"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt and Dr. Alicia Triche, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
Born in 1921, Motley was the first Black woman to argue at the Supreme Court and the first to serve as a federal judge. Democratic presidents twice considered — and twice rejected — her for a seat on a federal appeals court.
Motley, who went by Connie, faced countless indignities. She graduated from New York University and Columbia Law School, and a Wall Street firm offered her a job interview based on her stellar academic record. But the firm wouldn’t even meet with her when she showed up for the appointment because she was Black. Instead, she took a job at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.
She was the only female lawyer at the Fund for 15 years. During her employment interview in 1945 with then Legal Defense Fund boss Thurgood Marshall, the future Supreme Court justice asked her to climb a ladder next to a bookshelf. “He wanted to inspect her legs and feminine form,” writes Tomiko Brown-Nagin in her compelling and readable new biography of Motley, “Civil Rights Queen.” When Marshall stepped down to become a judge in 1961, he passed over Motley and picked a less experienced White man as his successor.
James Hohmann Columnist WashPost PHOTO: WashPost website
Follow James Hohmann‘s opinions
Follow
Motley earned less than men who did the same work. Motley nonetheless won nine of the 10 cases she argued at the Supreme Court. As a new mother, struggling with postpartum depression, she drafted briefs for Brown v. Board of Education. Pursuing the implementation of the landmark decision turned out to be a decades-long slog. She successfully integrated the flagship universities in Georgia and Mississippi, where she was James Meredith’s attorney.
In 1965, Lyndon B. Johnson had intended to nominate Motley to take Marshall’s seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit when he resigned to become solicitor general — a stepping-stone to the Supreme Court in 1967. But then-Sen. Robert F. Kennedy (D-N.Y.), remembered by history as a civil rights champion, pressed Johnson to pick a White man over Motley for the appellate court. Kennedy called Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach in July 1965 to complain that naming Motley would be too risky from a “political and public relations viewpoint.” Katzenbach summarized the call in a memo to Johnson. “I think there is merit in Sen. Kennedy’s assessment,” the attorney general told the president.
(Johnson nominated Motley to the District Court for the Southern District of New York a year later. The American Bar Association declined to give Motley a “highly qualified” rating on the dubious grounds that she lacked trial experience in New York, even though she’d litigated hundreds of cases in federal courts. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman James O. Eastland (D-Miss.) accused her of being a communist sympathizer and held up Motley’s confirmation for seven months.)
A dozen years later, during Jimmy Carter’s presidency, Attorney General Griffin Bell had veto power over judicial nominations and opposed Motley’s elevation to the 2nd Circuit because they’d tangled when she was a lawyer for the Legal Defense Fund. Carter eventually nominated Amalya Kearse, a Black woman who was a partner at a major law firm and didn’t have critics inside his administration.
Along the way, Motley mentored Sonia Sotomayor after the future justice joined Motley’s court in 1992. Sotomayor, who in 1998 secured the 2nd Circuit appeals court seat that eluded Motley, famously wrote that “wise Latina” judges “would more often than not reach a better conclusion” than White male judges who lacked their lived experiences. Motley, who rejected being called a “feminist,” disagreed that female judges brought special insight to the bench. Instead, she argued for a more representative judiciary on the grounds that inclusion would strengthen democracy by increasing confidence in the rule of law among racial minorities.
Motley died in 2005 at 84, still believing in the ability of the third branch to help deliver on that promise. Biden’s pledge to name a Black woman to the Supreme Court is a validation of Motley’s enduring faith in a system that repeatedly passed her over.
******************
The Thurgood Marshall story shows that it wasn’t only White men who undervalued Black women. Black men displayed some of the same disgusting and condescending attitudes! Motley just kept on achieving and contributing, making the most of her opportunities, rather than stewing about what had unfairly (and probably illegally) been denied to her.
Obviously, the careers of guys like GOP Senators Wicker, Cruz, and Kennedy show that White guys still benefit from a system that still doesn’t hold them to the same standards imposed on women, particularly talented women of color.See, e.g.,https://apple.news/A-e_PL2khRhiEbrj_L7woCA
But, unlike these “snowflake right-wing whiners,” women of color are used to “plowing forward” and making their own way, despite systemic biases and obstacles placed in their path by men of limited ability who spread lies, show disgusting bias, and contribute little to the common good!
Folks, this is the same Ted Cruz who demonstrated his true character and lack of concern for his constituents by fleeing with his family to a cushy resort in Cancun while Texas was in crisis! He’s also someone who would deny legal refuge to those whose lives are actually in danger because they don’t “fit in” with his White Nationalist view of desirable demographics. (Compare “Cancun Ted’s” version of “refuge” with the camps in which real refugees and their families are rotting in Mexico thanks to righty-wing judges and GOP AGs.)
Perhaps the most interesting disconnect among the privileged GOP White guys who are opposing a Black woman nominee who hasn’t even been named yetis the juxtaposition with the performance of these dudes during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings — an unending homage to the “birth privilege” of angry, entitled right-wing white guys. Here’s an apt quote from Chauncey Devega in Salon:
When Trump says “young men,” no adjective or modifier is needed. It is clear to everyone, given his inclinations, history, words and deeds, that “young men” of course means “white men”.
This reflects a larger sentiment in America at present. For too many white men — poor, working-class and middle-class — there is widespread anger at somehow being displaced by nonwhites and women who are “cutting ahead in line” because of “affirmative action” and other nonexistent “entitlements.”
