A Conservative Judge Draws a Line in the Sand With Trump Administration

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

Let’s be clear - you think that the Supreme Court will rule that Trump can ignore court orders because he feels like it?

Do I think a judge can usurp the President’s constitutionally allotted supreme authority over immigration by issuing him a court order directing him on an immigration case? No.

Rotund donnie admires Andrew Jackson…think he’ll pull a “let the Supreme Court enforce their ruling” move?

Well, they can. That’s well-settled law.

The President does not have “supreme” authority over immigration.

We’ll see.

:rofl:

What is it that you think we’re going to see?

That you are wrong.

You’ll have to elaborate. Wrong about what?

What is it that you think will happen?

He doesnt have supreme authority…

That’s not how America works…

In fact the very idea you think he does is anti American and anti constitution.

1 Like

If that was the case trumps first muslim ban would have not been struck down…

“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.

I can prove you wrong, using Trump’s own Executive Order as prima faciae evidence.

Executive Order 13767 of January 25, 2017
Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the
laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) (INA), the Secure Fence Act of 2006
(Public Law 109–367) (Secure Fence Act), and the Illegal Immigration Reform
and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–208 Div. C)
(IIRIRA), and in order to ensure the safety and territorial integrity of the
United States as well as to ensure that the Nation’s immigration laws are
faithfully executed, I hereby order as follows:

(Text of Order omitted for brevity, available at the provided link.)

The President’s authority to issue executive orders comes jointly from his responsibility to faithfully execute the laws of the United States and from the actual statutes passed by Congress.

As long as he acts within the limits of the statutes, he is fine. If he exceeds those limits, then the courts can strike down his actions as unlawful.

Trump’s own Executive Order cites the very statutes on which it depends for its existence.

2 Likes