Posted on 12/28/2018 9:28:56 AM PST by Rusty0604
Amid the imbroglio over a partial furloughing of nonessential workers in a handful of federal departments, the political class has ignored that the government has already been shut down – in full and permanently. Individual district judges now control our national sovereignty, border policy, and every other political question. And now Chief Justice John Roberts has essentially barred the doors of the Supreme Court shut to any judicial redress of this judicial crisis
One district judge said that children must be released. Then another one said parents must be released with the children. Then a district judge in D.C. said the definition of asylum must be expanded to Obama’s policy, beyond an individual fear of persecution. Now a district judge is being allowed to sustain a ruling that Trump can’t even request that they come to the points of entry
In once again allowing the lower courts to reign freely, Roberts is not only perpetuating the shutdown of our border but the shutdown of the Supreme Court itself. What is the purpose of the Supreme Court if it only encroaches on the powers of the other branches but won’t police its own inferior courts when they violate all legal norms? Let’s review the unprecedented insanity of this case:
1) Four left-wing advocacy groups were given standing to sue on behalf of caravans that are literally not even in our country simply because they asserted that their institutions must expend more resources educating their clients on the new policy. It would be equivalent to Conservative Review obtaining standing because we have to expend more resources explaining the new policies we don’t like to our readers. This is perhaps the most absurd violation of Article III standing in recent memory, yet Roberts allows it to continue
(Excerpt) Read more at conservativereview.com ...
I’m waiting to see if BK is the next Trump back-stabber over the next 2 years. He already has 1 strike against him as far as I’m concerned: Supreme Court sides with Planned Parenthood in funding fight ...
“law that explicitly says migrants can apply for asylum even if not at a port of entry.”
Even if they got in illegally? Can you give me a link to that law?
Perhaps martial law is the only answer for a little while.
U.S. Code Title 8 Chapter 12 Subchapter II Part I § 1158
"Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title."
Yes, there certainly is no evidence the issue will resolve itself.
Clearly, Mexico's open border policy is fueling our problem. Mexico apparently needs labor so, with a U.S. border closing, it may find its best interest is served by announcing it will grant asylum to all seekers, while at the same time demonstrably and effectively strengthening its southern border.
Closing the border ought to further persuade Mexico to declare non-Mexican residents who enter the U.S. illegally as criminals wanted for violating Mexico's borders and subject to extradition.
The key is to clarify the asylum feature by either staffing the asylum process with enough attorneys to timely process claims (not a difficult or lengthy hearing), or by simply making asylum irrelevant.
ping!
Fix what? The system and policy are not broken they were designed this way. Once you understand that you understand our immigration system.
Somewhere there is closet with Roberts name on it.
Thanks.
Insane law. Must be changed.
Congress defines the powers of the lower courts. Another lost opportunity when we had the majority.
For a permanent fix, Congress could use its Article III powers to deny jurisdiction to federal courts. Its the check our Framers gave congress to arrest just this sort of thing.
But, with a popularly elected congress, this isn’t going to happen.
There is a Constitutional remedy - each of these judges should be immediately impeached, convicted, and removed from the bench by the House and Senate for the High Crime of attempting to make law and exceeding their Constitutional authority.
These are the reasons the founders had a hell of an argument on allowing life time terms for the judicial branch.
It is, in a way, titles of nobility which is in strict violation of the constitution as it was formed. That was a main argument on the issue.
Justice Thomas talked about doing that very thing through SCOTUS. I don’t know if he discussed this with other justices or if somebody needs to file a suit. I’m here in Texas and I would love to file suit against the ninth circuit activist judge that is causing tens of thousands to pour across our border.
I think in that case, there were other reasons, so better to wait for a better case.
:-)
What are we waiting for?
Trump wants a Dreamer deal. That’s why he’s not taking decisive action on the border.
As long as they are highly vetted, we get the entire wall, no more chain and lottery visas, I’d take it.
You wouldn’t be able to sue the judge. Judges enjoy absolute immunity from suit for acts taken in their judicial capacity. If a party to a case thinks a judge got something wrong, the remedy is either an appeal or a petition for writ of mandamus. If you think a federal judge is abusing his office, the remedy is to file a judicial misconduct complaint with the clerk of the court of appeals for that circuit or to ask your Congressman to institute articles of impeachment.
I agree that this is something the Supreme Court could address. The Supreme Court should have tackled this issue long ago. It’s a matter of subject matter jurisdiction, which can be raised for the first time on appeal, and it’s black-letter law that courts have not only the power but the duty to inquire into their own jurisdiction even if the issue is not raised by the litigants.
That said, it is not at all clear how it would turn out—the Judiciary Act just isn’t that clear in delineating the equitable power of district judges. It’s still something that would be best addressed by Congress. Given how much angst these injunctions have caused administrations of both parties, you’d think Congress would have done something about it long ago. Who knows, maybe the recent Obamacare ruling will prompt some Democrats to get on board.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.