These angry white men feel obsolete and marginalized in a changing America, frustrated by globalization and excluded by a more cosmopolitan country. But their anger is misdirected toward the groups they perceive to be receiving “special treatment.” Their collective anger would be better directed at men who look like them but who have created social inequality, injustice and immiseration in America and around the world.
President Biden should stick to his guns and nominate a talented and deserving Black woman. It’slong, long overdue! And, he should pay no attention whatsoever to the outrageous, totally disingenuous laminations of privileged guys like Cruz, Wicker, and Kennedy who have already “achieved” far above the level of their demonstrated merit, ability, or positive contributions to the common good.
We need Federal Judges and Justices who are wise, fair, talented, experienced contributors to society; we don’t need the advice or “stamp of approval” of insurrectionists and dividers who rely on racially biased myths to cover for their own all too obvious human inadequacies!
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate has confirmed Merrick Garland to be the next U.S. attorney general with a strong bipartisan vote, placing the widely-respected, veteran judge in the post as President Joe Biden has vowed to restore the Justice Department’s reputation for independence.
. . . .
The department’s priorities and messaging are expected to shift drastically in the Biden administration, with a focus more on civil rights issues, criminal justice overhauls and policing policies in the wake of nationwide protests over the death of Black Americans at the hands of law enforcement.
That expected shift prompted some Republicans to oppose Garland’s nomination, including Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton, who said he believed the judge would be too soft on criminals and immigrants and “empower left wing radicals embedded inside the department.”
At his confirmation hearing, Garland emphasized his commitment to combating racial discrimination in policing, telling senators that said America doesn’t “yet have equal justice.” He also said he’d prioritize confronting the rise in extremist violence and domestic terror threats.
At one point in the hearing, he held back tears when speaking about his grandparents, who fled Russia for the U.S. amid antisemitism and persecution.
“The country took us in, and protected us, and I feel an obligation to the country to pay back, and this is the highest, best use of my own set of skills to pay back,” Garland said. “So I very much want to be the kind of attorney general that you’re saying I could become, and I’ll do my best to become that kind of attorney general.”
******************
You can read the full article at the link.
Yeah, how ‘bout all those imaginary “left wing rads” embedded at the DOJ that Cotton has fabricated in the same way he fabricates threats to the U.S. from people of color.
Judge Garland’sreal problem will be returning respect for civil rights, voting rights, immigrants’ rights, women’s rights, First Amendment rights, non-right-wing-Christian religious rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and Due Process to a Department that basically abandoned the Constitution and the rule of law to carry out a scofflaw, racially charged far-right agenda under Trump!
For the Republicans, justice is not something that “rolls down like waters,” it’s something that comes down like a hammer.
This was a failure that Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) aimed to make clear when he asked Garland whether he was familiar with a biblical reference to justice that advises to “act justly and to love mercy.” Much of Booker’s questioning centered around racism within the criminal justice system — the disproportionate arrests of minorities, lousy legal representation for the poor, sentencing imbalances and the issue that caused Kennedy such befuddlement, implicit bias.
Garland acknowledged these issues, the flaws in the system, the need to change. And then he told in public, the story he’d told Booker in private about why he wanted to leave a lifetime appointment on the federal bench to do this job. It’s the most reasonable question, but one that so often is never asked: Why do you want to do this?
Garland acknowledged these issues, the flaws in the system, the need to change. And then he told in public, the story he’d told Booker in private about why he wanted to leave a lifetime appointment on the federal bench to do this job. It’s the most reasonable question, but one that so often is never asked: Why do you want to do this?
“I come from a family where my grandparents fled antisemitism and persecution,” Garland said. And then he stopped. He sat in silence for more than a few beats. And when he resumed, his voice cracked. “The country took us in and protected us. And I feel an obligation to the country, to pay back.”
“This is the highest, best use of my one set of skills,” Garland said. “And so I want very much to be the kind of attorney general you’re saying I could be.”
And that would be one focused on protecting the rights of the greatest and the least — and even the worst. Punishment is part of the job. But it’s not the definition of justice.
*******************
Read Robin’s complete article at the link. She can write! So delighted the Post got her off the “fashion beat” where her talents were being squandered, and got her onto more serious stuff!
Judge Garland’s awareness and humility are refreshing. But, unless he takes immediate action to redo EOIR and the rest of the DOJ’s immigration kakistocracy, it won’t mean much.
Judge, it could have been YOUR family forced to suffer kidnapping, extortion, murder threats, family separation, and other overtly cruel and inhuman treatment in squalid camps in Mexico, waiting for “hearings” that would never come before “judges” known for denying almost 100% of claims regardless of merit! YOUR family’s plea for refugee could have been rejected by some nativist bureaucrat or “hand-selected by the prosecutor” “Deportation Judge” for specious, biased reasons!
YOUR family was welcomed! But what if the only thought had been how to “best deter” “you and others like you” from coming?
Maybe because you and yours are White and hail from Eastern Europe, the “rule of law” has a different meaning and impact than it would if you were Brown, Black, or some other “non-White” skin color and had the misfortune to be from a “shithole” country where we have no concern for what happens to humanity? Or, worse yet, what if your family’s claim had been based on your Grandmother’s gender status? You would really be out of luck under today’s overtly misogynist approach to refugee law flowing out of EOIR!
Then, where would you and your nice family be today? Would you even be? THOSE are the questions you should be asking yourself!
Unfortunately, it’s easy to see that folks like Cotton, Hawley, Cruz, and Kennedy will be deeply offended if you attack their White Nationalist privilege, views, and agendas in any meaningful way.
