Laws and oaths: Making the case for why POTUS Trump should IGNORE Fed judge’s asylum ruling

The National Sentinel ^ | 11/20/18 | USA Features

[SleeperCatcher]

Conflicted: Because the presidents who nominate them are political, federal judges who are appointed to the bench are political as well, which is why our country gets so many rulings from that conflict — or appear to conflict — with U.S. law.

We got another one on Monday: A federal judge in California, appointed to the bench by President Obama, ruled that POTUS Donald Trump has no authority to issue an executive order changing asylum rules that are clearly being abused by hordes of migrants.

The Associated Press reported:

…U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar agreed with legal groups that immediately sued, arguing that U.S. immigration law clearly allows someone to seek asylum even if they enter the country between official ports of entry and temporarily barred the ruling from going into place while the case is heard.

“Whatever the scope of the President’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden,” said Tigar, a nominee of former President Barack Obama.

Except, of course, when Obama changed immigration law by claiming authority to stop the deportation process for so-called “Dreamers.”

[Windflier]

A federal judge has no authority and no power to order the President not to execute the laws and to protect our borders.

And yet he keeps kowtowing to these black robed tyrants anyway. I honestly don't get it.

[MortMan]

The judge cited an unratified UN guidance document, as I understand it. Your position is not without merit, but at the very least a precedent that only SCOTUS can rule on this subject.

[_Jim]

re: “Yes! Appeal this Judges ruling but keep this Executive Order in place until the Supreme Court decides otherwise.”

Agreed; we can always “open the border” later, as, this would look to be an emergency.

[Jacquerie]

A couple of impeachment judicial scalps per year would do wonders. With a popularly elected senate, conviction of any judge for non-felony high crimes isn’t going to happen.

[zeestephen]

My Comment #9 outlines Trump’s statutory immigration authority, which is almost absolute in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

Trump can shut down the border any time he wants to, as long as he does not discriminate on the basis of religion, ethnicity, etc.

The next 35 Comments after my Comment #9 are just a waste of electrons and photons.

The only issue worth debating is why Trump refuses to use the INA 1952 to enforce his policy.

[DannyTN]

He did cite a UN compact, but he also cited US law. However, Rush pointed out that law conflicts with the law that gives the President powers over immigration to refuse admission to any group he deems necessary.

And apparently Trump cited the SCOTUS backing of that second law in his executive order.

So with two contradictory laws. I’m betting that SCOTUS will side with the President, especially if the law about Presidential powers was the latest passed (which I’m not sure of).

[GreyHoundSailor]

Impeachment isn’t the only way to get rid of these federal judges with tenure for life. There are some good legal arguments that the Constitution does not demand impeachment for removal of persons with ‘good behavior’ tenure. The President should test them.