“TORTURE” UNDER U.N. DEFINITION! ☠️— “GOVERNMENT-SANCTIONED CHILD ABUSE!” — WHAT HAVE WE BECOME AS A PEOPLE & A NATION? — AMERICA HAS PUT NOTORIOUS CHILD ABUSERS AND SHAMELESS “PERPS” OF “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” IN CHARGE — We Now Have A Chance To Throw Them Out & Start The Return To Human Decency As An Overriding National Value! 🗽

Here’s an array of reports on how America under the Trump regime has joined the ranks of dictatorships, torturers, child abusers, persecutors, and human rights criminals!

Eugene Robinson
Opinion Columnist
Washington Post
Source: WashPost Website

Eugene Robinson @ WashPost:

What kind of people are we? As a society, are we so decadent and insecure that we show “toughness” by deliberately being cruel to innocent children? Is this what our nation has come to? Or are we better than that?

This election demands we answer those questions. The choice between President Trump and Joe Biden is not just political. It is also moral. And perhaps nothing more starkly illustrates the moral dimension of that decision than the Trump administration’s policy of kidnapping children at the southern U.S. border, ripping them away from their families — and doing so for no reason other than to demonstrate Trump’s warped vision of American strength.

We learned this week that some of those separations will probably be permanent. As NBC News first reported, 545 boys and girls taken as many as three years ago — the children of would-be immigrants and asylum seekers, mostly from Central America — have not been reunited with their parents and may never see their families again.

These are not among the nearly 3,000 families separated at the border in 2018, when children were kept in cages like animals or shipped away to facilities across the country, hundreds or thousands of miles from the border. We now know, thanks to the American Civil Liberties Union and other pro bono lawyers, that an additional 1,500 children were torn away from their families beginning in 2017, when the Trump administration conducted a trial run of the separation policy.

Please think about that. The shocking scenes we saw two years ago did not result from a sudden spasm of presidential anger. They didn’t stem from a Fox News segment Trump might have seen one evening. Rather, the administration rehearsed this form of cruelty.

What the administration did not plan for was how to reunite the children taken in 2017 with their families. Many of the parents were deported, and their children were placed in shelters around the country, then ostensibly released to parents or guardians, placements that the ACLU is still trying to confirm.

[Our Democracy in Peril: A series on the damage Trump has caused — and the danger he would pose in a second term]

The ACLU and other organizations have sent investigators to towns and villages in Central America in an attempt to find the kidnapped children’s families — an effort complicated not just by time and distance, but also by the covid-19 pandemic. Parents of 545 children have not been found, the ACLU reported this week.

Disturbingly, the Department of Homeland Security suggested that some of the parents declined to get their children back so they could remain in the United States. Keep in mind that most of these families were seeking asylum from deadly violence in their home countries. The Trump administration changed immigration guidelines to make it unlikely that the families would ultimately be allowed to stay in the United States, but federal law gives them the right to apply for asylum and to have their cases heard. They did nothing wrong. They should never have been asked to choose between parenting their children and getting them to safety — not by their home countries, and not by the United States.

Trump’s racism and xenophobia have been hallmarks of his presidency from the beginning, so perhaps it should be no surprise that he would preside over such an outrage. But he didn’t do this by himself. He had plenty of help.

Former attorney general Jeff Sessions seized an opportunity to make his rabid antipathy toward Hispanic immigration into policy. White House senior adviser Stephen Miller, a former Sessions aide in the Senate, was the architect of Trump’s “zero tolerance” immigration policy. Then-White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly said in 2018 that the children taken would be “taken care of — put into foster care or whatever.” Former homeland security secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said last year that she regretted that “information flow and coordination to quickly reunite the families was clearly not in place” — but not the separations themselves.

. . . .

Read the rest of Eugene’s article here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/do-we-tolerate-the-kidnapping-of-children-this-election-is-our-chance-to-answer/2020/10/22/0f60d17c-1496-11eb-ad6f-36c93e6e94fb

***********************

Elise Foley
Deputy Enterprise Editor
HuffPost
Photo Source: HuffPost.com

Elise Foley @ HuffPost:

President Donald Trump’s administration started and carried out a policy that took more than 4,000 children from their parents, at least 545 of whom are still split apart years later. But at Thursday’s debate, the president insisted that he did nothing wrong at all ― blaming his Democratic predecessors and even insisting the kids are doing fine.

“They are so well taken care of,” Trump said of the children taken from their parents by his administration. “They’re in facilities that were so clean.”

Trump’s first term was marked by a full-out assault on immigration, both legal and unauthorized. The most dramatic was his “zero tolerance” policy on unauthorized border-crossing, used in a 2017 pilot program and expanded more broadly in 2018, that led to criminal prosecution of parents and locking up their kids separately. Splitting up families was intentional and calculated, according to multiple reports.

Thanks to mass public outrage and a court order, Trump was forced to stop his family separation policy. Most families were reunited, but the American Civil Liberties Union, which was part of the lawsuit against the government that stopped the policy, said this week that at least 545 kids are still away from their parents.

“Their kids were ripped from their arms and separated,” Democratic nominee Joe Biden said during the debate. “And now they cannot find over 500 sets of those parents and those kids are alone. Nowhere to go. Nowhere to go. It’s criminal.”

. . . .

Read the rest of Elise’s article here:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-debate-family-separation_n_5f924368c5b62333b2439d2b

********************

Washington Post Columnist Ruth Marcus, moderates a panel discussion about chronic poverty with Education Secretary John B. King and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, during the National Association of Counties at the Washington Marriott Wardman Park, in Washington, DC, on Tuesday, Feb. 23, 2016. U.S. Department of Agriculture photo by Lance Cheung.

Ruth Marcus @ WashPost:

545.

That is the number of children still separated from their families by the Trump administration — separated deliberately, cruelly and recklessly. They might never be reunited with their parents again. Even if they are, the damage is unimaginable and irreparable.

545.

Even one would be too many. Each one represents a unique tragedy. Imagine being ripped from your parents, or having your child taken from you. Imagine the desperation that the parents feel, the trauma inflicted on their children.

545.

That number represents an indelible stain on President Trump and every individual in his administration who implemented this policy, flawed at the conception and typically, gruesomely incompetent in the execution. It is, perhaps in the technical sense but surely in the broader one, a crime against humanity. It is torture.

545.

That number — I will stop repeating it, yet it cannot be repeated enough — represents a moral challenge and responsibility for the next administration. If Joe Biden is elected president, he must devote the maximum resources of the federal government to fixing this disaster. The United States broke these families; it must do whatever it takes to help them heal.

Nothing like that would happen in a second Trump term, because Trump himself doesn’t care. He doesn’t grasp the horror that he oversaw. He doesn’t comprehend the policy, and he is incapable of feeling the pain it inflicted.

Those truths could not have been clearer cut than during Thursday night’s debate.

Moderator Kristen Welker of NBC News asked the president a simple question: “How will these families ever be reunited?”

First, Trump misstated the situation: “Their children are brought here by coyotes and lots of bad people, cartels, and they’re brought here, and they used to use them to get into our country.”

No. These are children separated from their families, not separated from smugglers. They are children brought by their parents in desperate search of a better life, desperate enough that they would take the risk of the dangerous journey.

Then Trump pivoted to the irrelevant: “We now have as strong a border as we’ve ever had. We’re over 400 miles of brand new wall. You see the numbers. And we let people in, but they have to come in legally.”

Welker persisted: “But how will you reunite these kids with their families, Mr. President?”

Trump responded by pointing his finger at his predecessor: “Let me just tell you, they built cages. You know, they used to say I built the cages, and then they had a picture in a certain newspaper and it was a picture of these horrible cages and they said look at these cages, President Trump built them, and then it was determined they were built in 2014. That was him.”

This is typical Trumpian deflection, bluster undergirded by ignorance. The “cages” are ugly but irrelevant to the topic at hand: the deliberately cruel plan to deter border-crossing by separating children from parents. That was a Trump administration special, implemented with callous sloppiness and so extreme that even the Trump administration abandoned it.

Welker, for the third time: “Do you have a plan to reunite the kids with their families?”

At which point Trump made clear that he did not: “We’re trying very hard, but a lot of these kids come out without the parents, they come over through cartels and through coyotes and through gangs.” The children, he added later, “are so well taken care of, they’re in facilities that were so clean.”

. . . .

Read the rest of Ruth’s op-ed here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/545-children-are-still-separated-from-their-families-what-if-one-of-them-were-yours/2020/10/23/63d3be04-154f-11eb-ba42-ec6a580836ed_story.html

********************

Bess Levin
Politics & Finance Writer
Vanity Fair

Bess Levin @ Vanity Fair:

The third and final presidential debate gave Donald Trump and Joe Biden the opportunity to make their final pitch to the American people before the 2020 election. For the Democratic nominee, that meant driving home the point that he believes in science, that he’ll take the COVID-19 pandemic seriously, that climate change is real, and that systemic racism must be dealt with. For Trump, it meant making it clear that in addition to being a science-denying, QAnon-promoting dimwit, he’s also an actual monster who thinks separating small children from their parents, in some cases permanently, is absolutely fine.