And, if you actually make progress in holding the Capitol insurrectionists accountable, you’ll have to deal with the unapologetic, disingenuous, anti-democracy, insurrectionist actions of folks like Hawley and Cruz. That won’t be too “bipartisanly popular” with a GOP gang that just overwhelmingly worked and voted to ignore the evidence and “acquit” the “Chief Insurrectionist.”Who, by the way, was a main purveyor of the institutionalized racism that infects EOIR and the rest of the DOJ. It’s no real secret that “America’s anti-democracy party” aids, abets, encourages, and exonerates White Supremacists and domestic terrorists.
In the GOP world, “mercy” and “due process” are reserved for White guys like Trump, Flynn, Stone, White Supremacists, and “Q-Anoners.” Folks of color and migrants exist largely below the floor level of the GOP’s definition of “person” or “human.” For them, justice is a “hammer” to beat them into submission and punish them for asserting their rights.
So, restoring the rule of law at the DOJ is going to be a tough job —you need to clean house and get the right folks (mostly from outside Government) in to help you. And, you must examine carefully the roles of many career civil servants who chose to be part of the problems outlined by Chairman Durbin in his opening remarks.
You’re also going to have to “tune out” the criticism, harassment, and unhelpful “input” you’re likely to get from GOP legislators in both Houses who are firmly committed to the former regime’s White Nationalist agenda of “Dred Scottification,” disenfranchisement, nativism, and preventing equal justice for persons of color, of any status!
Think about all the reasons why you and your family are grateful for the treatment you received from our country. Then, think of the ways you could make those things a reality for all persons seeking refuge or just treatment, regardless of skin color, creed, or status. That’s the way you can “give back” at today’s DOJ! That’s the way you can be remembered as the “father of the diverse, representative, independent, due-process exemplifying21st Century Immigration Judiciary!” 🧑🏽⚖️👩⚖️👨🏻⚖️
It’s not “rocket science.” Actually, just carrying out our current legal and moral obligations. It’s well within our capabilities, particularly with the right people in charge. Why wasn’t a plan to get this done “front and center” in Judge Garland’s testimony today?
🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever! Human misery doesn‘t stop for “study.” Not all damage and harm is reversible! What if it were YOU and YOUR family?
Judge Merrick B. Garland Official White House Photo Public Realm
. . . .
The President nominates the Attorney General to be the lawyer — not for any individual, but for the people of the United States. July 2020 marked the 150th anniversary of the founding of the Department of Justice, making this a fitting time to remember the mission of the Attorney General and the Department.
It is a fitting time to reaffirm that the role of the Attorney General is to serve the Rule of Law and to ensure equal justice under the law. And it is a fitting time to recognize the more than 115,000 career employees of the Department and its law enforcement agencies, and their commitment to serve the cause of justice and protect the safety of our communities.
If I am confirmed, serving as Attorney General will be the culmination of a career I have dedicated to ensuring that the laws of our country are fairly and faithfully enforced, and that the rights of all Americans are protected.
. . . .
That mission remains urgent because we do not yet have equal justice. Communities of color and other minorities still face discrimination in housing, education, employment, and the criminal justice system; and bear the brunt of the harm caused by pandemic, pollution, and
climate change.
150 years after the Department’s founding, battling extremist attacks on our democratic institutions also remains central to its mission.
At the opening of the hearing, he told Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin (D-IL):
Garland also distanced himself from the Trump administration’s child separation immigration policy, calling it ‘shameful’ and committing to aiding a Senate investigation into the matter.
‘I think that the policy was shameful. I can’t imagine anything worse than tearing parents from their children, and we will provide all of the cooperation that we possibility can,’ Garland told Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin.
Yet, the harsh reality is that the DOJ is still actively engaged in furthering the operation of “Baby Jails” and “Family Gulags.” Indeed, disgracefully, the DOJ’s EOIR actually operates “judicial star chambers” euphemistically called “Detained Immigration Courts” in DHS Gulags throughout America.
There, bonds are unconstitutionally denied, the right to legal representation is aggressively hindered and discouraged, some individuals have their asylum claims wrongfully denied, while others are pressured under duress into giving up their legal rights.
As all of this is ongoing, EOIR’s so-called “judges” assert that they “lack power” to examine the life-threatening, dangerous, unconstitutionally substandard conditions and abusive custody present throughout the “New American Gulag” operated by DHS that they serve.(How do “judges” work for the AG under the Due Process Clause of our Constitution?)
What kind of “courts” are these? What does Judge Garland intend to do to stop official child abusers and illegal and unethical “civil detention?”
Judge Garland’s tone is an obvious improvement over the past two turkeys 🦃to hold the job! But, words are words; actions are what counts! Unfortunately, I couldn’t discern any “plan of action” here!
