"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
Over the past 3 1/2 years, President Donald Trump has aggressively pushed an “America First” agenda that has significantly weakened more than seven decades of peaceful cooperation between the United States and her treaty partners around the world. In parallel moves, this president has continued a courtship with Russian President Vladimir Putin and a dangerous, nuclear-armed North Korea while allowing China to extend its geopolitical reach and goal of economic dominance.
Despite the widening of perilous fault lines that have emerged from growing diplomatic tensions, the mercurial and ill-equipped president continues to criticize and undermine, with no intellectual rigor, the post-World War II order that has given us 70 years of relative political and economic stability.
Moreover, Trump’s isolationist moves are progressively weakening America. Withdrawing from the Paris climate accord (ratified by nearly 190 nations, including Russia and China), the Iran nuclear deal, the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, UNESCO, the United Nations Human Rights Council, the World Health Organization and numerous other long-standing international commitments has become part and parcel of his unabashed goal of turning his back — and by extension America’s — on the world.
The same is true in the related field of international human rights, where we have gone from a former ”beacon of hope” to a notorious racist-driven regime of scofflaws, unabashed human rights violators, and shameless child abusers.
My appreciation again, on behalf of the “New Due Process Army” and the “Round Table of Former Immigration Judges” to “The Generals” for speaking out so articulately and forcefully.
Many thanks to the “drafting team:” Judges Ilyce Shugall, Jeffrey Chase, Lory Rosenberg, and Rebecca Jamil.
Hon. Ilyce Shugall U.S. Immigraton Judge (Retired) Director, Immigrant Legal Defense Program, Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Assn. of San Francisco.Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration JudgesHon. Lory Diana Rosenberg Senior Advisor Immigrant Defenders Law Group, PLLCHon. Rebecca Jamil U.S. Immigration Judge (Ret.) Source: TwitterKnightess of the Round Table
Lehnert served 37 years in the U.S. Marine Corps, retiring as the Commander of Marine Corps Installations West. He lives in Williamsburg, Michigan. Kelly served 35 years in the U.S. Marine Corps retiring as the Deputy Commandant for Installations and Logistics. He lives in Arlington, Virginia.
On Veterans Day, Americans will lay wreaths on the graves of service men and women who served to protect the rights and values we celebrate as Democracy. For veterans across the nation who we will honor this day, our tributes may ring hollow if we fail to perform our most important civic duty: exercising our right to vote. Simply put, the vote has never been more important than at this moment in our history.
Our nation faces a range of health, economic, and security threats as we go to the polls on November 3. But we are blessed with great strength that, when coupled with competent and courageous leadership, can prevail in any situation. While some of today’s threats are international in nature, our view is that the greatest threat lies within our own borders. It’s an existential threat to our democracy, civil society, national solvency, and international standing. This is not an issue of conservative versus liberal or Republican or Democrat, but an issue for all Americans.
We are shamed by a government that no longer honors the basic precepts of our democracy: justice, truth, courage, caring, and integrity; a government that fans the fires of fear, hatred, incivility and flat out dishonesty; and a government that fails to accept and respect the very values that we spent our active duty lives defending. We served to protect a country that exemplifies the virtues that we in the military demanded of each other — integrity above all, courage to stand up against wrong, service over self, dignity in all interactions, and extending a helping hand to a shipmate who has stumbled.
. . . .
*******************
Missing in action, or to a lesser degree being unaccounted for, are profoundly disturbing situations in which military leaders are unable to account for their most precious asset and responsibility — their fighting men and women. The former is the most dreaded because you assume the worst — capture, death or incapacitation.
Sadly, now the term “missing in action” seems to fit the behavior and performance of the military’s commander in chief and our president. He has failed to acknowledge the severity of COVID-19 by taking meaningful steps to reduce death and infection rates. He has failed to protect the integrity of our electoral process from foreign adversaries. He has failed to denounce hate groups and emboldened them by his silence. He has failed to build longstanding alliances — to include global climate action. He has weakened our national security and the international world order.