Asked by moderated Kristen Welker about the news that parents of 545 children separated at the border—60 of whom are under the age of five—cannot be located, Trump defended the policy and gave no explanation for how the government plans to find these people and reunite their families. “Children are brought here by coyotes and lots of bad people, cartels, and they’re brought here and they used to use them to get into our country,” Trump said, which is objectively false, as they are brought here by their parents, which is why it’s called the family separation policy. “We now have as strong a border as we’ve ever had. We’re over 400 miles of brand new wall. You see the numbers and we let people in but they have to come in legally.”

Noting that Trump hadn’t answered the question, Welker pressed: “But how will you unite these kids with their families?”

“They built cages, they used to say I built cages…that was him,” Trump said, pointing to Biden and referring to the fact that the Obama administration did build temporary enclosures but failing, naturally, to mention that his predecessor did not separate families.

“Do you have a plan to reunite the kids with their parents?” Welker asked a third time. Again, Trump responded by claiming that the children “come without the parents, they come over through cartels and through coyotes and through gangs.”

At this point, Joe Biden was given a chance to weigh in and used his time to describe the policy implemented by Trump as the horror show all non-sociopaths know it to be. “Parents, their kids were ripped from their arms and they were separated and now they cannot find over 500 sets of those parents and those kids are alone, nowhere to go. It’s criminal.”

Then Trump interjected with what he apparently believed was an important point that would cast his administration in a much more favorable light and perhaps might even win it some awards or sainthood by the Catholic church. “Kristen, I will say this,” he told the moderator, of the children stolen from their parents. “They’re so well taken care of. They’re in facilities that are so clean.

With regard to that claim, NBC News reporter Jacob Soboroff weighed in on that after the debate, telling Rachel Maddow: “I was one of the reporters I guess the president mentioned, they invited me to go to the epicenter of this policy…what I saw was little children sitting on concrete floors, covered by mylar blankets, supervised by security contractors in a watchtower, it makes me sick every time I recall it. And Physicians for Human Rights…called this torture…the American Academy of Pediatrics called this state-sanctioned child abuse, and the president of the United States I guess interprets that as children being well taken care of.”

Read the rest of The Levin Report here:

https://mailchi.mp/c4319dce073e/levin-report-trumps-heart-bursting-with-sympathy-for-his-buddy-bob-kraft-2882762?e=adce5e3390

********************

Jacob Soboroff
NBC Correspondent
Jacob Soboroff at the ABC News Democratic Debate
National Constitution Center. Philadelphia, PA.
Creative Commons License

Here’s a video from NBC New’s Jacob Soboroff, who has actually been inside “Trump’s Kiddie Gulag.” Surprise spoiler: It’s not “nice.” More like “torture” and “child abuse.”

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/soboroff-the-conditions-of-migrant-children-trump-described-as-well-taken-care-of-made-me-sick-94450757764

*********************

And, here’s another video from NBC News’s always incisive and articulate Julia Edwards Ainsley:

https://www.cnbc.com/video/2020/10/21/lawyers-cant-find-parents-of-545-migrant-children-separated-by-the-trump-administration.html

*******************

There is neither moral nor legal justification for what the Trump regime has done to asylum seekers and other migrants over the past four years as part of their racist, White Nationalist, nativist agenda. But, we can show that we’re a better country than his horrible vision by voting him and all of his enablers out of office! Vote ‘Em out, vote ‘Em out!

PWS

10-25-20

🦘🏴‍☠️☠️⚰️⚖️👎🏻🤮“KANGAROO KOURTS” MUST GO: NY City Bar Blasts Billy The Bigot Barr’s Deadly Immigration Court Farce, Calls For Article I! — “This step is now more crucial than ever, as ‘the many steps that the current administration has taken to politicize the court…have frayed the bare threads of justice that existed before to the point of a complete rupture, leaving not even the appearance of justice or due process of law.’”

Kangaroos
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/
Creative Commons License

EYORE — “Eyore In Distress”
Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”

City Bar Report Highlights Threats to Independence of Immigration Court System — Calls for Creation of Independent Article I Court

October 21, 2020

The New York City Bar Association has released a report on recent immigration policy changes “to highlight its concerns about their impact on the independence of the immigration court system as well as the due process rights of those who pass through the immigration system.”

The “Report on the Independence of the Immigration Courts” responds to an “inherent conflict of interest” in housing a judicial adjudicatory body such as the Executive Office for Immigration Review within the Department of Justice, “a federal agency primarily charged with law enforcement,” which the City Bar says has been exacerbated by various actions that DOJ has taken that “prioritize the administration’s political agenda over fairness in the immigration court system.”

According to the report, the DOJ “has taken several steps to reorganize immigration courts and the [Board of Immigration Appeals] in a way that aligns them more closely with the [current] administration’s goals of enforcing harsher and more restrictive immigration policies.” These steps include hiring practices that place judges “with records of much higher than average asylum denial rates” on the BIA; implementation of restrictive performance metrics for immigration judges, made in the name of efficiency but that in actuality “ignores the underlying reasons for the backlog;” a practice of reassigning cases “on a large scale in a manner that undermines judicial independence;” and a campaign to stifle immigration judges who speak up, including “efforts to decertify the union of IJs in a manner that further undermines the independence of the immigration courts.”

The report describes how Attorneys General in recent years have made use of “a previously rarely-used procedural tool, self-certification…to rewrite immigration court policies through changes in substantive case law, rather than following more traditional pathways of issuing regulations and legislative recommendations, both of which, notably, are more lengthy and transparent processes.” Moreover, the report details the ways in which “basic procedural mechanisms and immigration court scheduling functions are being limited or curtailed in a manner that promotes political objectives over due process,” by pushing judges to rush decisions or by restricting access to the courts and to appellate review with administrative barriers.

As detailed in the report, these legal and structural changes in the immigration judicial system have “turn[ed] its corridors into a maze. Without transparency and accountability, due process is inevitably eroded. The lack of transparency also impedes meaningful attempts at reform.” New policies have restricted public access to information, forced asylum seekers to mount their applications from outside the U.S., and prevented meaningful oversight from independent observers. All of these measures, according to the report, “tip the scales towards more and faster deportations, at the expense of due process.”

The report concludes that “moving the immigration court system out of the DOJ and making it into an independent Article I court would safeguard immigration law from being rewritten by each administration, and would thus ensure due process for the immigrants appearing before the courts.” This step is now more crucial than ever, as “the many steps that the current administration has taken to politicize the court…have frayed the bare threads of justice that existed before to the point of a complete rupture, leaving not even the appearance of justice or due process of law.”

The report can be read here: https://bit.ly/31tFEpm

***************

Many thanks to my friend and NDPA stalwart Elizabeth Gibson of the NY Legal Assistance Group for distributing this.

“[N]ot even the appearance of justice or due process of law.” Yup! “Courtside” has been saying it for a long time!

There is a dual problem here. The failure of the Immigration Courts is a national disgrace. But, an even bigger disgrace is the failure of the GOP Senate and the Article III Judiciary to end this farce that kills people and is destroying the integrity of the entire U.S. Justice system while promoting racism and unequal justice.

Vote ‘Em out, vote ‘Em out. We need to get a start on saving democracy and getting better judges for a better America — from the Immigration Courts to the Supremes!

PWS

1-22-20

BELOW THE RADAR SCREEN: Career Prosecutor Jonathan Fahey Quietly Installed As Head Of Office Of Principal Legal Advisor (“OPLA”) @ ICE

https://www.ice.gov/leadership

According to the ICE website, Jonathan Fahey is now the Principal Legal Advisor (“PLA”) at ICE. The “PLA” selects and supervises hundreds of ICE Chief and Assistant Chief Counsel who represent DHS in Immigration Courts nationwide as well as advises the Director of ICE and the Secretary of DHS on ICE legal matters.

Curiously, the prior PLA, Tony H. Pham is listed on the ICE website as “Senior Official Performing the Duties of The Director.” That’s bureaucratic gobbledygook for “Acting Director.” However, Fahey is not listed as “acting” in the PLA position. That leaves the question of exactly what Pham’s “official” position is these days.

Of course, it’s all part of a Trump regime “policy” of using “actings” and various related gimmicks to evade the Senate confirmation process and accompanying public scrutiny of senior political leadership at DHS. It also makes it easier for the White House to “lean on” and threaten, remove, or transfer senior officials because they lack the legitimacy and “political constituency” that comes from Senate confirmation. The ICE Director (formerly known as “Assistant Secretary”) requires Senate confirmation, the PLA does not. Incredibly, notwithstanding its “high visibility,” ICE has not had a duly appointed and confirmed Director during this Administration.