Without being unduly picky:
You should have said “This President nominates;” obviously, the last one did view the AG as his personal lawyer and the DOJ as just another of the many law firms on his retainer — one working pro bono at the people’s expense against the people’s interests — how perverted is that;
In a way it’s nice and expected to acknowledge the many hard-working civil servants in the DOJ; but, the reality is that far too many of them were part of the problem — failing to stand up for “the people’s” (actually, as you know, immigrants regardless of status are “persons” under our Constitution — real, live, breathing, feeling “people” if you will) individual rights and ignoring their oaths of office to carry out the White Nationalist, anti-democracy agenda of the past regime; like it or not, Judge, if you are going to turn your elevated thoughts into policy and practice, you are going to have to deal with the folks who “went along to get along” over the past four years; like it or not, you’re going to need a broom 🧹 and a plunger 🪠 to get this dirty job done;
Of course equal justice for all should be the goal (it’s not a new idea, except in GOP Administrations — if you remember it was actually Janet Reno’s motto) and obviously we’re not close to being there; “communities of color” faced more than “discrimination” — over the past four years, it was an active and concerted policy of “Dred Scottification” — willful dehumanization of the other and trashing their Constitutional rights: to vote, to due process, to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” on many occasions — mostly with the participation, encouragement, and often unethicalactions of the DOJ, sometimes endorsed and enabled by Federal Courts, all the way up to the Supremes; it’s going to take some real bold, and undoubtedly unpleasant, actions at the DOJ to make the rhetoric a reality, not to mention standing up to some of the lousy Federal Judicial appointments from the last four years;
How are you going to do any of this without acknowledging that immigration is where it starts; as you deliver your remarks today, some EOIR “judges,” soon to be “your judges,” will be actively applying racist, misogynist, anti-due process, “worst practices” “precedents” to dehumanize, disparage, and wrongfully deny and remove the very “people in the United States,” among our most vulnerable and often deserving, whose rights you claim to be dedicated to protecting and enhancing; how are you going to do that without a definitive plan for immediately reforming EOIR, OIL, the SG’s Office, OLC, OLP, the Civil Division, the Civil Rights Division, the Criminal Division and a host of other “components” who participated, and continue to participate, in these legal travesties and mockeries of due process, humanity, and the rule of law on a daily basis;
I understand your commitment to addressing domestic terrorism; but, you can’t do that without addressing its most obvious manifestation in the DOJ: EOIR; you can draw a straight line from the White Nationalist, racist agenda of Stephen Miller to the lies, misogyny, racism, and disrespect for immigrants, particularly those of color, “institutionalized and weaponized” @ EOIR, to the empowered political thugs who thought they were entitled to forcibly attack democracy and its representatives (many among the GOP who were actively complicit) at our Capitol!
How do you intend to deal constructively, professionally, and constitutionally with the stunning, yet largely self-created, 1.3 million plus case Immigration Court backlog that threatens to topple our entire justice system; what’s your plan for ending “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” @ EOIR, returning control to local judges while keeping politicos and bureaucrats @ EOIR & DOJ from further destructive meddling;
How are you gonna credibly fight “domestic terrorism” with these folks as “your judges?”
BIA Asylum Panel In Action Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
I, of course, appreciate your lofty thoughts and wish you all the best. You remind us all of something sadly lost over the past four years and something still glaringly missing from the GOP and its supporters: Values matter! But, values require implementation — action!
I won’t be convinced that you will actually be able to accomplish your goals and carry out your values until I witness your bold action to “deconstruct” the EOIR that Stephen Miller, Gene Hamilton, “Gonzo” Sessions, and “Billy the Bigot” Barr built and replace it with a real court system with real progressive, due-process/equal justice-committed expert judges and professional judicial administrators as an essential step to the creation of a long-overdue and urgently needed Article I U.S. Immigration Court.
I look forward to seeing your EOIR Reform Plan in action, very soon! Good luck!
The Biden transition has officially announced: Merrick Garland, nominee for Attorney General; Lisa Monaco, nominee for Deputy Attorney General; Vanita Gupta, nominee for Assoc. Attorney General; and Kristen Clarke, nominee for Asst. Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division.
*********************
Gupta and Clarke have strong social justice backgrounds.
Monaco, on the other hand, served as a Homeland Security Assistant to President Obama, and has a primarily prosecutorial/national security background. That could be troubling, given the marked tendency of Administrations of both parties to use bogus or exaggerated “national security myths” and overwrought “get tough prosecutorial stances” to violate both the civil and human rights of asylum seekers and other migrants.
I frankly had hoped for someone with a better demonstrated understanding of, and commitment to, human rights, social justice, and the essential prerequisites they both are for achieving true national security. Unlike Judge Garland, I see little if anything in Monaco’s background that would qualify her to have a role in administering one of the nation’s largest, and perhaps most important, “court” systems: the U.S. Immigration Courts, now in total disarray and complete meltdown.
But, in the end, she’s President Biden’s choice and will be confirmed. Hopefully, we can work with her. At the same time, the NDPA should be prepared to “raise holy hell” if she performs like the Obama DOJ officials who abused, mismanaged, and helped destroy due process in the Immigration Courts.
The assignment of supervision of the Immigration Court function under the AG varies from Administration to Administration. In this case, incoming AssociateAG Vanita Gupta, a strong supporter of immigrants’ rights who understands their connection to civil rights, human rights, and racial justice, currently President and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, would be a far better choice than Monaco to work on rebuilding EOIR into the due-process focused court system it was supposed to be.
Here are bios:
Biography
Lisa Monaco assumed her duties as Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism on March 8, 2013. As President Barack Obama’s Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Advisor, she was responsible for advising the President on all aspects of counterterrorism policy and strategy and coordinating homeland security-related activities throughout the Executive Branch. She chaired meetings of the Cabinet-level Homeland Security Principals Committee, which advised the President on homeland security policy issues and crises. Ms. Monaco was responsible for policy coordination and crisis management on issues ranging from terrorist attacks at home and abroad to cybersecurity and natural disasters.