And now, after nine months of minimizing the pandemic and flaunting proven protective measures, he and some of his closest advisers became sick with COVID-19. Most disturbing but not surprising is the president’s lack of transparency with regard to his health further undermining faith in government and stability of the economy and markets. The shock waves are beginning to be felt by our remaining friends and allies and will be seized upon by nations and nonstate actors who wish us harm.
. . . .
********************
Read in full these powerful indictments of the “Faux Leader of The Free World” by two total professionals who “walked the walk” — putting it all on the line for America — for us!
What kind of “leader” basically attacks his own country and large segments of the citizenry? What kind of “leader” treats a deadly disease sweeping the nation, currently with no cure, as a “joke” just because he survived with the help of medical care unavailable to 90.99% of his fellow Americans? What kind of horrible person expresses no empathy for the tens of thousands of Americans from low income and ethnic communities who have died unnecessarily and very disproportionately “propping up” him and his staggering economy? How many of them benefited from the stock market which rises on speculative news of a future vaccine or from skyrocketing real estate prices as those in the “privileged minority” seek to flee to “greener pastures” where they can “escape the plague” and work from home unbothered by the trauma of others?
Delighted to say that one or both of these op-eds were picked up by at least 17 papers – 2 international, 6 in battle ground states, Yahoo News, and particularly noteworthy byStars and Stripes.
Many thanks to my good friend Deb Sanders for introducing me to General Kelly and bringing the views of these great supporters and defenders of democracy to the forefront!
Vote like your life and the future of humanity depend on it! Because they do!
Elsy M. Ramos Velasquez Associate Clark Hill PLC D.C.Patrick Taurel Senior Attorney Clark Hill PLC D.C.
Elsy M. Ramos Velazquez reports:
Mr. Siahaan is an Indonesia Christian who has resided in the United States for over thirty years. Mr. Siahaan is married and a father of two U.S. citizen children. Mr. Siahaan was ordered removed over a decade ago. In 2012, he was placed on and Order of Supervision. In February 2020, he was arrested by ICE. In March 2020, In April 2020, he was released and again placed on an Order of Supervision. On September 10, 2020, Mr. Siahaan was arrested by ICE agents at his home which is located on the property of Glenmont United Methodist Church in Maryland.
On October 2, 2020, Judge Paul W. Grimm granted our Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. The Court found habeas jurisdiction to stay the removal of Mr. Siahaan until he can obtain Article III review of his motion to reopen to seek asylum based on changed country conditions. Judge Grimm ordered that Mr. Siahaan be returned to Maryland. On October 15, 2020, Mr. Siahaan was released from ICE custody.
I have included a photo for Patrick Taurel, my colleague and co-counsel, who also represented Mr. Siahaan before the district court. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Best regards,
Elsy M. Ramos Velasquez
Associate
CLARK HILL PLC
***********************
Way to go Elsy & Patrick! Thanks for all you do and for saving lives in this time of national darkness and irrational, race-driven policies!
Just think of the time, money, resources, and lives that could be saved with rational policies, serving the national interest, rather than policies driven by a White Nationalist, nativist agenda.
Jeffrey Goldberg Interviewing John Kerry Official USG Photo Public RealmDonald J. Trump Famous American Clown (Officially titled “Ass Clown”) Artist: Scott Scheidly Orlando, FL Reproduced by permissionTrump Regime
In 1973, a United States Air Force officer, Major Harold Hering, asked a question that the Air Force did not want asked. Hering, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, was then in training to become a Minuteman-missile crewman. The question he asked one of his instructors was this: “How can I know that an order I receive to launch my missiles came from a sane president?”
The writer Ron Rosenbaum would later call this the “forbidden question.” Missile officers are allowed to ask certain sorts of questions—about the various fail-safe systems built to prevent the accidental launching of nuclear weapons, for instance. But the Air Force would not answer Hering’s question, and it moved to discharge him after determining that officers responsible for launching nuclear weapons did not “need to know” the answer. “I have to say I feel I do have a need to know because I am a human being,” Hering said in response.
Hering’s question was taboo because the national defense strategy of the United States is built on the unstated assumption that the American people will not allow a lunatic to become president. If that assumption is wrong, then no procedural, legal, or technological mechanisms exist that are able to fully protect the human race from such a lunatic. Hering discovered a catastrophic flaw in U.S. nuclear doctrine, and for this he was driven from the Air Force.
