deportation. If these gang guys are gotaways, gang status won’t matter. And there is no process due for escorting them out. I assume Plaintiffs must have presented evidence of legal presence, but that hasn’t been reported as far as I know. The ultimate irony is a Tren de Aragua gang member claiming asylum in the U.S. because he is subject to persecution in Venezuela. The world has gone mad.
The US Government has outlined the deportation process that still exists on its website: https://www.usa.gov/deportation-process:
"An immigration court of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) hears the related case.
If a judge rules that the deportation should proceed, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) carries out a removal order.
Before removal is carried out, you might be able to leave the U.S. at your own expense. This is known as voluntary departure."
That would be the due process. As I said, kick them all out--makes no difference to me, but we ought to be able to follow the requirements of the law.
I'm not to concerned about people CLAIMING asylum. And you can't get it when you are the 3 idiots in NYC who were charged with 31 counts of gun violence, etc.
They knew the difference between citizens and "persons" back then and made the distinction. Better head back to the trailer, fire up the still and get back to reading your favorite Jenna Ellis Constitution for Dummies book.
Expedited removal is a process where low-level immigration officials can summarily remove certain noncitizens from the United States without a hearing before an immigration judge, typically for those lacking proper entry documents or who entered through fraud or misrepresentation.
I think this includes gotaways.