Prior to the White House, Ms. Monaco spent 15 years at the Department of Justice, the majority of that time serving as a career federal prosecutor, and in senior management positions in the Justice Department and the FBI. She has extensive experience at the senior most levels of law enforcement and the Justice Department. She served for three years as counsel to and then Chief of Staff at the FBI, helping then Director Robert S. Mueller, III, transform the FBI after 9/11 into a national security organization focused on preventing terrorist attacks on the United States. In 2009, she returned to the Department of Justice to serve in the senior leadership of the Deputy Attorney General’s office, responsible for management of the Justice Department and its more than 100,000 employees. She served as Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General’s primary advisor on criminal policy, law enforcement, national security and civil litigation matters. In that role she was responsible for assisting the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General in overall management and supervision of the Department and its components, including the nation’s 94 United States Attorney Offices. In 2011, she was nominated by the President and confirmed by the United States Senate to serve as Assistant Attorney General for National Security, the first woman to serve in that position. In this role, she led the Justice Department’s National Security Division (NSD) which was created after the attacks of September 11, 2001, in order to integrate intelligence and law enforcement functions across the Justice Department. At NSD, she oversaw all federal terrorism and national security prosecutions nationwide and led a division of more than 350 lawyers and professional staff. Ms. Monaco made investigating and prosecuting national security cyber threats a top priority during her tenure and under her leadership, a nationwide network of national security cyber prosecutors was created.
Ms. Monaco began her legal career as a law clerk to the Honorable Jane R. Roth on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. She later served as Counsel to the Attorney General and then as a Federal prosecutor. She served for six years as an Assistant United States Attorney in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia prosecuting a range of crimes from violent crime to fraud and public corruption cases. Her career as a Federal prosecutor includes service on the Enron Task Force, a group of federal prosecutors drawn from around the country to investigate and prosecute the fraud at the Enron Corporation.
Ms. Monaco is a recipient of the Attorney General’s Award for Exceptional Service, the Justice Department’s highest award, for her work on the Enron Task Force, as well as the Edmund J. Randolph Award, which is awarded by the Attorney General in recognition of outstanding contributions to the accomplishment of the Department of Justice’s mission. She is a graduate of Harvard University and the University of Chicago Law School.
Vanita Gupta is an experienced leader and litigator who has devoted her entire career to civil rights work. Most recently, from October 15, 2014, to January 20, 2017, she served as Acting Assistant Attorney General and Head of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division. Appointed by President Barack Obama as the chief civil rights prosecutor for the United States, Gupta oversaw a wide range of criminal and civil enforcement efforts to ensure equal justice and protect equal opportunity for all during one of the most consequential periods for the division.
Under Gupta’s leadership, the division did critical work in a number of areas, including advancing constitutional policing and criminal justice reform; prosecuting hate crimes and human trafficking; promoting disability rights; protecting the rights of LGBTQ individuals; ensuring voting rights for all; and combating discrimination in education, housing, employment, lending, and religious exercise. She regularly engaged with a broad range of stakeholders in the course of this work.
Selected high profile matters during her tenure included the investigations of the Ferguson, Baltimore, and Chicago police departments; the appeals of the Texas and North Carolina voter ID cases; the challenge to North Carolina’s HB2 law and other transgender rights litigation; enforcement of education, land use, hate crimes, and other statutes to combat Islamophobia and other forms of religious discrimination; the issuance of statements of interest on bail and indigent defense reform, and letters to state and local court judges and administrators on the unlawful imposition of fines and fees in criminal justice system; and the Administration’s report on solitary confinement.
Prior to joining the Justice Department, Gupta served as Deputy Legal Director and the Director of the Center for Justice at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). She joined the ACLU in 2006 as a staff attorney, where she subsequently secured a landmark settlement on behalf of immigrant children from around the world detained in a privately-run prison in Texas that ultimately led to the end of “family detention” at the facility. In addition to managing a robust litigation docket at the ACLU, Gupta created and led the organization’s Smart Justice Campaign aimed at ending mass incarceration while keeping communities safe. She worked with law enforcement agencies, corrections officials, advocates, stakeholders, and elected officials across the political spectrum to build collaborative support for pretrial, drug, and sentencing policies that make our federal, state, and local criminal justice systems more effective and more just.
Gupta began her legal career as an attorney at the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, where she successfully led the effort to overturn the wrongful drug convictions of 38 individuals in Tulia, Texas, who were ultimately pardoned by Governor Rick Perry. She then helped negotiate a $6 million settlement on behalf of her clients. She also consulted with European civil society organizations working to advance the rights of the Roma.
Gupta graduated magna cum laude from Yale University and received her law degree from New York University School of Law, where later she taught a civil rights litigation clinic for several years.
She is married to Chinh Q. Le, legal director of the Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia, and has two young sons.
SOURCE: Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
President-elect Joe Biden is reportedly set to name Merrick Garland as his nominee for attorney general. If confirmed, Garland will take over a demoralized Justice Department that has abandoned bedrock principles and priorities, and come under withering attack from President Donald Trump’s administration.
Garland, a former federal prosector who lead the investigation into the Oklahoma City bomber, was nominated to the Supreme Court by former President Barack Obama following Antonin Scalia’s 2016 death. The Republican-controlled Senate refused to hold a hearing on his nomination for months, citing the presidential election. His pending nomination died in early 2017, after 293 days.
Garland will take over a Justice Department that Trump sought to weaponize against his political opponents and use as his personal law firm. Trump has fired or pushed out a number of key department officials, most famously former FBI Director James Comey. Trump appointees have used the Justice Department’s power in an overtly political fashion, even if they’ve resisted Trump’s desire to wield the department’s prosecutorial power as a blunt political weapon.
