They know nothing is gonna happen so they push. Someone has to push back full court.
Hmmm what would contempt entail and is this Judge providing the parties to now ask the Judges to consider contempt?
Members of the Board must count themselves lucky that Baez-Sanchez has not asked us to hold them in contempt, with all the consequences that possibility entails.
undocumented immigrant subject to deportation for committing a crime
guy applies for a special waiver to stay
immigration judge grants the waiver
board of immigration appeals revokes teh waiver saying only Barr can grant it
guy appeals to the 7th circuit witch disagreed with the board and remanded the case, ordering them to comply with the waiver.
They board refused…
teh judge,a very conservative judge,who justice scalia though would make a good replacement for himself issued an opinion ripping into trumps board of review sayng teh board is lucky the immigrant didnt ask for a contempt citation…
his exact words…
“We have never before encountered defiance of a remand order, and we hope never to see it again,” “Members of the Board must count themselves lucky that Baez-Sanchez has not asked us to hold them in contempt, with all the consequences that possibility entails.”
I beat you to this. 
1 Like
Ignore our laws, enter illegally and then get convicted of aggravated assault of a police officer…yeah…who cares?
Which does NOT give the Board of Immigration Appeal the right or excuse to do the same.
Lawbreaking never justifies more lawbreaking.
1 Like
So only your guys can break the law. Got it.
They’re just setting the stage to ignore the Supreme Court rulings if they go against them.
1 Like
Nope…put the illegal alien on the other side of our border. Then…enter legally. Let’s start there by abiding by our laws…shall “we”?
1 Like
You’re ignoring the actual topic of this thread, because reasons.
How about a simple answer to the question at hand:
Do you believe that the AG and the President should have the power to ignore court orders they don’t like?
1 Like
I’m sure there’s going to be a simple, clear and direct answer.
2 Likes
The boards proper procedure was to appeal the order, not to refuse to comply.
2 Likes
Kind of astonishing that a thread about the Executive Branch defying the authority of the co-equal Judiciary Branch gets 10 posts. On a forum chock full, one assumes, of strict constructionists.
I guess we know which judge needs to be fired next.
We have revoked your "I’m about fair law and order card.
Please apply again at a later date
2 Likes
“so called” judge.
1 Like
There aren’t any of those left in the GOP.
And if there are, they’re willing to trade government-by-Mafia for Federalist Society judges.
2 Likes
And much better.
How is this “co-equal”? Happy judge happy life?
“Baez-Sanchez applied for a special visa allowing him to remain in the U.S. if he was also a victim of a crime. An immigration judge twice granted Baez-Sanchez a waiver.”
First of all, it’s pretty obvious what is happening here. The borders are closing on illegal immigration, so libertine lawyers are looking for new loopholes. Apparently they found a law that says that if an illegal immigrant who commits a crime is also a victim of a crime, they can apply for a deportation waver, and the libertines are running a test on weaponising this law to circumvent Trump’s strengthening of the borders. If successful, they will judge-shop for waivers for criminal illegals, claiming they were also victims of crimes. It would be interesting to know the original intent of that statute.
"Given Trump’s record of defiance, Barr’s maneuver is predictable—but it is a shocking break with more than 200 years of constitutional and legal precedent.
“In 1803, the U.S. Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison established the bedrock principle that federal judges review the constitutionality of actions by the other branches of government. With few exceptions—such as Abraham Lincoln’s refusal to abide by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney’s decision that Lincoln’s 1861 suspension of habeas corpus was unconstitutional—presidents have adhered to Supreme Court rulings.”
So, it’s a break with 200 years of constitutional and legal precedent, but Abraham Lincoln did it, as well as a few unnamed others. It’s not unprecedented then, is it.
“But federal judges serve for life, and—unlike members of Congress—do not have to worry about reelection. Easterbrook’s decision suggests that when push comes to shove, even conservative judges are unlikely to abdicate their Article III prerogative and destroy what’s left of the separation of powers just because Trump tells them to.”
Seems it’s OK for Congress to push the envelope and attempt to crimp territory off the Executive’s powers, and the Judiciary to push the envelope and attempt to crimp territory off the Executive’s authority, but completely scandalous for the Executive to push back on these attempts to reduce it’s authority and subjugate the presidency to the will of libertine factions in Congress and the judiciary.
I expect this new wrestling match, like the others dealing with immigration authority, will be resolved in the Supreme Court. Who has ultimate jurisdiction over immigration? The President or a judge? I think it’s the President.
2 Likes