This ICE website doesn’t list Fahey’s bio. But, he’s no stranger to lawyers practicing in Northern Virginia. Here’s what Politico had to say when he joined ICE in April 2020:

DHS ARRIVAL LOUNGE — Jonathan Fahey is now a senior adviser at DHS. He previously was in the U.S. attorney’s office in the Eastern District of Virginia for 17 years, with a brief stint in 2018 as general counsel of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2020/04/16/trumps-impossible-adjourn-congress-bank-shot-488936

**************
Historical footnote: The DHS Chief Counsel program is the “direct descendent” of the “Legacy INS” Chief Legal Officer and later District Counsel programs that I helped establish as INS Deputy General Counsel (and occasionally Acting General Counsel) under the leadership of then INS General Counsel (now Immigration Judge) Dave Crosland and his successor the late Maurice C. “Iron Mike” Inman, Jr. Prior to that, INS Trial Attorneys were selected by the General Counsel, but were supervised and evaluated by the District Directors, actually their “clients.”

This ushered in the era of “independent legal advice” at INS, patterned on the “U.S. Attorney model.” Among other changes, it resulted in the appointment of many additional “Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys” (“SAUSAs”) from INS to assist with both civil and criminal litigation in the U.S. District Courts. It also resulted in the assignment of “Sector Counsel” to advise Border Patrol Chiefs. Additionally, a “failed power move” by the “Nelson/Inman/Schmidt Cabal” to take over the U.S. Circuit and District Court litigation from the DOJ Criminal Division, prompted the creation of the Office of Immigration Litigation (“OIL”) in the DOJ Civil Division, as well as the creation of EOIR as a separate entity to house the Immigration Courts and the BIA in 1983.

But, institutional change never comes easily, particularly at a place like the “Legacy INS.” I remember the first “Annual Commissioner’s Conference” during the tenure of the late Commissioner Al Nelson, held during the early months of the Reagan Administration. Perhaps the location was at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (“FLETC”) in Glynco, Georgia. In any event, it was in a “classroom-type setting.”

I found myself “in the pit” of an “amphitheater-type” classroom, the seats filled with super-irate INS District Directors and Regional Commissioners screaming that I had “stolen their attorneys.” Of course it’s always a bad idea to scream at the “loudest voice in the room” — me! So, I was shouting back at a decibel level that must of carried halfway to Atlanta!

Meanwhile, my “new boss,” “Iron Mike” was sitting in the first row alternately guffawing and shaking his head as I “aggressively defended” our policies and tried to explain how it would be a “win-win” for everyone. (It was! Eventually, almost everyone in the room was “lobbying” me for more lawyers, SAUSAs, and “personal assistance” in handling their never-ending legal problems).

Afterwards, Mike came up to me and said “Jesus, Schmidt, you managed to piss off and out-yell every manager in the country. Great job!”

Of course, “Iron Mike” was no slouch when it came to the “strategic yell” — once in a “Bobby Knight moment” sending one of our budget analysts into a fainting spell. “GENCO” in the “Time Iron Mike” wasn’t a place for the faint of heart!

And, of course his “favorite tactic” was to yell at me: “What did they teach you at that lefty law school in Madison?” No “Legal Executive Council” meeting was complete without us getting into least one “knock down drag ‘em out” in front of the “troops.” But, the relationship worked. We actually complemented each other and got a lot accomplished.

So, for better or worse (mostly seems like the latter, these days), I was one of the “Founding  Fathers” of the modern DHS Chief Counsel/Assistant Chief Counsel system.

PWS

10-20-20

🇺🇸🏈👍🏼 FORMER PACKER SUPERBOWL-WINNING 🏆 HEAD COACH MIKE HOLMGREN WITH SOME GREAT ADVICE: GET TRUMP OFF THE FIELD BEFORE HE CAN DO ANY MORE DAMAGE!

https://madison.com/wsj/opinion/column/mike-holmgren-vote-to-take-president-trump-off-the-field/article_5857f1a8-6d58-56d2-acd5-19b8c1b1cac2.html

From the Wisconsin State Journal:

In more than three decades of coaching, I’ve come to learn one thing: You cannot be afraid to take a player off the field if it will help the team.

Donald Trump said he alone could fix the challenges facing our country. But as we’ve seen during these past four years, he’s in over his head — and we’re all paying the price for that. It’s time to take President Trump off the field.

Months into this pandemic, coronavirus cases are continuing to skyrocket in Wisconsin. More than 1,500 Wisconsinites have lost their lives to the pandemic. Green Bay, a city I love dearly, is seeing some of the highest infection rates in the country. Hospitals are overflowing, people are hurting, and families are needlessly suffering. More than 4,000 fewer people in Green Bay are employed now, compared to when President Trump took office. Far too many small businesses have had to close their doors for good. And the heart and soul of Green Bay — our game days with thousands of fans at Lambeau Field — are no more.

President Trump’s failure to mount a forceful response to the coronavirus pandemic will go down as one of the most consequential failures of government in American history. In Green Bay alone, the indefinite hold on fans at Lambeau Field — yet another consequence of President Trump’s failed leadership — is proving devastating to Green Bay’s small businesses. Each Packers home game provides $15 million in economic impacts to the city of Green Bay — but not this year.

. . . .

*****************

Read the rest of Mike’s op-ed at the link.

Trump is the biggest loser in US presidential history! Even now, he has no coherent plan for anything — just inane and largely fabricated personal grievances, insults, and childish, moronic chants and slogans! What kind of nation puts someone like this “on the field” with survival in the balance?

By contrast, Biden and Harris care about America and have intelligent plans for solving problems like health care, getting America back to work, addressing the pandemic in a scientifically credible way, protecting our environment, treating all persons equally before the law, ending racism and misogyny, and re-establishing our world leadership.

Vote like your life and the world’s future depend on it! Because they do! Get the maliciously incompetent loser off the field and put proven winners and decent human beings in charge!

PWS

10-18-20

🇺🇸🗽⚖️🆘NY TIMES WITH THE TRUTH: A VOTE FOR TRUMP IS A VOTE AGAINST AMERICA! — The Worst President In History, Not To Mention That Beyond Being Totally Incompetent & Unqualified, A Truly Horrible Human Being With NO Redeeming Values!

Trump Clown — Donald J. Trump
Famous American Clown
(Officially titled “Ass Clown”)
Artist: Scott Scheidly
Orlando, FL
Reproduced by permission

Darth Vader — D. Vader
Minister of Justice
Banana Republic of Trump

Donald Trump’s re-election campaign poses the greatest threat to American democracy since World War II.

Mr. Trump’s ruinous tenure already has gravely damaged the United States at home and around the world. He has abused the power of his office and denied the legitimacy of his political opponents, shattering the norms that have bound the nation together for generations. He has subsumed the public interest to the profitability of his business and political interests. He has shown a breathtaking disregard for the lives and liberties of Americans. He is a man unworthy of the office he holds.

The editorial board does not lightly indict a duly elected president. During Mr. Trump’s term, we have called out his racism and his xenophobia. We have critiqued his vandalism of the postwar consensus, a system of alliances and relationships around the globe that cost a great many lives to establish and maintain. We have, again and again, deplored his divisive rhetoric and his malicious attacks on fellow Americans. Yet when the Senate refused to convict the president for obvious abuses of power and obstruction, we counseled his political opponents to focus their outrage on defeating him at the ballot box.

Nov. 3 can be a turning point. This is an election about the country’s future, and what path its citizens wish to choose.

. . . .

************

Read the rest of the editorial here:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/10/16/opinion/donald-trump-worst-president.html

Amen! Take back our country! 🇺🇸 We can’t survive another four years of the maliciously incompetent, racist kakistocracy🏴‍☠️!

PWS

10-17-20

😎👍⚖️🗽👩🏻‍⚖️👨‍⚖️🇺🇸YES! — WOW! IN A HUGE VICTORY FOR DUE PROCESS & FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS, PANEL LED BY JUDGE STEPHANIE THACKER WITH 2 TRUMP APPOINTEES UNANIMOUSLY BLOWS AWAY BIA ON NEXUS TO A NUCLEAR FAMILY PSG FROM EL SALVADOR! — Arlington Superstar 🌟 Litigator Aaron Caruso With Big Win For Cause Of Justice! — Hernandez-Cartagena v, Barr! — “Kardashian Rule” & Other BIA/Billy The Bigot Nonsense Smashed!