The nominee will face the challenge of determining how the Justice Department will approach potential criminal investigations into Trump and members of his administration. They will also face the prospect of rebuilding components like the Civil Rights Division, which abandoned key issues like police reform and focused on controversial religious liberty cases and attacks on college affirmative action programs. They’ll also have to deal with the long-term consequences of Trump’s attacks on the FBI, which has gutted Republicans’ confidence in the nation’s premier law enforcement organization. Biden’s nominee may also have to figure out how to combat a rise in right-wing domestic terrorism cases, some of which have been directly inspired by the outgoing president’s rhetoric against his political enemies and Muslims.
In addition, Biden’s nominee will have to deal with the delicate question of how to handle the ongoing tax investigation into the new president’s son, Hunter Biden, which is being led by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Delaware. The nominee will have to reassure the American public that there won’t be political interference in the probe, perhaps by walling off the investigation. Republicans, the vast majority of whom were unconcerned with Trump’s repeated attempts to improperly interfere in Justice Department matters, might even call for a special counsel to assure the probe’s independence.
Former Attorney General Eric Holder, who had to rebuild the Justice Department after controversies during the George W. Bush administration, told HuffPost that Biden understands that he needs to give the attorney general “the space that he or she needs to restore integrity and the independence” of the Justice Department.
. . . .
************************
Reread the rest of the article at the link.
I knew Judge Garland a little bit from the DOJ in the Carter Administration, eons ago.He’s obviously in a totally different class than his sleazy, White Nationalist enabling predecessors in the defeated regime. It should be a welcome breath of professionalism, re-infusion of ethics, and re-establishment of due process, the rule of law, and simple common sense and human decency at the “disaster zone” DOJ.
I just hope that fixing the totally broken and dysfunctional Immigration Courts and restoring fairness, due process, and independence by bringing in immigration and human rights experts from the NDPA is high on his “to do” list! Only time will tell. But, potentially, he appears to be the right person to rebuild and transition the existing EOIR mess into an independent Article I Immigration Court.
Obviously, unlike most of his predecessors, he understands what a “real court” should look like and how it should operate.
With the results from Georgia coming in, today the long-sought objective of Article I seems closer than it has ever been.
⚖️🗽🇺🇸Due Process Forever! Time for Judge Garland 👨🏻⚖️ to end the “EOIR Clown Show”🤡!
“They are so well taken care of. … They’re in facilities that were so clean,” President Donald Trump said during last week’s presidential debate, of the children his administration ordered separated from their parents at the southern border. As my colleague Jeremy Stahl points out, this isn’t the first time that an administration official has argued that because the separated children—over 500 of whom are still being kept from their parents—have (supposedly!) been physically taken care of, they should be “just fine.” But if the life histories of children forced to be parted from parents for years of their childhoods are any indication, these periods of separation will have long-lasting, devastating, and unpredictable effects.
I’ve been reading historian Rebecca Clifford’s new book, Survivors: Children’s Lives After the Holocaust, which is a painful history of Jewish kids who somehow made it through World War II when they were very small, and had to figure out how to forge a life afterward. Combining analysis of survivors’ testimonies recorded over the years, documents from the archives of organizations that came into contact with these children, and oral histories Clifford herself collected, the book shows how many of these survivors struggled with the act of making sense of their lives—even the lucky ones, who didn’t witness violence, and whose material needs were well met during the period of conflict and persecution. Clifford calls the work “fundamentally a book about the history of living after, and living with, a childhood marked by chaos.”
Survivors is, of course, about a group of children whose lives were marked by the Nazi regime, not about children fleeing violence in Central America, who were then separated from their families by Border Patrol agents. But it’s also fundamentally concerned with the human consequences of children’s separations from parents. In the group of survivors in Clifford’s history, there are kids who were sent to live with host families, who hid them until the war was over; kids incarcerated in different labor camps from their parents; kids who wandered the forests alone, tended only by older siblings.
Asking the historical record, and the grown-up survivors she interviewed, how this period of separation had affected the children’s lives in the long term, Clifford found things that she described as “not only unexpected, but shocking.” One such finding was the fact that for many of the kids, the war years were fine; it was liberation that was traumatic. “Children are adept at treating the exceptional as normal, and because they had no other life to compare it with, the years of persecution did not necessarily feel dangerous, fraught, or chaotic to young survivors,” Clifford writes. But after liberation, as well-meaning adults did everything they could to bring the kids back together with their surviving family members, or to find them places in Jewish homes, many of the separated survivors were profoundly destabilized. “My war began in 1945, not in 1940,” one such survivor said.
The German Jewish parents of Felice Z., who was born in October 1939, put their 1½-year-old daughter in the hands of aid workers in early 1941, and the girl spent the war years hidden by farmers in France. Felice Z. remembered in later interviews that she loved her host parents, and in particular her host mother, Madame Patoux: “All they were interested in was taking care of me. She basically saved my life. She was always ready to run. … I took it for granted that she was my mother, I called her meme (nana) and it was really the first close relationship that I had with another human being. I became very attached to them. Very.” At the end of the war, Felice got no joy out of being reunited with her sister, who had become a stranger. Soon after that reunion, she was removed from the family where she had grown up; as she remembered it, nobody bothered to explain why.
“Family reunions could be among the most difficult and distressing experiences that children went through after the war,” Clifford writes. “The youngest children might have no memory of their parents or relatives at all, and were effectively returned to strangers. … Not one child in this study who was returned to his or her family found this process easy or joyful.” The reunions brought up feelings of anger and terror—even if, as Clifford points out, the kids could rationally understand the reasons their parents had put them in safer places for the duration of the war. They had spent years suppressing childish impulses—“they had had to be obedient, quiet, and good to stay safe during the war, whether they were in hiding, in ghettos or in camps”—and often became explosive and “difficult to manage” after the separation was over.
. . . .
**********************
Read the rest of Rebecca’s article at the link.
So much wanton cruelty; such gross illegality; so little accountability; such glaring lack of integrity in our justice system! What has our country become? How is this “normal” or within the proper scope of “Executive authority.” What is impeachment for if not for “crimes against humanity?”
Vote ‘Em out, vote ‘Em out! Then start re-examining the failed and continuously failing institutions that couldn’t or wouldn’t effectively stand up to Trump, Miller, Sessions, Barr, Wolf, and the rest of their gang of thugs and scofflaws!
That starts, but by no means ends, with the highly politicized Supremes and their systemic failure to uphold our Constitution, the rule of law, and human dignity against an onslaught of White Nationalist, racist-inspired abuses by Trump, Miller, and their GOP cronies. This is a Court that disgracefully has been more interested in carrying out GOP shenanigans overtly intended to suppress votes, remove minority voting rights guaranteed by statute and Constitution, and throw the election to Trump than it has been in enforcing the Constitution and the rule of law to save the lives of refugees and asylum seekers, including women and children!
Better, more courageous, more humane judges for a better America!
PWS
10-29-20
*******************************
UPDATE: HOUSE REPORT LAYS BARE “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” COMMITTED BY REGIME OFFICIALS!
Here’s the just-released Report (courtesy of Dan Kowalski @ LexisNexis):
VI. Conclusion
While we may never know the full extent of the damage inflicted by the Trump Administration’s family separation policy, it is evident—as a result of this investigation and public reporting—that it was driven by an Administration that was willfully blind to its cruelty and determined to go to unthinkable extremes to deliver on political promises and stop migrants fleeingviolencefromseekingprotectionintheUnitedStates. Asillustratedinthisreport:
• Within weeks of President Trump’s inauguration, the Administration began formulating a plan to separate parents from their children as a means to deter migration.
• Before a formal policy had even been developed, the Administration was accelerating familyseparations. ByMarch2017,thenumberofseparatedchildrentransferredtoORR custody had increased by nearly 900 percent, as compared to November 2016.
• In July 2017, without warning, the Administration implemented a family separation pilot programintheElPasoBorderPatrolSector. Thepilotprogramlastedfivemonthsand resulted in hundreds of additional children being taken from their parents and placed in ORR custody.
• During the pilot program, the Administration discovered that it was unable to track separated family members in a way that would facilitate eventual reunification.
• Knowing this, and without doing anything to address the tracking systems employed by deferral agencies, the Administration chose to expand the policy nationwide in May 2018.
• To make matters worse, the Administration failed to provide advance notice of the policy to front line agents and officers, which caused unnecessary chaos and inconsistent implementation of the policy across border sectors.
121 Dan Diamond, HHS Reviews Refugee Operations as Trump Calls for Border Crackdown, POLITICO (Oct. 23, 2018), https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/23/trump-caravan-border-hhs-873152.
122 Email from Scott Lloyd to Evelyn Stauffer, Press Secretary, Dep’t of Health and Human Services (Nov. 19, 2018), at Appendix AY.
21
• When judicial intervention and political pressure eventually resulted in the end of the policy, the lack of interagency cooperation and preparedness was laid bare by the inability of the Administration to quickly reunite separated parents and children.
As a result of this dark chapter in our nation’s history, hundreds of migrant children may never be reunited with their parents.
Despite considerable stonewalling by Administration officials, Judiciary Committee Members and staff have pushed relentlessly to obtain data and conduct much needed oversight of the agencies responsible for the family separation policy. This report details the Committee’s findings thus far. We remain committed to holding the Trump Administration accountable and continuing to shed light on this dark moment in our country’s history.
As my friend, “Immigration Guru” Ira J. Kurzban would say: “Folks, this is NOT NORMAL!”
As we both say: “This is unacceptable conduct for which there must be accountability if we are to remain a nation under law.”
The Government appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Carter, J.), granting Carlos Alejandro Velasco Lopez’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Velasco Lopez was detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which provides for discretionary detention of noncitizens during the pendency of removal proceedings. His habeas petition challenged the procedures employed in his bond hearings, which required him to prove, to the satisfaction of an immigration judge, that he is neither a danger to the community nor a flight risk. We hold that the district court correctly granted the petition, and provided the correct remedy by ordering a new bond hearing in which the Government bore the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that Velasco Lopez was either a danger or a flight risk.
KEY QUOTE:
The irony in this case is that, in the end, all interested parties prevailed. The Government has prevailed because it has no interest in the continued incarceration of an individual who it cannot show to be either a flight risk or a danger to his community. Velasco Lopez has prevailed because he is no longer incarcerated. And the public’s interest in seeing that individuals who need not be jailed are not incarcerated has been vindicated.
**********************************
Judge Parker is correct insofar as he cogently states what should be a “win-win-win” under a functioning Government. I wholeheartedly join lead counsel Julie Dona of the Legal Aid Society, NY, in appreciating and recognizing Judge Parker’s understanding of the grim realities of today’s mal-functioning Immigration Courts and the important Constitutional rights being abridged by DHS & EOIR (essentially one and the same under the Trump kakistocracy).
