The boards proper procedure was to appeal the order, not to refuse to comply.
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 "Iâm about fair law and order card.
Please apply again at a later date
âso calledâ judge.
There arenât any of those left in the GOP.
And if there are, theyâre willing to trade government-by-Mafia for Federalist Society judges.
And much better.
How is this âco-equalâ? Happy judge happy life?
âBaez-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.â
First of all, itâs 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 Trumpâs 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 Trumpâs record of defiance, Barrâs maneuver is predictableâbut it is a shocking break with more than 200 years of constitutional and legal precedent.
âIn 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 exceptionsâsuch as Abraham Lincolnâs refusal to abide by Chief Justice Roger B. Taneyâs decision that Lincolnâs 1861 suspension of habeas corpus was unconstitutionalâpresidents have adhered to Supreme Court rulings.â
So, itâs a break with 200 years of constitutional and legal precedent, but Abraham Lincoln did it, as well as a few unnamed others. Itâs not unprecedented then, is it.
âBut federal judges serve for life, andâunlike members of Congressâdo not have to worry about reelection. Easterbrookâs decision suggests that when push comes to shove, even conservative judges are unlikely to abdicate their Article III prerogative and destroy whatâs left of the separation of powers just because Trump tells them to.â
Seems itâs OK for Congress to push the envelope and attempt to crimp territory off the Executiveâs powers, and the Judiciary to push the envelope and attempt to crimp territory off the Executiveâs authority, but completely scandalous for the Executive to push back on these attempts to reduce itâs 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 itâs the President.
Letâs 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 Presidentâs constitutionally allotted supreme authority over immigration by issuing him a court order directing him on an immigration case? No.
Rotund donnie admires Andrew JacksonâŚthink heâll pull a âlet the Supreme Court enforce their rulingâ move?
Well, they can. Thatâs well-settled law.
The President does not have âsupremeâ authority over immigration.
Weâll see.
What is it that you think weâre going to see?
That you are wrong.
Youâll have to elaborate. Wrong about what?
What is it that you think will happen?
He doesnt have supreme authorityâŚ
Thatâs not how America worksâŚ
In fact the very idea you think he does is anti American and anti constitution.
If that was the case trumps first muslim ban would have not been struck downâŚ
âBaez-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.â
First of all, itâs 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 Trumpâs 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.