Robert Barnes reports for the Washington Post:
“CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — With legal challenges to the Trump administration’s initiatives multiplying in federal courts, new Supreme Court Justice Neil M. Gorsuch extolled the virtues of judicial independence and praised a legal system in which “government can lose in its own courts” Friday night.
It was the first public appearance off the bench for President Trump’s choice for the high court, who joined Justice Stephen G. Breyer at the Harvard Marshall Forum. Both are former Marshall scholars who did graduate work in the United Kingdom, and spoke at an event commemorating the 70th anniversary of George C. Marshall’s plan to rebuild Europe after World War II.
The event was about as noncontroversial as it could be, even if one of the first questions to Gorsuch concerned a naked sex doll the future justice observed when he had tea with an Oxford dean.
Trump last week made good on his pledge to political opponents to “see you in the Supreme Court,” asking the justices to revive his plan to temporarily ban entry to citizens of six mostly Muslim countries. A string of judges and appeals courts have concluded the president’s executive orders have more to do with his campaign pledge to ban Muslims from entering the country than an immediate threat to the country’s security.
Trump has bitterly denounced those rulings, as well as a decision to stop his proposal to cut federal funds from cities that protect illegal immigrants. During the campaign, he criticized a federal judge who ruled against him in a suit involving his for-profit universities because he said the judge’s Mexican ancestry made him prejudiced.
Jeffrey Rosen, a legal scholar and writer who is also president of the National Constitution Center, did not ask Gorsuch and Breyer about those controversies or any matter before the court.
But Gorsuch and Breyer talked in broad terms about independence and respect for the judicial branch’s decisions.
Gorsuch said he is grateful for the tradition that “judges can safely decide the law according to their conscience, without fear of reprisal.”
It is a remarkable thing, he said, “that government can lose, in its own courts, and accept the judgment of those courts without an army to back up the judgments. Just nine old people in polyester black robes that we have to buy at the uniform supply store…that is a heritage that is very special.”
As he did at his confirmation hearing, Gorsuch downplayed divisive decisions and stressed unanimity and acceptance of court’s decisions. Only about 5 percent of cases are appealed, he said, and “our court” accepts only 80 or so a year, a relative handful.
“Nine justices appointed by six presidents over a 30-year period,” Gorsuch said. “And we’re unanimous about 40 percent of the time.”
Of course, it is the closely divided cases at the appeals courts and the Supreme Court that are its most important. But Gorsuch and Breyer stressed the independence judges have to make controversial decisions.”
********************************************************
Read the complete story at the link.
Even today, in the wake of tragedy in London, Trump couldn’t resist an inappropriate tweet taking a cheap shot at the U.S. Courts. Nor could he stop himself from trying to promote panic and throwing darts at the Mayor of London. He’s certainly the embodiment of the “Ugly American.”
One of the major differences between the U.S. and the many countries I dealt with on a daily basis over the past 21 years in various courts is the true independence of the Article III judiciary in the U.S.
By contrast, Trump’s demeanor, behavior, temperament, and the folks he surrounds himself with are very reminiscent of third-world dictators.
PWS
06-04-17
We Libertarians have high hopes for Gorsuch. At least it would be nice to have a Conservative who doesn’t think people who disagree are traitors.
The whole “Executive branch needs more deference” to get the job done, a/k/a Chevron always gave me the creeps. There’s too much
“Triumph of the Will” in it. Judges should deliberate before deciding individual cases.
And the way Thom Hussey (Himmler’s evil twin) explained it at that EOIR conference, circa 2000, sounded like the death knell for any appellate review. One bite at the apple before an immigration inspector like old times. Albeit, IJs get to wear a robe instead of a plain INS uniform this time.
I hope EOIR adjudicators get the stability that comes with Article III authority. They deserve it and need it. From your lips to God’s ear. But everyone remembers how DOJ sneered at changing the regs to call BIA members “appellate immigration judges”. I’m not holding my breath.
As you can see, in the spirit of speaking truth, immigrationcourtside.com uses the title “Appellate Immigration Judge.”
The Obama Administration, even with Juan in charge, failed to make this small, yet highly significant, change in the regulations. Just another example of how the Obama Administration failed to recognize the important, independent role of the US Immigration Courts and to actively promote and enhance the Courts’ sole function: due process.
From an Immigration Court standpoint, the Obama Administration could easily have been the third and fourth terms of George W. Bush. The 600,000 case backlog is mostly on the Obama Administration and their misuse of the Courts for political ends, failure to make needed reforms, failure to invest in badly needed technology, and incredibly poor and one sided appointment process for IJs at both the trial and appellate levels!
The recent GAO report highlighted the ridiculous Judge hiring process. The DOJ actually managed to create a Rube Goldberg system that takes longer than Senate confirmation! And the results are all predicably one sided. While the Courts were burning for lack of judges, the DOJ was fiddling away.
Now, Jeff Sessions will be appointing dozens of new Judges who should have been appointed by Lynch but were not. To his credit, Sessions has recognized that the judicial hiring system is broken and pledged to fix it. How he does it though, is another matter.
Best,
Paul