But, that statement of how Government should be functioning glosses over the unfortunate reality of the Trump regime’s lawless, White Nationalist, nativist immigration agenda. The Trump regime doesn’t seek to create “win-win-win” situations! Instead, they seek to make political statements, dehumanize and degrade “the other,” and promote the biases of their “base” over sound public policy that benefits the common good.
The purpose of imprisonment in the Trump Gulag all too often has little or nothing to do with the legal criteria of danger to the community or flight risk. Rather, detention in the Gulag is used by the Trump regime’s DHS, with the connivence of the DOJ and often the courts, to punish individuals who choose to assert their legal rights; make it more difficult for them to obtain effective representation; and to coerce them into abandoning viable claims for relief, appeals, and judicial review. It’s all about punishment and deterrence, not mainly about the public interest, which is ill-served by most of Trump’s biased and counterproductive immigration policies.
DHS detention in the Trump era primarily serves Trump’s political interests and the interests of those running the for-profit prisons comprising much of Trump’s New American Gulag. Any time Trump’s policies match up with a legitimate national interest, it’s purely happenstance, not part of some overall plan to govern in the public interest.
Miller’splans are so explosively ugly, overtly racist, and anti-American that they are being kept under wraps (for now) because of a (quite legitimate) fear that they could drive the small, yet potentially significant, minority of voters of color that Trump needs to have any chance of extending his rule to do something rational and in their self-interest: Vote for Biden-Harris. Look for things like eliminating birthright citizenship, eradicating all refugee and asylum laws, making it difficult or impossible for family members and people of color to immigrate legally, a wave of summary deportations, deporting “Dreamers,” and exterminating every last ounce of compassion and humanity from our laws. If you think that Black Lives don’t matter much to Trump and his cronies, just wait until he turns the Gruppenfuhrer loose! Think the Federal Courts will stop him? Just look at Trump’s “wholly owned and proud to brag about it” Supremes’ majority! And, he’s also “stacked” — effectively “packed” — the lower Federal Courts with loyalist ideologues.
America can no longer afford life-tenured judges who treat Trump as “normal” and are unwilling or incapable of “connecting the dots” among the dehumanization and demonization of migrants, institutionalized racism, and the end of American democracy. Immigrants’ rights are human rights; human rights are Constitutional rights; dehumanization of “the other” dehumanizes us all!
It’s past time that America stopped granting the privilege and responsibilities of life-tenure to those who won’t publicly adhere to those fundamental truths! Not rocket science! Just basic Constitutional law and human decency! Better judges for a better America! It all starts with a better President and a better Senate! That’s why this election might be our final chance to take back our country and preserve our democracy!
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.
Supreme Court Nominee by Bob Englehart, PoliticalCartoons.com Published under licenseEric Levitz Associate Editor Intelligencer New York Magazine Photo source: Twitter
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 actuallyintended 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.
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.
“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.”
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!
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg 1933-2020 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States, Photographer: Steve PettewayHeather Cox Richardson Historian Professor, Boston College
From Heather Cox Richardson:
. . . .
Ginsburg’s death has brought widespread mourning among those who saw her as a champion for equal rights for women, LGBTQ Americans, minorities, and those who believe the role of the government is to make sure that all Americans enjoy equal justice under law. Upon her passing, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tweeted: “Justice Ginsburg paved the way for so many women, including me. There will never be another like her. Thank you RBG.”
For many, she seemed to be the last defender of an equality they fear is slipping away. Robyn Walsh, a University of Miami religion professor, watched the outpouring of grief after Ginsburg’s death and wrote “It says a lot about us that the loss of one voice leaves women and their allies feeling so helpless. I am grateful for RBG, her advocacy, and her strength. I’m enraged that we find ourselves here.”
That rage, prompted by the prospect of a Trump appointee in Ginsburg’s seat, led donors to pour money into Democratic coffers tonight. Democratic donors gave more than $12.5 million in two hours to the ActBlue donation processing site, a rate of more than $100,000 a minute. The effect of the loss of her voice and vote on the court will become clear quickly. On November 10, just a week after the upcoming presidential election, the court is scheduled to hear a Republican challenge to the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. In 2012, the court upheld the law by a 5-4 vote.
Ginsburg often quoted Justice Louis Brandeis’s famous line: “The greatest menace to freedom is an inert people,” and she advised people “to fight for the things you care about, but do it in a way that will lead others to join you.” Setting an example for how to advance the principle of equality, she told the directors of the documentary “RBG” that she wanted to be remembered “Just as someone who did whatever she could, with whatever limited talent she had, to move society along in the direction I would like it to be for my children and grandchildren.”
Upon hearing of Ginsburg’s death, former U.S. Attorney and law professor Joyce Vance tweeted, “We should honor the life of RBG, American hero, by refusing to give in, refusing to back down, fighting for the civil rights of all people & demanding our leaders honor the rule of law. This is our fight now.”
I met Justice Ginsburg once in person at an event at the Supreme Court sponsored by the National Association of Women Judges (“NAWJ”). My long-time friend and colleague Judge Joan Churchill was the President of the NAWJ and had invited me to be a panelist. RBG stopped by the following reception to deliver some inspirational remarks.
Join the New Due Process Army and fight against the forces of tyranny, racism, bigotry, and inequality!
This Fall, get out the vote to take our nation back from the forces of dishonesty, discrimination, despair, inequality, deceit, and darkness!
