Posted on 11/30/2022 11:32:27 AM PST by Eleutheria5
The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the Biden administration’s authority to prioritize which non-citizens to deport when hearing a challenge brought by two GOP state attorneys general who say the Department of Homeland Security is skirting federal immigration law.
The justices were considering three distinct issues in the case, which opens the door to shifting majorities. After arguments, it wasn’t clear if there was a clear majority in any one area.
The case was brought by Texas and Louisiana.
“At the heart of the dispute is a September 2021 memo from Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas that laid out priorities for the arrest, detention and deportation of certain non-citizens, reversing efforts by former President Donald Trump to increase deportations,” CNN reported, adding:
Several of the conservative justices on Tuesday seemed ready to rule in favor of the states on a major threshold issue: whether Texas and Louisiana had the legal right to bring the challenge in the first place.
Turning to the merits of the case – whether the Biden administration’s guidelines conflicted with two provisions of federal law – Alito, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh repeatedly pointed out that the law says that some immigrants “shall” be taken into custody or removed, suggesting some skepticism about the administration’s discretion in the area.
“Shall means shall,” Roberts said. “Shouldn’t we just say what we think the law is,” he suggested, and leave it to the other branches to “sort that out.”
Arguments lasted for over two hours.
A district court judge blocked the guidelines nationwide. “Using the words ‘discretion’ and ‘prioritization’ the Executive Branch claims the authority to suspend statutory mandates,” ruled Judge Drew Tipton, a Trump appointee on the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas. “The law does not sanction this approach.”
.....
(Excerpt) Read more at republicbrief.com ...
He is running again...he already announced.
Surprisingly, Ketanji Brown Jackson lambasted the Biden immigration officials for not following the law. Second time in a week she’s gone after Biden officials. She hammered Biden DOJ attorneys earlier over incorrectly using public corruption laws against private individuals.
I didn’t say he’s not running again. But even if he was assassinated tomorrow or changed his mind, or switched to being an ultra leftard, the judiciary will remain as his legacy.
In the case of the Congress critters that did not follow the law in the lawful challenge to the 2020 electoral college count, KBJ is being forced to follow the law to both remove and further forever bar from government office, all that knowingly contravened the law as they voted to avoid considering the lawful challenges to the election, which the law requires be done.
So sad!
(Hang on to your hats!)
Removal takes 67 senate votes. Let's say 40 senators care enough about the Constitution to vote for removal. Unless 50% of the senate leftists and rinos suddenly have an epiphany, not happening
The ladies on the court will side with the democrats. They always do in such emotional cases. ACB included. Watch and see.
I said that from the beginning about Amy, tug at the heart strings and females cave.
Call me a chauvinist, but women don’t belong anywhere near the bench of a court. At any level.
We might not always like his style but should all thank cocaine Mitch for pushing judges through.
What could be more compelling for a removal than a SC justice who didn’t follow the law? That would follow the example of several Congress critters.
I believe you’re extrapolating from the current exigencies and not those changed circumstances that may exist in a few months from now.
The future definition of an impeachment and removal will hopefully have far less to do with corrupt protection of those affiliated with one’s party and more to do with an unbiased assessment of whether one has truly merited removal.
We might not always like his style but should all thank cocaine Mitch for pushing judges through.He was able to get the ones HE liked.
I would be delighted to see more senators who would do their duty, but where are 67 coming from? If Walker wins it's 50-50 in 2023, with Murk and Romney having voted to convict and remove Trump.
He didn’t get Garland through in 2016.
Mitt’s religion does have a faith based prophecy about a dramatic moment happening historically—remains to be seen.
Doesn't matter. He's not going to win again even if he is able to capture the Republican Party nomination.
WOW!
This chick MIGHT be alright.
No republican can win until we fix the election fraud in several states.
No republican can win until we fix the election fraud in several states.
______________________________
And the six states are: PA, MI, WI, GA, AZ, NV
Let me see, were they fixed in 2022?
They will never be fixed. We are officially a banana republic.
USA RIP November 2020
“’Shall means shall,’ Roberts said. ‘Shouldn’t we just say what we think the law is,’ he suggested, and leave it to the other branches to ‘sort that out’.”
I read an article the other day where the author (who is an attorney) condescendingly claimed that “shall” in this legislation means “may”.
I guess he’s smarter than a sitting justice. Hopefully, that gets the smackdown it deserves.
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.