In most matters related to the governance and defense of the United States, the president is constrained by competing branches of government and by an intricate web of laws and customs. Only in one crucial area does the president resemble, in the words of the former missile officer and scholar Bruce Blair, an absolute monarch—his control of nuclear weapons. Richard Nixon, who was president when Major Hering asked his question, was reported to have told members of Congress at a White House dinner party, “I could leave this room and in 25 minutes, 70 million people would be dead.” This was an alarming but accurate statement.
When contemplating their ballots, Americans should ask which candidate in a presidential contest is better equipped to guide the United States through a national-security crisis without triggering a nuclear exchange, and which candidate is better equipped to interpret—within five or seven minutes—the ambiguous, complicated, and contradictory signals that could suggest an imminent nuclear attack. These are certainly not questions that large numbers of voters asked themselves in 2016, when a transparently unqualified candidate for president won the support of 63 million Americans.
At the time, Donald Trump had not yet served in public office, so concerns about his ability to protect the United States from harm were hypothetical, though grounded in his long and terrible record as a human being. As The Atlantic stated in its October 2016 endorsement of his opponent, Hillary Clinton, Trump “traffics in conspiracy theories and racist invective; he is appallingly sexist; he is erratic, secretive, and xenophobic; he expresses admiration for authoritarian rulers, and evinces authoritarian tendencies himself … He is an enemy of fact-based discourse; he is ignorant of, and indifferent to, the Constitution; he appears not to read.”
What we have learned since we published that editorial is that we understated our case. Donald Trump is the worst president this country has seen since Andrew Johnson, or perhaps James Buchanan, or perhaps ever. Trump has brought our country low; he has divided our people; he has pitted race against race; he has corrupted our democracy; he has shown contempt for American ideals; he has made cruelty a sacrament; he has provided comfort to propagators of hate; he has abandoned America’s allies; he has aligned himself with dictators; he has encouraged terrorism and mob violence; he has undermined the agencies and departments of government; he has despoiled the environment; he has opposed free speech; he has lied frenetically and evangelized for conspiracism; he has stolen children from their parents; he has made himself an advocate of a hostile foreign power; and he has failed to protect America from a ravaging virus. Trump is not responsible for all of the 220,000 COVID-19-related deaths in America. But through his avarice and ignorance and negligence and titanic incompetence, he has allowed tens of thousands of Americans to suffer and die, many alone, all needlessly. With each passing day, his presidency reaps more death.
But let us lay all of this aside for the moment. Let us even lay aside the extraordinary fact that Donald Trump has been credibly accused of rape. Compelling evidence suggests that his countless sins and defects are rooted in mental instability, pathological narcissism, and profound moral and cognitive impairment. Which returns us to the subject of Major Hering.
Trump’s opponent, Joe Biden, is in many ways a typically imperfect candidate, but if we judge these men on two questions alone—Who is a more trustworthy steward of America’s nuclear arsenal? Which man poses less of a threat to our collective existence?—the answer is spectacularly obvious.
The Atlantic has endorsed only three candidates in its 163-year history: Abraham Lincoln, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Hillary Clinton. The latter two endorsements had more to do with the qualities of Barry Goldwater and Donald Trump than with those of Johnson and Clinton. The same holds true in the case of Joe Biden. Biden is a man of experience, maturity, and obvious humanity, but had the Republican Party put forward a credible candidate for president, we would have felt no compulsion to state a preference. Donald Trump, however, is a clear and continuing danger to the United States, and it does not seem likely that our country would be able to emerge whole from four more years of his misrule. Two men are running for president. One is a terrible man; the other is a decent man. Vote for the decent man.
— Jeffrey Goldberg, on behalf of the editors of The Atlantic
******************
Sadly, this is sort of the “Duh” article of the week. It’s not like Courtside (and others) haven’t been sounding the alarm for the past several years. The only questions are 1) why has it taken others so long to figure it out; and 2) why anyone outside Trump’s immediate family would vote for this Anti-American maniac?
Vote like your life depends on it! Because it does!
Kangaroos https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License“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.”
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 GOPSenate 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!