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/191823.P.pdf

HERNANDEZ-CARTAGENA v. BARR, 4th Cir., 10-15-20, published

PANEL: THACKER, RICHARDSON, and QUATTLEBUAM, Circuit Judges

OPINION BY: JUDGE STEPHANIE THACKER

KEY QUOTE:

Contrary to the BIA’s conclusion in this case, the record does not support the conclusion that Petitioner’s own conflict with the gang precipitated any of the events in question. Indeed, substantial evidence in the record compels the conclusion that at least one central reason Petitioner was targeted was her membership in the Hernandez-Cartagena family. The unrebutted evidence in the record demonstrates that the threats and violence against Petitioner, her child, and her siblings were designed to get her parents to pay up. Pursuant to Hernandez-Avalos, it is therefore unreasonable to conclude that the fact that Petitioner is her parents’ child — a member of their family, concern for whom might motivate additional payments to the gang — is not at least one central reason for her persecution.
11

IV.
For the reasons set forth herein, the petition for review is granted, the decision of
the BIA is reversed, and we remand to the BIA for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

********************

Why this is important: It delivers a totally deserved “double whammy” to two of the worst and most biased precedents issued during the Trump White Nationalist “kangaroo court era” at the BIA.

First, in Matter of L-E-A, 27 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2017), (“L-E-A- 1”) the BIA recognized the “nuclear family” as a “particular social group.” Yet, to produce the necessary asylum denial sought by their “Trump handlers” at DOJ, the BIA erroneously found that the threatened harm had no “nexus” to the PSG.

To reach this improper and illogical result, the BIA disingenuously trashed the “normal” rules of causation. Those say that nexus is established if the harm would not have occurred “but for” membership in the protected group. Of course, there could be multiple “but fors” in a particular case, recognizing the “at least one central reason” statutory language for nexus.

That respondent was targeted for harm by gangs because his family owned a drug store that the gangs wanted to access to distribute illegal drugs. Had the respondent not been a member of his particular family, there is no reason to believe he would have have been targeted for any harm, or indeed have been of any interest to the gangs at all.

In other words, “but for” his membership in that particular family PSG, the threats would not have occurred. Essentially, a “no brainer” asylum grant that could have been quickly granted by a competent adjudicator. Any DHS appeal should have been a strong candidate for summary dismissal.

Instead of doing the obvious, the BIA invented new rules of causation. Contrary to the record, they found that family membership was essentially irrelevant to the threatened persecution. No, according to the BIA, the threats against the respondent were motivated solely the gang’s desire to sell illegal drugs through the family store, not a protected ground.

By searching for “any other motivation” and then basically substituting it to the exclusion of the clear family PSG motivation, the BIA bizarrely and erroneously concluded that the PSG was not “one central reason” for the persecution. This allowed the BIA to deny asylum to a respondent who fit squarely within the “refugee” definition.

Although the decision might have been cloaked in garbled legalese and irrational, result-oriented analysis, the overall message to Immigration Judges and BIA Appellate Judges was clear: faced with facts that demanded an asylum grant to a Central American refugee, the adjudicator should manufacture “any reason other than a protected ground” to deny protection. The BIA will have your back.

Let’s play out the BIA’s intentionally perverted analysis on a larger scale. The leaders of the Nazi movement stood to profit mightily from the eradication of the German Jewish community. Stolen artwork, confiscated wealth and property, and even the proceeds of the gold and silver obtained from collecting and melting down the dental fillings of gassed Jews found their way into Nazi bank accounts, many abroad. Thus, the BIA could view the Holocaust not as religious, nationality, or racial persecution, but rather part of an overall criminal scheme to enrich Nazi leaders by stealing from prosperous or vulnerable individuals. No persecution there!

Happily, in Hernandez-Cartagena, Judge Thacker and her colleagues blew through the type of bogus analysis set forth in L-E-A- 1. Although not specifically citing the BIA’s defective precedent, the court applied “normal rules of causation” rather than the BIA’s “any reason to deny” approach.

The petitioner was a “conduit” In the gang’s scheme to extort money from her parents. The court recognized that “it is therefore unreasonable to conclude that the fact that Petitioner is her parents’ child — a member of their family, concern for whom might motivate additional payments to the gang — is not at least one central reason for her persecution.”

Good bye and good riddance L-E-A- 1. Hello, rational analysis and well-merited protection, although sadly only within Fourth Circuit, for now.

But, that’s not the end of the tale of woe from America’s most blatantly biased, unprofessional, deadly, and totally unconstitutional “21st Century Star Chambers.” Not satisfied with the BIA’s illegal denial of protection in L-E-A- 1, two years later, Attorney General “Billy the Bigot” Barr “certified” that case to himself. That became Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 581 (A.G. 2019) (“L-E-A- 2”).

Star Chamber Justice — “Justice”
Star Chamber
Style

His purpose? To reverse the only correct part of L-E-A- 1: the BIA’s recognition of the “nuclear family” as a “PSG.” As we all know, the nuclear family is one of the oldest, most well-established, well-defined, and universally recognized social units in human history. Not surprisingly, then, it has been recognized as a “PSG” under the Refugee Act of 1980 in numerous judicial and BIA decisions as well as by a myriad of human rights and international law scholars.

Billy Barr Consigliere Artist: Par Begley Salt Lake Tribune Reproduced under license, Large — Bill Barr Consigliere
Artist: Pat Bagley
Salt Lake Tribune
Reproduced under license

No matter to Billy! In an exercise in disingenuous legal gobbledygook and counter-rationality, he tried to explain why it was wrong to recognize the obvious: that the nuclear family” is a “cognizable PSG” for asylum adjudication purposes.

Instead, Billy substituted what I call the “Kardashian rule.” Only those families who have some sort of widespread recognition in society as a whole should be considered to possess the “social distinction” (the characteristic formerly known as “social visibility”) to qualify as a “cognizable PSG.”

Kardashians — Billy Barr’s Vision Of A “Cognizable Particular
Social Group” By hotrock pictures – Vimeo: Kardashian Kollection at Sears (view archived source), CC BY 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=82871460
Creative Commons License

Again, without specifically citing L-E-A- 2, (perhaps the OIL was too embarrassed to argue it) Judge Thacker and her colleagues “blew away” its bigoted and irrational nonsense:

We have repeatedly held “a nuclear family provides a prototypical example of a particular social group” cognizable in our asylum framework. Cedillos-Cedillos v. Barr, 962 F.3d 817, 824 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Indeed, the Fourth Circuit has been a leader in recognizing the nuclear family as a PSG, going all the way back to a case where they reinstated some of my rulings as an Immigration Judge that had been wrongfully reversed by the BIA: Crespin-Valadares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117, 128 (4th Cir. 2011). But, hey, who remembers stuff like that from nearly a decade ago where I was once again proved right and the BIA was wrong?

Yeah, I’ll have to admit that after eight years of regularly getting “stuffed” by my BIA colleagues at en banc, there were few things in my professional life more satisfying than having a Court of Appeals “stuff” the BIA on a case where I had dissented as a BIA Judge or been reversed as an Immigration Judge!

So Billy the Bigot’s attempt to impose the absurdist “Kardashian rule” (sorry Kim, Kourtney, and Khloe) in L-E-A- 2 bites the dust, at least in the Fourth Circuit. I hope it will serve as a “blueprint” to eradicate the “twin travesties” of L-E-A- 1 & 2 across the nation!

Exhilarating as this case is, it’s just one step in the right direction. The unconstitutional White Nativist bias and abuse being heaped upon refugees and other migrants by a “Star Chamber” beholden to the likes of “Billy the Bigot” Barr and his predecessor Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions won’t end until EOIR is abolished and replaced with a real court system that complies with 5th Amendment Due Process. If the Article III Courts don’t have the guts to get the job done, then its up to future better Congress to make it happen!

Lots of “gold stars” to hand out here!

🌟First and foremost, Aaron Caruso, Esquire, of Abod & Caruso, Wheaton, MD. He appeared before me in Arlington. He’s the “total pro,” a “judge’s lawyer:” scholarly, unfailingly courteous, prompt, well-prepared, practical, wrote outstanding “to the issue” briefs that didn’t waste my time, took tough cases, and never gave up on his clients. In a “better world,” he’s definitely someone I could see on the Federal Bench at some level. A member of the NDPA, for sure!

Judge Stephanie D. Thacker — Honorable Stephanie D. Thacker
U.S. Circuit Judge
Fourth Circuit
Photo From Ballotpedia

🌟Judge Stephanie Thacker of the Fourth Circuit. I haven’t studied all of her judicial opinions. But, based on this opinion and her outstanding and totally correct dissent in Portillo-Flores v. Barr where she cogently castigated her fellow panel members for “going along to get along” with the BIA’s “at worst nonsensical and cursory at best” asylum denial, she appears one of a painfully small number of Article III Judges who both understand the mockery of justice going on in our Immigration “Courts” and have the guts to take a strong stand against it. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/09/04/%E2%80%8D%EF%B8%8F%EF%B8%8F%EF%B8%8Finjustice-watch-4th-cir-judge-stephanie-thacker-cogently-castigates-colleagues-for-misapplying/

Interestingly, this is the same panel as in Portillo-Flores. And, the BIA’s sloppy and incompetent analysis, including ignoring the evidence of record, presents largely the same issues. Only, this time Judge Thacker’s colleagues paid attention to what she was saying!

