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

Politics
22

The boards proper procedure was to appeal the order, not to refuse to comply.

2 Likes
23

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.

24

I guess we know which judge needs to be fired next.

25

We have revoked your "I’m about fair law and order card.

Please apply again at a later date

2 Likes
26

“so called” judge.

1 Like
27

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
28

And much better.

29

How is this “co-equal”? Happy judge happy life?

30

“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
31

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

32

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.

33

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

34

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

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

35

We’ll see.

36

:rofl:

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

37

That you are wrong.

38

You’ll have to elaborate. Wrong about what?

What is it that you think will happen?

39

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
40

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

41

“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.