Elizabeth Gibson Attorney, NY Legal Assistance Group Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
COVID-19
Note: Policies are rapidly changing, so please verify information on the relevant government websites and with colleagues on listservs as best you can.
EOIR Status Overview & EOIR Court Status Map/List: Hearings in non-detained cases at courts without an announced date are postponed through, and including, November 6, 2020. [Note: Despite the standing order about practices upon reopening, an opening date has not been announced for NYC non-detained at this time.]
SCOTUSblog: The Supreme Court announced on Monday morning that it would take up two cases arising out of the Trump administration’s effort to stem immigration through the United States’ border with Mexico. The justices granted review to weigh in on the long-running dispute over the funding for President Donald Trump’s border wall, as well as the legality of the Trump administration’s “remain in Mexico” policy, which allows the Department of Homeland Security to return immigrants seeking asylum to Mexico while they wait for an asylum hearing in U.S. immigration court. See also Endless Waits At An Immigrant Camp On The Mexico Border Are Pushing Desperate People To Make Tough Choices.
WaPo: ICE officers made the arrests in Denver, Seattle, New York, Baltimore, Washington and in Philadelphia, where authorities chose to announce the results and where officials said 26 immigrants were taken into custody. The agency has averaged about 40,000 “at-large” arrests per year, so the numbers announced Friday did not appear to be a significant increase in enforcement activity. See also Mayor de Blasio calls on ICE agents to stop suggesting they are NYPD.
WBUR: On Tuesday, the Boston immigration court will resume what are known as “master calendar hearings.” Even though the court has remained open throughout the pandemic, these proceedings, which bring large crowds of people to court, have been on hold — until now.
WaPo: The five-member Board of Supervisors voted unanimously Tuesday to authorize the payment, mostly to undocumented immigrants arrested on criminal charges and then held after a judge ordered them released so that federal agents could attempt to deport them. The settlement still must be approved by the judge overseeing the case, lawyers for the plaintiffs said.
WaPo: After someone painted a slogan on the sidewalk outside the home of Virginia Attorney General Mark R. Herring during a September protest, Leesburg police launched a criminal investigation into the immigrant rights coalition that organized it, court records state…Authorities asked for virtually all of the Facebook page’s content over a five-day period, a move the group says would give law enforcement access to sensitive information about undocumented immigrants and their families, confidential health reports, and complaints by name about specific law enforcement and immigration officers.
NYT: President Trump has reduced the flow of refugees into the country to a trickle, and even Iraqis and Afghans who risked their lives for American service members have been cut off.
LA Times: California’s immigrant population of 10.3 million in 2019 fell by 642,200, or 6.2%, during the first five months of the pandemic, the analysis found. That figure eclipses both the number of residents in Sacramento and the combined decrease in the nation’s other states, which saw immigrant populations decline by 531,000, or 1.5%, during the same March-through-July period.
SD Union Trib: Not all of the more than 200 Cameroonians and Congolese that detainees said were transferred to a detention facility in Texas to be deported were on the flight. Some of the group remained at Prairieland Detention Center, according to Rebekah Entralgo of Freedom For Immigrants, and a few were pulled from the flight due to individual legal actions taken on their behalf. See also Cameroonian asylum seekers pulled off deportation plane amid allegations of ICE abuse.
DHS and DOJ released the FY2019 Alien Incarceration Report, providing data on the immigration status of known or suspected immigrants incarcerated under the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Marshals Service, and in state prisons and local detention centers throughout the U.S. AILA Doc. No. 20101607
CBP provided data on Migrant Protection Protocols from 2020, including southwest border enrollments, cases referred to USCIS, data from EOIR related to the outcome of MPP cases, and individuals apprehended entering the U.S. without inspection subsequent to being returned to Mexico through MPP. AILA Doc. No. 20081231
CBP provided custody and transfer statistics from 2020, including data on in-custody information by location, dispositions for apprehended individuals and those considered inadmissible, and transfer destinations for individuals leaving CBP custody. AILA Doc. No. 20081232
DHS and ICE announced the arrests of more than 170 individuals from 10/3 to 10/9 as part of an immigration enforcement action in sanctuary jurisdictions, including Seattle, Denver, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C.