That says something about both her persuasiveness and her colleagues’ willingness to listen and take a better approach to judicial review. That’s also what’s known in the business as “making progress every day, one case, one life at a time.”

Unfortunately, Trump and the GOP right wing pols have turned Federal judicial selection into a race to control justice until at least 2060. That has forced the Dems to finally wake up and do likewise the next time they get the chance. The upshot: At 55, although still in the “prime years” of her career from a professional standpoint, Judge Thacker has probably “aged out” of the sweepstakes to be the “heart and soul” of the Supremes for the next four decades.

The good news: She should be around to continue saving lives, speaking truth to power, and serving as a great role model for younger, aspiring jurists and public officials of all races and genders for many years to come.

Compare Judge Thacker’s clear, concise, cogent analysis in this case with the wandering legal gobbledygook and pure nonsense put forth by the BIA and Barr in L-E-A- 1 & 2.

🌟Judge Julius N. Richardson and Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum, Jr., of the Fourth Circuit also deserve stars. I really lambasted these two Trump appointees for their tone-deaf performance in Portillo-Flores. But, here they surprised me by joining fully in Judge Thacker’s analysis. Shows a capacity for teamwork, listening, adjusting views, and taking judicial review seriously, all really good things!

Additionally, it’s really important and significant when Trump appointees “do the right thing” and uphold due process, fundamental fairness, and recognize asylum seekers as “persons” entitled to equal justice under our Constitution. Given the large number of fairly young Trump appointees on the Federal Bench, it’s critical that as many of them as possible join their colleagues in resisting the White Nationalist assault on the rights and human dignity of people of color, particularly migrants and asylum seekers, being orchestrated by Trump, Miller, Barr, Wolf, and the rest of the regime’s gang of bigots.

Don’t know if this will be repeated in the future, but the votes of Judge Richardson and Judge Quattlebaum in this case are an encouraging sign for the American justice system. Will it be a trend or an aberration? Can’t tell, but stay tuned.

🌟Finally, and perhaps most importantly, hats off for Sandra Marleny Hernandez-Cartagena. In the face of a bogus “court” system controlled and operated by White Nationalist racist bigots for the purpose of wiping out asylum laws, demoralizing applicants through dishonest procedures and rules meant to discourage them from seeking protection, and to “send a message” that they aren’t wanted in our country, she persisted for herself, her family, and others similarly situated. Her victory in this case is a victory for American justice and for every one of us who believe in due process, fundamental fairness, and equal justice for all.

Thanks, Sandra, for inspiring us with your courage and unrelenting persistence in the face of evil and institutionalized, illegal, bias!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

10-16-20

⚖️👩🏻‍⚖️JUSTICE-ELECT BARRETT STUMPED BY WHETHER GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED CHILD ABUSE IS ILLEGAL OR IMMORAL – Frankly, My Dears, Once They Are Out Of The Womb, Who Cares, Particularly If They Are Only Migrant Kids? – Bess Levin @ Vanity Fair With The Latest Scoop On “America’s Favorite Mother!”

Judge Amy Coney Barrett — Supreme Court Nominee by Bob Englehart, PoliticalCartoons.com
Published under license

Bess Levin
Politics & Finance Writer
Vanity Fair

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/10/amy-coney-barrett-child-separation?utm_source=nl&utm_brand=vf&utm_mailing=VF_Hive_101520&utm_medium=email&bxid=5bd67c363f92a41245df49eb&cndid=48297443&hasha=8a1f473740b253d8fa4c23b066722737&hashb=26cd42536544e247751ec74095d9cedc67e77edb&hashc=eb7798068820f2944081a20180a0d3a94e025b4a93ea9ae77c7bbe00367c46ef&esrc=newsletteroverlay&mbid=mbid%3DCRMVYF012019&utm_campaign=VF_Hive_101520&utm_term=VYF_Hive

Since Amy Coney Barrett was nominated to the Supreme Court, Republicans have suggested that one of the reasons she should be given a lifetime appointment on the highest court of the land is that she has seven kids. Barrett is “a remarkable mother” with “seven beautiful children,” Senator Thom Tillis said during the first day of her confirmation hearing. She’s a “tireless mother of seven,” Senator Chuck Grassley told the room. “She and her husband have seven children,” Senator Lindsey Graham said in his opening remarks, in case anyone hadn’t heard, before giving her two more. “She and her husband have seven children. Two adopted. Nine seems to be a good number,” he said. Obviously, constantly bringing up this part of Barrett’s biography is part of an attempt on Republicans’ part to (1) draw a distinction between Barrett and what they view as childless heathen Democrats, (2) claim that any opposition to her confirmation is anti-mom, and (3) suggest that since she’s a mother, she must be a good person who couldn’t possibly issue rulings that would hurt millions of people.

But, surprise! Despite being a mother, Barrett is expected to help overturn the Affordable Care Act. (After she was asked about this possibility, which would strip health insurance from millions, Grassley raged at his Democratic colleagues that “As a mother of seven, Judge Barrett clearly understands the importance of health care.”) She will also very likely go after Roe v. Wade, if given the chance, which some mothers would point out prevents their daughters—or even women they didn’t give birth to!— from being forced into back alley abortions. And even though she’s a mom of seven children, she apparently thinks the jury is still out on whether or not it’s bad to separate small children from their parents, if they happen to be from another country: . . . .

***********************

Read the rest of Bess’s article and the latest from The Levin Report at the above link.

Just for the record, the Trump DOJ conceded before U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw (a GOP appointee) that intentional child separation is a violation of Fifth Amendment Due Process.

They also declined to appeal Judge Sabraw’s order to that effect – unusual for a regime that usually pushes the most frivolous, clearly illegal, and unethical positions for as long as possible to the highest levels of the judiciary (knowing that the “Roberts” Five” believes that ethical requirements and disciplinary procedures don’t apply to the Trump legal team assembled on your taxpayer dollars).

Wonder what would happen if we had a more honest and realistic confirmation system that allowed nominees to actually answer truthfully, rather than disingenuously claiming under oath that after a lifetime of intense public involvement in the law, politics, and public policy, they had no real views on anything of any importance whatsoever?

I actually doubt that an honest answer to this question, either way, would have cost Coney Barrett her politically-assured confirmation, nor would it have required recusal in any litigation likely to reach the Supremes’ merits docket. So, Coney Barrett thinks we’re dumb enough to believe that after several days of her GOP sponsors touting the wonderfulness of her bold embrace of their far-right agenda — the first overtly “pro-life woman Justice” — that they are badly mistaken and, in fact, she has no views or opinions on anything.

It kind of reminds me of the “super-disclaimer” I used to give on those occasions when my “EOIR handlers” let me speak in public: “Nothing that I say today represents my view on any case that I decided in the past, is pending before me, or might come before me in the future.”

On the bright side, Coney Barrett was able to (sort of) answer the question of Sen. John “I’m Not JFK” Kennedy (R-LA) about who does the laundry at her home (supposed to be her kids, but apparently they haven’t completely gotten the message. Now, if ACB were before me in Immigration Court, this is the point when I would have turned to the kids and said “Come on kids, Mom’s doing it all for you and others, I want you to give her and your Dad a hand.”)

Seriously, though, Dems, here’s the definition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett: “It’s what you get when lose elections for the White House and the Senate.” If you really want the next woman Justice to be a worthy progressive successor to the legacy of RBG and a “soul mate” for Justice Sonia Sotomayor, then go out and win the elections necessary to make that happen!

Another huge plus: If we Dems could figure out how to translate our national political majority into control of all three political arms, we could shore up health care, address COVID in a rational way, help Americans who have lost livelihoods and confidence because of COVID, and create educational opportunities and jobs that will be durable and serve us well in the Post-COVID world. We could also address the deficit by undoing the revenue shortage resulting from unwarranted tax giveaways to the wealthy, and get “more bang for our tax dollars” by running government wisely, prudently, and efficiently, for the overall public good rather than for the benefit of grifters and their selfish, anti-democracy far-right agenda.

Then, we could see whether Justice Barrett will stick to her word and urge her colleagues to “let the political branches of Government make policy.” That’s something that has been a challenge for past right-wing jurists, including the late Justice Scalia. But, if it actually happened, it would make the issue of “enhancing” the Supremes with progressive Justices largely moot.

