Another chilling daily summary of tRump 2.0, and where it's driving this beleaguered country and its judiciary. Steve Vladeck's argument re: "Rule 42", while behind a paywall, leads the reader to a just conclusion in the Roberts Court era: the "sanctity" of separation of powers, and probable unconstitutionality of a "private prosecutor" appointed by a federal judge if DOJ refuses to take up a case as mandated by a court decision.
So, essentially, no "contempt of court" citation directed toward DOJ, or DHS, or whoever is representing the government, will stick, so "contumacious conduct" WILL continue without penalty, as will defiance of the courts.
Thank you, CJ Roberts, for your part in enabling a scofflaw, authoritarian administration.
Is it conceivable that there was a plan in the purging of all competent and experienced attorneys from the DOJ? That the administration was counting on having the extorted legal services from Big Law, when it needed actual legal talent?
on those Gold Car Immigrant Visas. Everyone is focusing on 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (a)(3)(C), the statute about the Secretary of States powers to deport folks presenting "serious adverse foreign policy consequence) in the context of student protestors.
But 8 U.S.C. § 1182 has a bunch of other reasons folks are inadmissible. Paragraph D makes inadmissible "Any immigrant who is or has been a member of or affiliated with the Communist or any other totalitarian party (or subdivision or affiliate thereof), domestic or foreign. Totalitarian is defined elsewhere and sure includes a lot of Russians, possibly Hungarians, and numerous other countries.
And Section E says "Any alien who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in genocide, as defined in section 1091(a) of Title 18, is inadmissible." And that definition includes someone who "subjects the group to conditions of life that are intended to cause the physical destruction of the group in whole or in part;" Sound familiar?
“whether President Trump will abide limitations imposed by the judicial branch and what the judiciary will do if he doesn’t”
I mean, what could the judiciary do, even theoretically? The executive branch enforces the law, including court decisions. If the executive refuses to do so, the judiciary doesn’t have an army. They can hold the Administration in contempt and rule against them all they want, but without the cooperation of the executive branch, none of it means anything, right?
The only hope is that eventually Trump and Co. cross a line that even congressional Republicans can’t abide and gets them to agree to impeachment. Which means there’s actually no hope. The American experiment seems pretty dead to me at this point.
The ruling yesterday from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to decline the government request for an emergency stay of mandamus in the case of Abrego Garcia v Noem, is must reading and as pointed a rebuke as we have yet seen from a circuit court. Also it was written by a pretty conservative judge. A very bright light in the judicial wars being fought right now against the administration. The load has primarily been borne by the district courts. It's encouraging to have the circuits show up since SCOTUS is trying to avoid the fight.
Another chilling daily summary of tRump 2.0, and where it's driving this beleaguered country and its judiciary. Steve Vladeck's argument re: "Rule 42", while behind a paywall, leads the reader to a just conclusion in the Roberts Court era: the "sanctity" of separation of powers, and probable unconstitutionality of a "private prosecutor" appointed by a federal judge if DOJ refuses to take up a case as mandated by a court decision.
So, essentially, no "contempt of court" citation directed toward DOJ, or DHS, or whoever is representing the government, will stick, so "contumacious conduct" WILL continue without penalty, as will defiance of the courts.
Thank you, CJ Roberts, for your part in enabling a scofflaw, authoritarian administration.
I never thought I might be pleased at the idea of extraterrestrial aliens being discovered.
wish they would just show UP
Is it conceivable that there was a plan in the purging of all competent and experienced attorneys from the DOJ? That the administration was counting on having the extorted legal services from Big Law, when it needed actual legal talent?
on those Gold Car Immigrant Visas. Everyone is focusing on 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (a)(3)(C), the statute about the Secretary of States powers to deport folks presenting "serious adverse foreign policy consequence) in the context of student protestors.
But 8 U.S.C. § 1182 has a bunch of other reasons folks are inadmissible. Paragraph D makes inadmissible "Any immigrant who is or has been a member of or affiliated with the Communist or any other totalitarian party (or subdivision or affiliate thereof), domestic or foreign. Totalitarian is defined elsewhere and sure includes a lot of Russians, possibly Hungarians, and numerous other countries.
And Section E says "Any alien who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in genocide, as defined in section 1091(a) of Title 18, is inadmissible." And that definition includes someone who "subjects the group to conditions of life that are intended to cause the physical destruction of the group in whole or in part;" Sound familiar?
Wow...just wow. It is absolutely worse than I imagined.
“whether President Trump will abide limitations imposed by the judicial branch and what the judiciary will do if he doesn’t”
I mean, what could the judiciary do, even theoretically? The executive branch enforces the law, including court decisions. If the executive refuses to do so, the judiciary doesn’t have an army. They can hold the Administration in contempt and rule against them all they want, but without the cooperation of the executive branch, none of it means anything, right?
The only hope is that eventually Trump and Co. cross a line that even congressional Republicans can’t abide and gets them to agree to impeachment. Which means there’s actually no hope. The American experiment seems pretty dead to me at this point.
The ruling yesterday from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to decline the government request for an emergency stay of mandamus in the case of Abrego Garcia v Noem, is must reading and as pointed a rebuke as we have yet seen from a circuit court. Also it was written by a pretty conservative judge. A very bright light in the judicial wars being fought right now against the administration. The load has primarily been borne by the district courts. It's encouraging to have the circuits show up since SCOTUS is trying to avoid the fight.