Notice of a CDC order suspending the introduction of certain persons traveling from Canada and Mexico through land ports of entry and Border Patrol stations due to COVID-19. This order is substantially the same as the order issued on 3/20/20. AILA Doc. No. 20101402
In a nonprecedent decision, the AAO sustained an appeal of a Form I-212, finding that the denial did not fully consider evidence of significant positive equities in the record, including that the applicant had lived in the U.S. for 30 years. Courtesy of Alan Lee. In Re: 9072079 (AAO 9/24/20) AILA Doc. No. 20101330
Wow, talk about fraud, waste, and abuse! Not only do DHS’s illegal, misdirected, politically-motivated “enforcement” efforts cost taxpayers big bucks, their racism-driven suppression of legal immigration actually reduces job opportunities for Americans!
While the particular illegal detentions on behalf of ICE resulting in the $14 million payout by LA County occurred under the Obama Administration, it’s no secret that Trump’s ICE has “doubled down” on efforts to coerce localities into complying with such “illegal detainers” NOT issued by “neutral and detached magistrates.” Obviously, an independent Article I Immigration Court with “neutral and detached” judges could be authorized to issue detainers where legally appropriate and justified, thus solving the problems in a way that actually complies with the Constitution and common sense.
DHS, a morass of seedy political corruption and gross mismanagement, is now engaged in a full-bore effort to aid Trump’s re-election in derogation of law and of real duties that might protect us all. In particular, they have done a poor job of messaging on the coronavirus threat. They have also separated families and endangered the lives of non-criminal “prisoners” unnecessarily jailed in unsafe conditions in their “New American Gulag.”
It’s a “rogue agency” that needs to be “reorganized, reformed, and repurposed” by a future Administration. In it’s current form, DHS is actually a threat to our national security and welfare, as it continues, under “illegal leadership” to operate as essentially “Trump’s Internal Security Police.”
Here’s an article by Maria Sacchetti from today’s Post that highlights the misdirection of DHS under Wolf’s illegal, and often immoral and unethical “leadership.”
THE DEPARTMENTS OF JUSTICE AND HOMELAND SECURITY PUBLISH FINAL RULE TO RESTRICT CERTAIN CRIMINAL ALIENS’ ELIGIBILITY FOR ASYLUM
New Mandatory Bars Prevent Convicted Felons, Drunk Drivers, Gang Members, and Other Criminal Aliens from Receiving Asylum
WASHINGTON – Today, the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security announced the publication of a Final Rule amending their respective regulations to prevent certain categories of criminal aliens from obtaining asylum in the United States. The rule takes effect 30 days after publication of the Final Rule in the Federal Register, which is scheduled to occur on Wednesday, Oct. 21.
Asylum is a discretionary immigration benefit that generally can be sought by eligible aliens who are physically present or arriving in the United States, irrespective of their status, as provided in section 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1158. However, in the INA, Congress barred certain categories of aliens from receiving asylum. In addition to the statutory bars, Congress delegated to the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to establish by regulation additional bars on asylum eligibility to the extent they are consistent with the asylum statute, as well as to establish “any other conditions or limitations on the consideration of an application for asylum” that are consistent with the INA. To ensure that criminal aliens cannot obtain this discretionary benefit, the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security have exercised their regulatory authority to limit eligibility for asylum for aliens who have engaged in specified categories of criminal behavior.
The new bars apply to aliens who are convicted of:
(1) A felony under federal or state law;
(2) An offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A) or § 1324(a)(1)(2) (Alien Smuggling or Harboring);
(3) An offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (Illegal Reentry);
(4) A federal, state, tribal, or local crime involving criminal street gang activity;
(5) Certain federal, state, tribal, or local offenses concerning the operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant;
(6) A federal, state, tribal, or local domestic violence offense, or who are found by an adjudicator to have engaged in acts of battery or extreme cruelty in a domestic context, even if no conviction resulted; and
(7) Certain misdemeanors under federal or state law for offenses related to false identification; the unlawful receipt of public benefits from a federal, state, tribal, or local entity; or the possession or trafficking of a controlled substance or controlled-substance paraphernalia.
Aliens who have committed certain domestic violence offenses, even if not convicted, will also be barred from asylum.
I adopt the comment of my friend and colleague Judge Ilyce Shugall, the “lead drafter” of the Round Table’s 🛡⚔️🗽⚖️comments in opposition:
This is so awful, but not unexpected. We will keep filing comments in the hopes that a new administration reads them carefully and can un-do the harm that has been done.
Hon. Ilyce Shugall U.S. Immigraton Judge (Retired) Director, Immigrant Legal Defense Program, Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Assn. of San Francisco.Knightess of the Round Table
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.
************** 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.
Heather Cox Richardson Historian Professor, Boston CollegeBill Barr Consigliere Artist: Pat Bagley Salt Lake Tribune Reproduced under license
From Heather Cox Richardson’sLetters From An American (10-16-20):
. . . .
And yet another story from the day: a third career prosecutor from the Department of Justice resigned after publicly attacking Attorney General William Barr for abusing his power to get Trump reelected. “After 36 years, I’m fleeing what was the U.S. Department of Justice,” Phillip Halpern wrote. “[T]he department’s past leaders were dedicated to the rule of law and the guiding principle that justice is blind. That is a bygone era, but it should not be forgotten.” Noting that “Barr has never actually investigated, charged or tried a case,” Halpern expressed deep concern over Barr’s “slavish obedience to Donald Trump’s will.” “This career bureaucrat seems determined to turn our democracy into an autocracy,” he warned.
Georgetown Law Professor Paul Butler, who worked as a federal prosecutor under Barr when he was George H. W. Bush’s Attorney General, told Katie Benner of the New York Times that such criticism is “unprecedented,” and reflects Trump’s pressure on the AG. “I have never seen sitting prosecutors go on the record with concerns about the attorney general,” he said.
And yet, Barr’s willingness to bend the Justice Department to Trump’s personal will may, in the end, not be enough to keep Trump’s favor. Angry that Barr did not produce a report attacking the Russia investigation before the election, Trump just yesterday said he wasn’t happy with Barr’s performance, and might not keep him on as AG if he wins a second term.
I might add that the “Courtside network” — with nationwide tentacles — has heard from numerous courageous and dedicated Immigration Judges that they are putting their careers on the line every day to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law against Billy’s corruption, White Nationalist bias, and the institutional pressures to “go along to get along.” But, few think that they can take the stress and abuse for another four years. That’s why this election is absolutely pivotal for the continued existence of our nation as a democratic republic rather than a fascist kakistocracy!
Vote ‘em out, vote em’ out! For our future and the future of the world, vote ‘em out!
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to review two major Trump administration immigration initiatives: a program that has forced at least 60,000 asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their requests are heard and the diversion of $2.5 billion in Pentagon money to build a barrier on the southwestern border.
Lower courts blocked both measures.But the Supreme Court, in earlier orders, allowed them to remain in effect while appeals moved forward.
The arguments in the two cases will not be heard until after the November election. Should President Trump’s Democratic opponent, Joseph R. Biden Jr., win, his administration could take steps to make the cases moot.
In the case on asylum seekers, an appeals court in February blocked the program, known as Remain in Mexico, saying it was at odds with both federal law and international treaties and was causing “extreme and irreversible harm.”
. . . .
*************************
Read the rest of the article at the link.
The losers in these cases have already been determined: the innocent human lives destroyed, the rule of law, the Constitution, human decency, and the Supremes’ reputation. If the Supremes’ majority hadn’t already “pre-judged” these cases in the regime’s favor, then their unwarranted and ethically questionable “early intervention” in the process to allow the abuses of humanity, Congressional authority, and the public fisc to continue would be even more unconscionable.
Indeed, both of these cases are examples of a democracy in danger, a judicial system in decay, and a Supremes who have established themselves as part of the problem, not the solution.
Better Federal Judges for a Better America! It starts at the polls!
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!
Donald J. Trump Famous American Clown (Officially titled “Ass Clown”) Artist: Scott Scheidly Orlando, FL Reproduced by permissionD. Vader Minister of Justice Banana Republic of TrumpTrump Regime
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.
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”).
“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.
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.”
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 & 2across 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!
🌟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!
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 panelas 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!
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 Tillissaid 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!