Which is probably why Joe & Kamala have wisely refused to “take the GOP bait” on how they might specifically solve a problem that might or might not exist in the future. I do know one thing, however. As reflective, reasonable, and thoughtful public officials who listen to expert advice, they will promote the best possible solution for all Americans under the circumstances. That’s certainly a “quantum leap” over where we are today!

PWS

10-15-20

PWS

10-14-20

🇺🇸🗽POLITICS: RISING SUPERSTAR,🌟FORMER BIA ATTORNEY HILLARY SCHOLTEN IN HIGH-PROFILE RACE TO “FLIP” MICH 3RD CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT TO DEMS — Listen To My Friend Hillary Share Her Vision For A Better America On “Morning Joe!”

Here’s the link:

https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/three-congressional-races-that-could-help-sway-the-election-93822021698

****************

Go Hillary!!!👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼🗽🗽🗽🗽🗽🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸😎😎😎😎😎

Hillary is an amazing example of how the younger generation of the NDPA is courageously fighting for leadership positions that will change America for the better at all levels! The NDPA has been dominant in courtroom advocacy, scholarship, and clinical teaching. We now need to “take it beyond the courtrooms, classrooms, law journals, and op-ed pages!”

It’s time for the NDPA to make our shared vision of due process, fundamental fairness, and equal justice for all a reality! Take the fight for social justice and America’s heart, soul, and future to the judicial benches, legislatures, and public offices — from the municipalities, to the states, to the highest levels of our Federal System — and beyond to leadership on the world stage!

Thanks, Hillary, 🥇🏆 for taking the lead!

Due Process Forever!⚖️🗽🇺🇸🧑🏽‍⚖️

PWS

10-15-20

UNADULTERATED BS — CONEY BARRETT’S CLAIM OF “IMPARTIAL JUSTICE” FLUNKS “STRAIGHT FACE TEST” — “Amy Coney Barrett’s originalism does not work as a method of safeguarding democracy against an activist, ideologically motivated judiciary. It does, however, function quite well as a means of obscuring a far-right movement’s efforts to impose its unpopular agenda by judicial fiat.”

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/amy-coney-barrett-confirmation-hearing-originalism.html

Eric Levitz reports for NY Magazine:

. . . .

Even Republicans don’t have the stomach to outsource judgment on all modern constitutional questions to the slaveholding elite of a preindustrial, post-colonial backwater. As Dean of Berkeley Law Erwin Chemerinsky has observed, a ruthless adherence to text and history would require forfeiting judicial protection of “liberties such as the right to marry, the right to procreate, the right to custody of one’s children, the right to keep the family together, the right of parents to control the upbringing of their children, the right to purchase and use contraceptives, the right to abortion, [and] the right to refuse medical care,” none of which are guaranteed by the Constitution.

Amy Coney Barrett herself has acknowledged the undesirability of applying originalism indiscriminately, noting in 2016, “Adherence to originalism arguably requires, for example, the dismantling of the administrative state, the invalidation of paper money, and the reversal of Brown v. Board of Education,” and other institutions that “no serious person would propose to undo,” even if they lack constitutional grounding. Barrett’s proposed solution to this conundrum is for courts to simply avoid ruling on cases where originalism would dictate socially unthinkable overturnings of precedent; she wrote in 2017 that “discretionary jurisdiction generally permits [the Court] to choose which questions it wants to answer.”

But this expedient degrades originalism’s claim to neutrality. If an originalist Supreme Court can apply its doctrine opportunistically — taking only those cases in which its “neutral” juridical method will yield outcomes acceptable to a “serious” person (as they define that adjective) — then originalism isn’t much of a binding restriction on judicial discretion.

What’s more, Barrett’s concession tacitly betrays awareness of a critical fact that originalists love to elide when speaking for a lay audience: Amending the Constitution has become so phenomenally difficult it’s not at all clear that the American people could promptly replace an overturned Brown v. Board of Education with an amendment forbidding school segregation, despite overwhelming popular support for that Supreme Court decision. Originalists like to portray their judicial approach as highly democratic, since they purport to defer to the letter of a democratically enacted Constitution. But once one stipulates that the demos is manifestly no longer capable of passing constitutional amendments with regularity, it becomes clear that the originalist practice of striking down democratically elected laws in deference to the letter of a centuries-old document is profoundly anti-democratic.

Of course, in real life, “originalist” Supreme Court justices haven’t just applied their method opportunistically by selecting cases in which originalism will produce a favored outcome; they’ve also simply declined to abide by their method when they feel like it. On Monday, Barrett named Antonin Scalia as her guiding light on judicial philosophy. But as Georgia State University Law professor Eric J. Segall notes, Scalia voted “for broad rules limiting congressional power to enact campaign finance reform, to commandeer state legislatures and executives to help implement federal law, and to allow lawsuits against the states for money damages by citizens of other states” without “justifying these broad rules from a textual or historical perspective,” presumably because they have no textual or historical basis.

In sum: Amy Coney Barrett’s originalism does not work as a method of safeguarding democracy against an activist, ideologically motivated judiciary. It does, however, function quite well as a means of obscuring a far-right movement’s efforts to impose its unpopular agenda by judicial fiat.

************

Read Eric’s complete article, which is an outstanding debunking of “originalism” — a totally bogus invention of the reactionary right — intended to pervert the law and promote far-right attacks on humanity — at the link.

Just think about it: Supposedly a bunch of guys who risked everything on a never-before-realized long shot of defeating the British King and setting up a republic actually intended that 230 years after the fact the governors of that republic would be so backwards, unimaginative, and intellectually limited that they would still be attempting to divine the “true meaning” of various two-centuries out of date words and concepts that nobody agreed upon in the first place! Preposterous! Not to mention totally intellectually dishonest!

Obviously, if the GOP Senators actually believed that Coney Barrett would be an unbiased judge with an open mind to progressive, liberal, humane, common sense interpretations of law and committed to implementing the Constitutional guarantee of equal protection and due process under the law for all persons, they would be apoplectic. They would be outraged at Trump for foisting such an unreliable and unpredictable jurist on them!

I’m not necessarily saying that Coney Barrett couldn’t educate herself and “get smarter” on the bench — abandoning her false dogma and actually showing some empathy, courage, independence, and commitment to equal justice for all. She wouldn’t be the first GOP-appointed Judge or Justice to move left on the bench. After all, spending a lifetime mired on the wrong side of history screwing up the lives of your fellow humans can get old, even for well-trained right-wing ideologues.

Also, she will have the benefit of the only current Justice who actually appears up to the job and consistently understands the proper role of a High Court in a democratic republic — Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Sotomayor actually “gets it right” in an amazing number of cases and usually explains her reasoning in coherent, non-legalistic terms that most folks can understand.

But, sadly, I find relatively little in Coney Barrett’s career to predict that type of self-awareness, intellectual honesty, moral courage, and capacity for human growth. Her family situation shows some capacity for empathy and human understanding.

But, sadly, to date, she evidently has been unable to “connect the dots” between her kids’ lives and futures and the future of humanity. To understand that but for the grace of God, the refugee she is expelling based on BS non-defects could be someone she actually loves or regards as human. That the benefits that neo-Nazi Stephen Miller is unethically and illegally stripping from deserving immigrants could be the lifeline that, but for life’s quirks, would allow her, her family, or other loved ones to survive and achieve their full human potential. The capacity to function as a real jurist certainly is there, but the will and perspective seem to be largely lacking.

In a way, Coney Barrett’s squandered potential to achieve good is her own human tragedy. But, one for which those “other than Coney Barrett” are likely to pay the ultimate price.

PWS

10-14-20

GOOD YUCKS! 😀 MOSCOW MITCH LAUGHS AS AMERICANS SUFFER! 🤮 – MM Lets Sick, Dying, Unemployed Americans Suffer W/O Economic Aid So That GOP Can “Steamroll” Barrett Appointment Opposed By Majority!

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/13/mitch-mcconnell-laughs-covid-relief-amy-mcgrath-kentucky-senate-debate?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Martin Pengelly writes in New York:

Criticised by challenger Amy McGrath in a debate on Monday night for blocking a new coronavirus relief bill, Mitch McConnell laughed.

“Trying to figure out what he is laughing about,” tweeted Claire McCaskill, a former Democratic senator from Missouri who now works for NBC News.

Nearly 7.8m coronavirus cases and almost 215,000 deaths have been recorded in the US. Amid devastating economic fallout, Congress has not passed a relief package since May, when the Democratic-held House passed a $3tn bill the Republican Senate did not take up. Donald Trump recently dynamited negotiations, which he then tried to restart.

McGrath and McConnell met to debate in Lexington during a rise in cases in Kentucky. The Democrat has raised impressive sums and stayed in touch in the polls – though victory remains unlikely.

“The House passed a bill in May and this Senate went on vacation,” McGrath said.

As McConnell chuckled, she continued: “I mean, you just don’t do that. You negotiate. Senator, it is a national crisis, you knew that the coronavirus wasn’t gonna end at the end of July. We knew that.”

As McConnell tried to interrupt, still chuckling, McGrath said: “If you want to call yourself a leader … you got to get things done and those of us who served in the marines, we don’t just point fingers at the other side. We get the job done.”

McConnell blamed the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, saying: “Look, I know how to make deals. I made three major deals with Joe Biden during the Obama era. What the problem is here is the unwillingness of the speaker to make a deal.”

On Tuesday, after Trump tweeted “STIMULUS! Go big or go home!!!”, McConnell said the Senate would soon vote on a “skinny” bill, meant to tap into unused funds from previous legislation, a course Pelosi has already rejected.

. . . .

************************************

Nothing funnier in times of extreme national distress than a Republican showing you where the party’s real priorities lie. HINT: It’s NOT with “We the People.”

Vote ‘em out, vote. ‘em out!

PWS

10-12-20

👩‍⚖️⚖️ONE MEAN☠️🤮⚰️ MOTHER: Soon-To-Be Justice Barrett’s Immigration Jurisprudence Shows Cruelty, Legal Ignorance, Lack Of Empathy For The Vulnerable Humans Whose Lives Are At Stake In An Unconstitutional System Rigged Against Them!

Dahlia Lithwick
Supreme Court Reporter
Slate
Wikimedia Commons — Public Domain

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/10/democrats-amy-coney-barrett-confirmation-supreme-court-chat.html

Dahlia Lithwick & Mark Joseph Stern in Slate:

. . . .

Dahlia: I wonder what you thought of Barrett’s statement, about how she reads each of her opinions through the eyes of the losing party. As you have written, the losing party tends to be the prisoners, the Black worker, the teen seeking abortion, the asylum seeker. It reminded me of Justice Samuel Alito testifying at his hearings about his great solicitude for immigrants.

Mark: Barrett’s opening statement made me think about one of her worst decisions (so far), in which she approved the deportation of an asylum seeker because there were small, trivial variations in his account of persecution. Over a dissent, Barrett said, yep, this asylum seeker must be sent home to be tortured and murdered because tiny details in his story changed over time. Would a judge who views the case through the eyes of the asylum seeker really dismiss his claims so cavalierly? I doubt it.

. . . .

************************

Read the complete dialogue at the link.

So much for intellectual honesty! It also shows Barrett’s fundamental lack of experience and legal understanding of what Immigration “Courts” really are and how they have been politicized and weaponized against asylum seekers by “judges” who report to overtly biased and xenophobic politicos in the Executive Branch. Just how would this “naked farce” satisfy any rudimentary concept of Due Process? Clearly it doesn’t. And just as clearly, intentionally tone-deaf judges like Barrett don’t care! They lack the guts, relevant experience representing migrants, and the intellectual presence to stand up for the Constitutional and human rights of “the other.”

How would YOU like to be sentenced to torture and/or death based on trivial inconsistencies found by an Immigration “Judge” working directly for the Attorney General and his regime in a badly flawed assembly line process designed to achieve political policy objectives, not justice?

Also, did anyone else pick up the facial absurdity of Barrett’s disingenuous claim to be “apolitical” while pledging allegiance to GOP “superhero” the late Justice Antonin Scalia, probably the most overtly “political Justice” of modern times?

Bottom Line: Once you’re out of the womb, this is one mother you don’t want on your case!🏴‍☠️☠️⚰️

Better Judges For A Better America! Judge/Justice Barrett is part of the problem, not the solution! The best way to insure that she is among the last, far-right, anti-democracy, inhumane judges given life tenure on the Supremes or anywhere else, vote ‘em out, vote ‘em out! Then, we’ll discover the “true meaning” of Barrett’s “I’m not there to make policy nonsense!” (Indeed, I would submit that the sole reason for her appointment was the GOP’s belief and expectation that she will reliably elevate disingenuous right-wing policies, biases, and prejudices over the Constitutional, individual, and human rights of individuals and that she will be a steadfast opponent of Constitutionally-required equal justice under law.)

Justice for the George Floyds, Breonna Taylors, dehumanized dead asylum seekers, and wrongfully imprisoned migrant kids of the world (e.g., the end of unconstitutional “Baby Jails”) will require a different type of “Justice” than Amy Coney Barrett in the future! Far from being truly “independent” and “apolitical,” Barrett is likely to be the perfect representative of the warped man who appointed her and his anti-democracy party. And, that’s likely to cause problems for all Americans of good will far into the future!

PWS

10-13-20

SCOFFLAWS 🏴‍☠️ STUFFED AGAIN: Split 9th Agrees That Trump’s “Stunt Wall” Illegal — Sierra Club v. Trump!

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca9-on-use-of-military-for-border-wall

Daniel M. Kowalski

12 Oct 2020

wall

border

CA9 on Use of Military $ for Border Wall

Sierra Club v. Trump

“This appeal presents the question of whether the emergency military construction authority provided by 10 U.S.C. § 2808 (“Section 2808”) authorized eleven border wall construction projects on the southern border of the United States. We conclude that it did not. We also consider whether the district court properly granted the Organizational Plaintiffs a permanent injunction and whether the district court improperly denied the State Plaintiffs’ request for a separate permanent injunction. We affirm the decision of the district court on both counts. … We hold that the States and Sierra Club both have Article III standing and a cause of action to challenge the Federal Defendants’ border wall construction projects, that Section 2808 did not authorize the challenged construction, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in either granting a permanent injunction to Sierra Club or in denying a separate permanent injunction to the States.”

**************

PANEL: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and WARDLAW and COLLINS, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas; Dissent by Judge Collins

The only real question here is whether the Supremes will bail out the regime’s scofflaws once again.

PWS

10-13-20

TAL KOPAN @ SF CHRON: 🏴‍☠️ Billy The Bigot’s DOJ Goes Full Racist, Cans Immigration Courts’ Diversity Training!

Honorable Mimi Tsankov
U.S. Immigration Judge
Eastern Region Vice President
National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”)

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Justice-Department-cancels-diversity-training-15635203.php

Justice Department cancels diversity training, including for immigration judges

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Justice Department has suspended all diversity and inclusion training and events for its employees, according to a memo obtained by The Chronicle, which would include judges in San Francisco and elsewhere hearing cases of immigrants seeking to avoid deportation.

The memo, dated Oct. 8, is in response to an executive order issued by President Trump last month that labeled racial bias training as “offensive and anti-American race and sex stereotyping and scapegoating.” It was issued by Lee Lofthus, the assistant attorney general for administration.

“To ensure compliance with requirements specific to Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) training for employees, DOJ Components are instructed to suspend all D&I related training, programs, activities, and events that employees are required or permitted to attend while on Government-paid time,” Lofthus wrote.

Any new diversity training must be approved by the federal Office of Personnel Management, Lofthus said. He offered no timeline for resuming training.

The suspension applies to all divisions of the Justice Department, but could be of particular importance to the immigration courts.

Unlike the independent federal judiciary, immigration judges who hear the cases of asylum seekers and others trying to stay in the U.S. are employees of the Justice Department, hired by the attorney general.

Those cases often include some of the most sensitive stories of trauma from around the world, including many from women who say they have been raped, trafficked or abused in countries that frequently do not punish men who commit such acts. Asylum seekers also include people who say they have been persecuted because of their religious beliefs and LGBTQ individuals from countries where such identities are criminalized.

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, who chairs the House Judiciary subcommittee on immigration, said the Justice Department, like other workplaces, “should always aim for more diversity, not less.”

“The suspension of this training will also apply to our nation‘s immigration courts and could lead to less inclusive and fair-minded judges,” Lofgren said in a statement to The Chronicle. “This is yet another reason why the immigration court system should be an independent body, separate from DOJ and free from the political whims of the Executive branch.”

The union that represents immigration judges noted that they interact with a diverse group of people in court, which it said makes such training important.

“The National Association of Immigration Judges values diversity and inclusion in the workplace as it ensures that the Immigration Judges can meet the needs of the diverse group of stakeholders with whom we interface.” Mimi Tsankov, the chair of the group’s committee on gender equity and a judge in New York, said in a statement. “Immigration Court workplace training on diversity and inclusion reflects a commitment to its importance and ensures a judicial bench ready to respond to the needs that our cases demand.”

President Trump’s attorneys general have paid particular attention to the immigration courts as part of their efforts to restrict immigration to the United States, by implementing policies that have reduced judges’ discretion and made it harder for immigrants to claim asylum.

*******************

Those with access should go to the above link for the full article. It also gives Tal a boost from the “hits.”

Glaring, intentional lack of diversity on the bench along with racial, gender, religious, and ethnic insensitivity have become an endemic problem at EOIR. But, given a regime and a DOJ that pride themselves on racism, misogyny, xenophobia, along with disdain for professionalism, expertise, ethics, humanity, and the Constitution, that’s not surprising.

Representative Lofgren and the NAIJ’s Judge Tsankov are absolutely correct. It’s time to put an end to the disgraceful abomination at EOIR and create a real, independent court system dedicated to due process, fundamental fairness, and promoting human dignity!

Due Process Forever! Today’s Dysfunctional & Unfair EOIR, Never!

PWS

10-11-20

MARCIA BROWN @ NEW REPUBLIC — There Can Be No Due Process Without An Independent Immigration Court Staffed By Qualified Judges!

https://newrepublic.com/article/159530/best-way-protect-immigrants-whims-politics

. . . .

Paul Schmidt, who served as a board member and board chair of the Board of Immigration Appeals under the [Clinton] administration, said that Trump is not the first to manipulate the courts. In 2003, President George Bush’s Attorney General John Ashcroft removed board members whose views did not match the administration’s ideas for immigration. “You can track the downward trajectory of the immigration courts from Ashcroft,” he said. “We call it the purge. If you’re not with the program, your job could be on the line.… Ashcroft rejiggered the system so there’s no dissent.”

Schmidt said he “got bounced” because of his views, which makes him skeptical of the courts ever being independent in the current system. “How can you be a little bit independent?” he said. “It’s like being a little bit pregnant. You either are, or you aren’t.”

. . . .

*****************

Read the full article at the link.

Congrats to Marcia for recognizing that while the seeds of the current Immigration Court disaster originated in the Bush II Administration, they also grew steadily because of the Obama Administration’s mismanagement and misuse of the Immigration Courts.

Given a rare chance to create a truly progressive, due-process-oriented judiciary, without any interference from Mitch McConnell and the GOP, the Obama group chose another path. They promoted “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” at EOIR to meet improper political policy objectives. At the same time, they almost totally “shut out” the human rights, clinical, and immigration bars by appointing over 90% of Immigration Judges from Government backgrounds, overwhelmingly DHS prosecutors.

Notwithstanding a process that did not require Senate Confirmation, the Obama Administration politicos took a mind boggling average of two years to fill Immigration Court judicial vacancies! They also left an unconscionable number of unfilled positions on the table for White Nationalist AG Jeff Sessions to fill!

Sure, it’s not “malicious incompetence” like the Trump regime. But, for asylum applicants and other migrants whose lives and due process rights are now going down the drain at an unprecedented accelerated rate, the difference might be negligible.

Dead is dead! Tortured is tortured! Missed opportunities to save lives are lives lost!

First, and foremost, Biden/Harris need to get elected. But, then they must escape the shadow of Obama’s immigration failures and do better for the many vulnerable and deserving folks whose lives are on the line.

Shouldn’t be that hard! The progressive legal talent is out there for a better Federal Judiciary from the Immigration Courts to the Supremes.

It just requires an Administration that takes due process, human rights, human dignity, and equal justice for all seriously and recognizes that in the end, “it all runs through immigration and asylum!” The failure to establish a sound, independent, institutionalized due process and equal justice foundation at the U.S. Immigration Courts, the “retail level” of our courts, now threatens to infect and topple the entire U.S. justice system! We need to end “Dred Scottification” before it eradicates all of our individual rights.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

10-06-20

⚖️HON. SHIRA SCHEINDLIN👩🏻‍⚖️ @ THE GUARDIAN: Barrett Nomination Part & Parcel Of GOP Destruction Of American Democracy! 🏴‍☠️ – The Continued Erosion Of The Supremes & The Federal Judiciary Is Destroying Our Nation!👎

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/29/supreme-court-conservatives-trump-amy-coney-barrett?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

. . . .

This is no longer the case. Public confidence and public perception that the courts are non-partisan has eroded. The Republican boycott of Garland, together with Trump’s unprecedented nomination of Barrett and her likely confirmation, will seal the Republican theft of two supreme court seats, at least in the eyes of more than half the electorate, and will ensure conservative control of the court for decades to come.

If Barrett’s record is any indication, the court will soon turn its back on its most treasured precedents and turn America into a more regressive country. Before joining the bench just three years ago, she served as a law clerk to Scalia, whose judicial philosophy she has fully embraced. She has also been a longtime member of the rightwing Federalist Society.

Public confidence and public perception that the courts are non-partisan has eroded

Her short judicial record, together with her scholarly writings, reveal that she is a rock-solid conservative jurist. Like Scalia, she defines herself as an originalist and textualist, which means that the constitution must be viewed as of the time it was written. From that perspective, there is nothing in the constitution that would explicitly support abortion rights, gay marriage, mandatory school desegregation, or the right to suppress evidence that is illegally seized. By contrast, in one of her most famous opinions, United States v Virginia (1996), Ginsburg wrote that “a prime part of the history of our constitution … is the story of the extension of constitutional rights and protections to people once ignored or excluded.”

In a 2013 article, Barrett repeatedly expressed the view that the supreme court had created, through judicial fiat, a framework of abortion on demand that ignited a national controversy. In an opinion she joined with another judge, she expressed doubt that a law preventing parents from terminating a pregnancy because they did not want a child of a particular sex or one with a disability could be unconstitutional. These writings surely indicate that Barrett will do whatever she can to limit or eliminate abortion rights.

Barrett has also expressed dissatisfaction with the Affordable Care Act and support for a broad interpretation of the second amendment. She has writtenthat Chief Justice John Roberts “pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning”. She also quoted Scalia, when he wrote that “the statute known as Obamacare should be renamed ‘Scotuscare’” in “honor of the court’s willingness to ‘rewrite’ the statute in order to keep it afloat”. There is little doubt that Barrett would be inclined to find the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional and thereby deprive millions of Americans of affordable healthcare coverage. Similarly, she wrote a dissenting opinion questioning the constitutionality of a statute that prohibited ex-felons from purchasing guns. Thus, she has demonstrated her fealty to the NRA position that the more guns the better – inevitably leading to more Americans dying from gun violence.

When addressing the legal doctrine known as stare decisis, meaning respect for precedent, Barrett wrote that she “tend[ed] to agree with those who say that a justice’s duty is to the constitution and that it is thus more legitimate for her to enforce her best understanding of the constitution rather than a precedent she thinks is clearly in conflict with it”. In other words, she would overturn landmark decisions such as Brown v Board of Education or Roe v Wade if those decisions did not reflect her best understanding of the constitution.

Amy Coney Barrett: what will she mean for women’s rights?

Read more

Stunningly, in an interview in 2016, when asked whether Congress should confirm Obama’s nominee during an election year, Barrett responded that confirmation should wait until after the election because an immediate replacement would “dramatically flip the balance of power”. Given that answer, she should decline the nomination, as her confirmation would even more dramatically flip the balance of the court, entrenching a 6-3 conservative majority.

Confirming this nominee before the outcome of the national elections – which will determine both the identity of the next president and the composition of a new Senate – is unprecedented, inexcusable and a threat to many rights that the majority of Americans have embraced. This is a tragedy about to happen.

Shira A Scheindlin served as a United States district judge for the southern district of New York for 22 years. She is the co-chair of the board of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and a board member of the American Constitution Society

********************************

Read the rest of Judge Scheindlin’s article at the link.

As I have been saying “Better Judges For A Better America!” It starts with electing a President who will nominate them and a Senate that will confirm them. That requires “regime change” and defeat of the GOP Anti-Democracy Party at all levels.

Dems need to stop sputtering about Barrett, whom they don’t appear able to stop anyway, and get out the vote to insure that she will be the last GOP far right shill on Supremes for many years! Rebuilding and improving American democracy starts NOW, with THIS ELECTION. As Willie Nelson says: “Vote ‘Em Out, Vote ‘Em Out!”

BTW, “Moscow Mitch” and his GOP toadies have plenty of time to race through the Barrett confirmation during an election, but no time to help Americans thrown out of work or losing their health insurance because of the pandemic!🤮⚰️

PWS

10-01-20

Related posts:

Vote ‘Em out, vote ‘Em out. We need to get a start on saving democracy and getting better judges for a better America — from the Immigration Courts to the Supremes!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Vote like your life and the world’s future depend on it! Because they do! Get the maliciously incompetent loser off the field and put proven winners and decent human beings in charge!

Related posts:

Amen! Take back our country! 🇺🇸 We can’t survive another four years of the maliciously incompetent, racist kakistocracy🏴‍☠️!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!⚖️🗽🇺🇸🧑🏽‍⚖️

Related posts:

Related posts:

Vote ‘em out, vote. ‘em out!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Today’s Dysfunctional & Unfair EOIR, Never!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Amy Coney Barrett: what will she mean for women’s rights?

Related posts: