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

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

Bess Levin
Politics & Finance Writer
Vanity Fair

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PWS

10-15-20

PWS

10-14-20

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

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

Eric Levitz reports for NY Magazine:

. . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PWS

10-14-20

🏴‍☠️👎🏻ONLY THE BEGINNING: SUPREMES AGAIN INTERFERE WITH LOWER COURT RULING IN AID OF TRUMP’S CENSUS UNDERCOUNT SCHEME! — Communities Of Color, Democrats Likely To Be Screwed By Trump/GOP Scheme!

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/10/13/2020-census-supreme-court-lets-administration-end-head-count-now/5975298002/

Richard Wolf reports for USA Today:

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Tuesday temporarily allowed the Trump administration to end its 2020 census count earlier than planned, a move that could result in undercounting racial and ethnic minorities and others in hard-to-reach communities.

The Commerce Department had asked the justices to block a lower court ruling that barred the administration from stopping the head count on Oct. 5. The administration had sought to stop counting in order to determine the number of House seats and electoral votes each state gets for the coming decade by Dec. 31, before Trump might have to leave office.

While the decision was unsigned, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor registered her dissent. She said “meeting the deadline at the expense of the accuracy of the census is not a cost worth paying.”

. . . .

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

So, two months wouldn’t be long enough for the USG to get the results to Trump? Gimme a break! And, since when does the most lawless Administration in history lose sleep about missing a statutory deadline? Incredible! But, hardly unexpected from a Court that “belongs” to a political party and makes little attempt to hide it.

Interestingly, however, Justices Breyer and Kagan also “took the day off” on this one. That left Justice Sotomayor as the sole defender of an honest census count.

Justice Sotomayor’s dissent says it all:

While the decision was unsigned, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor registered her dissent. She said “meeting the deadline at the expense of the accuracy of the census is not a cost worth paying.”

“The harms caused by rushing this year’s census count are irreparable,” Sotomayor wrote. “And respondents will suffer their lasting impact for at least the next 10 years.”

Of course, the “irreparable harm” will skew things illegally in favor of the GOP for the coming decade. But, that’s the point of a politically weaponized Supremes! And, you can bet that Justice Barrett will do everything possible to advance the GOP program of shafting communities of color and majority-Democrat jurisdictions while seeking to maintain GOP minority control of government!

Vote ‘Em out, vote ‘Em out! At every level of Government, the GOP and their ideological judges are committed to unrelenting corruption, inequality, destroying democracy, and forcing an extreme right-wing agenda on the majority of Americans!

PWS

10-13-20

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

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

Martin Pengelly writes in New York:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

. . . .

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

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

Vote ‘em out, vote. ‘em out!

PWS

10-12-20

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

Dahlia Lithwick
Supreme Court Reporter
Slate
Wikimedia Commons — Public Domain

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

Dahlia Lithwick & Mark Joseph Stern in Slate:

. . . .

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

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

. . . .

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

Read the complete dialogue at the link.

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

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

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

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

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

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

PWS

10-13-20

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

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

. . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PWS

10-01-20

LINKEDIN SAVES LIVES: NDPA Superstar Michelle Mendez Of CLINIC With Some Good News On How Litigation Success Has Saved Lives In The Face Of Regime’s Scurrilous White Nationalist Attack On Asylum Laws! — These Are The True Brilliant Minds & Courageous Heroes Of Our Legal System, Carrying On RBG’s Legacy Of Fighting Tirelessly For Equal Justice!

Aimee Mayer Salins
Staff Attorney
Defending Vulnerable Populations
CLINIC
Source: Linkedin

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

Sorry for the small print. But, well worth the read.

Compare the courage and fidelity to due process, fundamental fairness, equal justice for all, and defense of human dignity demonstrated by brilliant lawyers like Michelle Mendez, Aimee Mayer Salins (former BIA JLC), and the terrific CAIR litigators with the warped right wing, anti-constitutional, anti-humanity jurisprudence of Trump’s Supreme Court choice, Judge Amy Coney Barrett:

Faced with two plausible readings of a law, fact, or precedent, Barrett always seems to choose the harsher, stingier interpretation. Can job applicants sue employers whose policies have a disproportionately deleterious impact on older people? Barrett said no. Should courts halt the deportation of an immigrant who faced torture at home? Barrett said no. Should they protect refugees denied asylum on the basis of xenophobic prejudice? Barrett said no. Should they shield prisoners from unjustified violence by correctional officers? Barrett said no. Should minors be allowed to terminate a pregnancy without telling their parents if a judge has found that they’re mature enough to make the decision? Barrett said no. Should women be permitted to obtain an abortion upon discovering a severe fetal abnormality? Barrett said no.

There is no question that, if confirmed, Barrett would cast the fifth vote to either hollow out Roe v. Wade or overturn it altogether. Similarly, there is no doubt that Barrett would dramatically expand the Second Amendment, invalidating gun control measures around the country. It’s quite possible, perhaps even likely, that within a year of her confirmation, Americans will be forbidden from terminating a pregnancy in 21 states—but permitted to purchase assault weapons and carry firearms in public in every state.

https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/09/21/insult-to-injury🤮☠%EF%B8%8F👎🏻-trump-to-tap-unqualified-cruel-righty-zealot-to-replace-rbg-one-leading-candidate-the-anti-rbg/

In other words, guns yes; human rights and human dignity, no! Some lawyers spend their lives saving lives and advancing humanity; others spend them pursuing and spreading anti-humanitarian, right wing dogmas. Why are commitments to cruelty, inhumanity, and a fundamentally unjust society things to “tout” in a judicial candidate? You need to look inside the deep perversity of the GOP minority who control our nation and are running it into the ground to get the answer.

There are thousands of progressive lawyers, many of them women and minorities, committed to standing up for equal justice for all who are better qualified than Judge Barrett. There is something wrong with a system that elevates the wrong people to the judiciary and other high offices.

It’s time to establish meritocracy and save our democracy. Vote to throw the GOP out of office and end the selection of far-right judges whose reactionary views and lack of empathy for the most vulnerable in society are far outside both the reality of our diverse nation and our future as a vibrant, progressive democracy that will promote equal justice and human rights at home and abroad!

Keep the future Judge Barretts where they belong — on the sidelines and in the margins of our legal system, while those with a better view of the Constitution, the rule of law, and human progress take their rightful places in positions of power and progressive influence in all there branches of our Government.

Judge Barrett parrots great admiration for RBG while aiming to trash her legacy of fairness and equality with a far-right, exclusive, intolerant agenda. In the future, we need Federal Judges who will constantly confront Judge Barrett, her soon-to-be-fellow GOP Supremes, and other righty judges bent on taking us back to the darkest corners of our past. Make them face the truly courageous and enlightened legacy of RBG and others like her. Force the “Barretts of the world” to reckon with their own smugly disingenuous jurisprudence and their lack of commmitment to humanity and true equality before the law for all persons in the U.S.! Constantly confront complicit courts for change!

Better judges for a better, fairer America!

This Fall, vote like your life and the future of humanity depend on it! Because they do!

PWS

09-27-20

INSULT TO INJURY:🤮☠️👎🏻 Trump To Tap Unqualified, Cruel, Righty Zealot To Replace RBG? — One Leading Candidate “The Anti-RBG” — “Notorious” For Her Commitment To Inequality & Inhumanity, Out To Trash RBG’s Legacy Of Humanity & Equal Justice! — “Barrett’s view of the law is fundamentally cruel. During her three years on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Barrett has either written or joined a remarkable number of opinions that harm unpopular and powerless individuals who rely on the judiciary to safeguard their rights.”

Judge Amy Coney Barrett

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/amy-coney-barrett-ginsburg-scotus-future.html

Mark Joseph Stern reports for Slate:

. . . .

The consensus among legal and political analysts is that Judge Amy Coney Barrett, whom Trump placed on a federal appeals court in 2017, is the leading candidate to fill Ginsburg’s seat. Barrett gained fame during her confirmation hearing after Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein made inappropriate comments about the judge’s devout Catholic faith. She is a hardcore conservative, but that description doesn’t quite capture how radically her jurisprudence differs from Ginsburg’s. The justice viewed the Bill of Rights and civil rights acts as generous guarantees of human dignity that must be read expansively to achieve their purpose. By contrast, Barrett’s view of the law is fundamentally cruel. During her three years on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Barrett has either written or joined a remarkable number of opinions that harm unpopular and powerless individuals who rely on the judiciary to safeguard their rights.

Faced with two plausible readings of a law, fact, or precedent, Barrett always seems to choose the harsher, stingier interpretation. Can job applicants sue employers whose policies have a disproportionately deleterious impact on older people? Barrett said no. Should courts halt the deportation of an immigrant who faced torture at home? Barrett said no. Should they protect refugees denied asylum on the basis of xenophobic prejudice? Barrett said no. Should they shield prisoners from unjustified violence by correctional officers? Barrett said no. Should minors be allowed to terminate a pregnancy without telling their parents if a judge has found that they’re mature enough to make the decision? Barrett said no. Should women be permitted to obtain an abortion upon discovering a severe fetal abnormality? Barrett said no.

There is no question that, if confirmed, Barrett would cast the fifth vote to either hollow out Roe v. Wade or overturn it altogether. Similarly, there is no doubt that Barrett would dramatically expand the Second Amendment, invalidating gun control measures around the country. It’s quite possible, perhaps even likely, that within a year of her confirmation, Americans will be forbidden from terminating a pregnancy in 21 states—but permitted to purchase assault weapons and carry firearms in public in every state.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of Mark’s article at the link.

Judge Barrett sounds like someone who could have trained in anti-humanitarian, anti-social, anti-due-process, anti-immigrant judging by Billy the Bigot on the BIA. She certainly fits the model of an unqualified far right attivist.

And what of the other leading contender, Judge Barbara Lagoa of the 11th Circuit. In addition to being a reliable right-wing zealot (she voted to uphold the GOP anti-democracy scheme to overrule the people of Florida and disenfranchise former convicts), she is a Cuban American from Florida, a state where Trump and Biden are running neck and neck. Anybody who thinks today’s Court isn’t “politicized” has been living under a rock!

Daniel Goldberg, Legal Director of the Alliance for Justice (“AFJ”) tells us about everything we need to know about Lagoa:

Daniel Goldberg, legal director of the liberal Alliance for Justice, was critical of Lagoa’s record, saying she is a judge “who has showed contempt for our democracy.” Goldberg said he has “no doubt that she will meet Donald Trump’s litmus test” for a Supreme Court nominee and support his pledge to overturn Roe and the Affordable Care Act.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/barbara-lagoa-supreme-court/2020/09/20/364d73e4-fb50-11ea-b555-4d71a9254f4b_story.html

If you don’t want more unqualified judges with cruel, perverted, and unjust visions of America, and contempt for democracy and the humanity of “the other” in society to be deciding your future and the future of your children and grandchildren, then you had better get out the vote for Biden. Otherwise, your future is likely to look like America’s Jim Crow past!

PWS

09-21-20

JEFF “GONZO APOCALYPTO” SESSIONS ILLEGALLY STRIPPED IMMIGRATION JUDGES OF AUTHORITY TO CLOSE CASES – 7th Cir. Shreds White Nationalist Former AG’s Bogus “Precedent” in Matter of Castro-Tum — Meza Morales v. Barr

Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration Community:

Immigration Law

Daniel M. Kowalski

26 Jun 2020

castro-tum

CA7 Rejects Castro-Tum!

Meza Morales v. Barr

“We … reject CastroTum and hold that immigration judges are not precluded from administratively closing cases when appropriate.”

[Hats off to Chuck Roth!]

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

The Fourth Circuit also has stomped Gonzo’s illegal and unethical interference with Immigration Judges’ authority to manage their dockets isn a previous very forceful rejection Castro-Tum:

“GONZO APOCALYPTO” SLAMMED: UNANIMOUS PANEL OF 4TH CIR. REJECTS MATTER OF CASTO-TUM — Exposes Irrationality Of Biased, Unqualified Restrictionist Former AG — “ADR” Outed — “Although one of its purported concerns is efficient and timely administration of immigration proceedings, it would in fact serve to lengthen and delay many of these proceedings by: (1) depriving IJs and the BIA of flexible docketing measures sometimes required for adjudication of an immigration proceeding, as illustrated by Avetisyan, and (2) leading to the reopening of over 330,000 cases upon the motion of either party, straining the burden on immigration courts that Castro-Tum purports to alleviate.”

“GONZO APOCALYPTO” SLAMMED: UNANIMOUS PANEL OF 4TH CIR. REJECTS MATTER OF CASTO-TUM — Exposes Irrationality Of Biased, Unqualified Restrictionist Former AG — “ADR” Outed — “Although one of its purported concerns is efficient and timely administration of immigration proceedings, it would in fact serve to lengthen and delay many of these proceedings by: (1) depriving IJs and the BIA of flexible docketing measures sometimes required for adjudication of an immigration proceeding, as illustrated by Avetisyan, and (2) leading to the reopening of over 330,000 cases upon the motion of either party, straining the burden on immigration courts that Castro-Tum purports to alleviate.”

Zuniga Romero – CA4 Decision (8-29-2019)

ZUNIGA ROMERO V. BARR, NO. 18-1850, 4th Cir., 08-29-19, published

PANEL: AGEE, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

OPINION BY: Judge Agee

KEY QUOTE:

In the absence of Auer deference, the weight given to a BIA decision “hinges on the thoroughness evident in [the BIA’s] consideration, the validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and all those factors which give it power to persuade”—that is, whether the interpretation should be afforded Skidmore deference. Zavaleta–Policiano v. Sessions, 873 F.3d 241, 246 n.2 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). And here, a court reviewing Castro-Tum for Skidmore deference would not be persuaded to adopt the agency’s own interpretation of its regulation for substantially the same reasons it is not entitled to Auer deference: because it represents a stark departure, without notice, from long-used practice and thereby cannot be deemed consistent with earlier and later pronouncements. As a result, it lacks the “power to persuade.” Id.; see also Kisor, 139 S. Ct. at 2427 (Gorsuch, J., concurring) (contending that an agency interpretation of a regulation should as an initial matter be “entitled only to a weight proportional to ‘the thoroughness evident in its consideration, the validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and all those factors which give it power to persuade’” (quoting Skidmore, 323 U.S. at 140)). Put another way, even under the view set forth by Justice Gorsuch in Kisor, the Attorney General’s interpretation would amount to a failure of proof because the evidence—that is, Castro- Tum—comes too late in the game.

*** *

In sum, the result is that 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.10(b) and 1003.1(d)(1)(ii) unambiguously confer upon IJs and the BIA the general authority to administratively close cases such that the BIA’s decision should be vacated and remanded.

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

A huge victory for the “New Due Process Army.” The “Roundtable of Former Immigration Judges” actually filed an amicus brief before Sessions in Castro-Tum raising many of the points found determinative by the Fourth Circuit. Our brief was, of course, ignored by “Gonzo,” who undoubtedly had already drafted his decision along the lines dictated to him by some restrictionist interest group.

Finally, an Article III Court “gets” how the DOJ under the Trump Administration is promoting “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”) in an attempt to build the backlog, destroy the system, blame the victims (respondents and their, largely pro bono, attorneys), and dishonestly call upon GOP Legislators to mount a pernicious attack on constitutional Due Process by statute!

The idea that adding 330,000 cases to the already backlogged Immigration Courts was legally required or a good policy idea clearly is a piece of White Nationalist restrictionist propaganda promoted by corrupt public officials like Miller, Sessions, and Barr.

With the Democrats in control of the House, there is no way that Congress will eliminate “Administrative Closing” by statute. And, while the DOJ under the sycophantic Barr might try to change the regulation, this decision makes it very clear that there is no rational basis for doing so. Therefore, any future regulation change is likely to be tied up in litigation in the Article III Courts for years, adding to the confusion and ADR, as well as threatening to immobilize the Article III Courts.

Unless the Article III Courts want their dockets to be totally swamped with immigration appeals, the answer is to end this unconstitutional system administered by an Attorney General clearly unfit to act in a quasi-judicial capacity and place the Immigration Courts under a court-appointed independent “Special Master” to insure fairness, impartiality, and other aspects of Due Process until Congress fixes the glaring Constitutional defect by creating an independent U.S. Immigration Court outside of the DOJ.

PWS

08-29-19

When, oh when, will the Circuit Courts finally put an end to this clearly unconstitutional nonsense and never-ending exhibition of malicious incompetence called EOIR. Taking it apart piece by rotten piece is both wasteful of judicial resources and highly unfair to the many individuals prevented by EOIR’s systematic misconduct and a biased system from even reaching the Courts of Appeals.

PWS

06-27-20

⚖️👍🏼🗽7TH CIR. REFUSES TO FOLD IN FACE OF “J.R. FIVE’S” KOWTOWING TO MILLER’S WHITE NATIONALIST AGENDA — Circuit Court Re-Instates Injunction Against Illegal, Racially-Motivated “Public Charge” Regulation Change Aimed at Ethnic Communities — Cook County v. Wolf

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2020/D06-10/C:19-3169:J:Barrett:dis:T:fnOp:N:2529215:S:0

Cook County v. Wolf, 7th Cir., 06-10-20, published

PANEL: WOOD, Chief Judge, and ROVNER and BARRETT, Circuit Judges

OPINION BY: CHIEF JUDGE DIANE WOOD

KEY QUOTE:

WOOD, Chief Judge. Like most people, immigrants to the United States would like greater prosperity for themselves and their families. Nonetheless, it can take time to achieve the American Dream, and the path is not always smooth. Recognizing this, Congress has chosen to make immigrants eligible for various public benefits; state and local governments have done the same. Those benefits include subsidized health insurance, supplemental nutrition benefits, and housing assistance. Historically, with limited exceptions, temporary receipt of these supplemental benefits did not jeopardize an immigrant’s chances of one day adjusting his status to that of a legal permanent resident or a citizen.

Recently, however, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a new rule designed to prevent immigrants whom the Executive Branch deems likely to receive public assistance in any amount, at any point in the future, from entering the country or adjusting their immigration status. The Rule purports to implement the “public-charge” provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(4). States, cities, and nonprofit groups across the country have filed suits seeking to overturn the Rule.

Cook County, Illinois, and the Illinois Coalition for Immi- grant and Refugee Rights, Inc. (ICIRR) brought one of those cases in the Northern District of Illinois. They immediately sought a preliminary injunction against the Rule pending the outcome of the litigation. Finding that the criteria for interim relief were satisfied, the district court granted their motion. We conclude that at least Cook County adequately established its right to bring its claim and that the district court did not abuse its discretion by granting preliminary injunctive relief. We therefore affirm.

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

The performance of the “J.R. Five” in granting a totally unwarranted, unjustified stay of the preliminary injunction in this case tells you all you need to know about why racial injustice and dehumanization of “the other” in America are continuing problems.

PWS

06-12-20

Suzanne Monyak @ Law360: FEDERAL COURTS RECOGNIZE THAT BILLY BARR’S BIA IS A FRAUD! — So Why Do They Let The Unconstitutional Abuse Of Persons Seeking Justice Continue Under Their Noses?

Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase
Jeffrey S. Chase Blog
Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Retired Immigration Judges

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

https://www.law360.com/immigration/articles/1271825/immigration-board-picks-under-trump-to-set-lasting-policy

Suzanne writes in Law360:

U.S. Circuit Judge Frank H. Easterbrook didn’t mince words earlier this year when sharing his thoughts on a recent decision by the immigration courts’ appellate board: “We have never before encountered defiance of a remand order, and we hope never to see it again.”

The Seventh Circuit judge, a Reagan-appointee, said the board had ignored the court’s directions to grant protection to an immigrant fighting deportation, instead ruling against the immigrant again. The rebuke wasn’t the first time the Board of Immigration Appeals has been reprimanded by the federal judiciary for seemingly prejudiced decisions under the Trump administration.

Just a month earlier, a judge on the Third Circuit tackling an appeal from the BIA wrote in a concurring opinion that it didn’t appear the board “was acting as anything other than an agency focused on ensuring [an immigrant’s] removal rather than as the neutral and fair tribunal it is expected to be.”

“That criticism is harsh and I do not make it lightly,” U.S. Circuit Judge Theodore McKee wrote.

While President Donald Trump’s judicial nominees and U.S. Supreme Court picks grab headlines for rtheir potential to shape the judiciary for years to come, the administration is staffing the lesser known BIA with former immigration judges who have high asylum-denial rates and individuals with backgrounds in law enforcement. Some of the picks have prompted advocates for immigrants and lawmakers to claim the hiring process is too politicized.

Documents newly obtained through the Freedom of Information Act reveal that the Trump administration has aimed to fast-track the hiring process while giving the director of U.S. Department of Justice‘s Executive Office for Immigration Review, James McHenry, and the U.S. attorney general more say in who gets the nod.

Unlike the federal and appellate courts, the BIA, an administrative appellate board that hears appeals from immigration trial courts, is not independent but rather is housed with the EOIR.

Yet the board can issue precedential decisions that shape immigration policy — and the lives of immigrants facing deportation — well into the future.

“That the reasonably ordinary citizen has not heard of the BIA does not take away from the fact that it is the most important agency establishing immigration jurisprudence in the country, and when you politicize that, you’re obviously politicizing immigration jurisprudence,” said Muzaffar Chishti, head of the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute’s New York office.

A spokesperson for EOIR told Law360 that the office sped up the hiring process as part of “commonsense changes” and in response to criticism from Congress.

She also said that EOIR “does not choose board members based on prohibited criteria such as race or politics, and it does not discriminate against applicants based on any prohibited characteristics,” and that “all board members are selected through an open, competitive, merit-based process.”

During the most recent hiring cycle, every panelist evaluating candidates was a career employee, not a political appointee, according to the spokesperson.

“Individuals who assert that such changes make the hiring process less neutral are either ignorant or mendacious,” the spokesperson said.

High Rates of Asylum Denials

Since August, the Trump administration has installed nine of the 19 current permanent members of the BIA, and most of the newcomers have asylum-denial rates above 80% and backgrounds in law enforcement or the military.

All but one of the nine were previously immigration judges, and according to data collected by Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, the average asylum-denial rate among those eight judges was just over 92%. The denial rate for each of those eight judges ranged from 83.5% to 96.8%.

The average asylum-denial rate for immigration courts nationally is 63.1%, according to TRAC.

Asylum-denial rates aren’t perfect metrics; controlling asylum law varies by circuit, and the viability of asylum claims can vary based on location. New York’s immigration courts for instance, tend to see more asylum claims from Chinese citizens fleeing political oppression, which are more frequently successful, while courts near detention centers may see harder-to-win claims from longtime U.S. residents with less access to counsel.

However, Jeffrey Chase, a New York City immigration lawyer and former immigration judge, told Law360 that no one deciding cases fairly could have a 90% asylum denial rate.

“You’re looking to deny cases at that point,” he said.

The one recent Trump administration BIA hire who wasn’t previously an immigration judge had been a trial attorney at the Justice Department, while many of the other former judges had prior experience at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security or its predecessor agency.

One, V. Stuart Couch, was previously a senior prosecutor for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

“There’s overall just a lack of diversity on the immigration judge bench, which is deeply concerning,” said Laura Lynch, senior policy counsel at the American Immigration Lawyers Association. “I think the mark of justice is the idea that decision makers come from a diverse background.”

A hire to the BIA announced earlier this month, Philip J. Montante Jr., has come under fire not only for a sky-high asylum-denial rate — 96.3% — but for a history of ethics complaints.

In 2014, the DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility concluded that Judge Montante’s handling of an immigration case was “inappropriate” after an attorney accused him of showing bias when deciding a client’s case.

In March, not long before his promotion to the BIA was announced, the New York Civil Liberties Union accused Judge Montante in a proposed class action in federal court of denying detained immigrants’ bond requests nearly universally.

According to the advocacy organization, Judge Montante rejected 95% of bond requests between March 2019 and February 2020, bringing him within the top five lowest bond grant rates among the more than 200 immigration judges nationwide.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of Suzanne’s excellent article, with more quotes from my fellow members of the NDPA, Judge Jeffrey S. Chase and Laura Lynch, at the above link. I have been told that this article is “outside” the Law360 “paywall,” so you should be able to read it even if you don’t have a subscription.

I find the Article III Courts’ recognition of the Due Process travesty going on in individual cases, while they ignore the systemic unfairness that makes a mockery out of the Due Process Clause of our Constitution, the rule of law, our entire justice system, and humanity itself, perhaps the most disturbing institutional failure under the Trump regime. While Article III Judges are “shocked and offended” by contemptuous actions directed at them in particular cases, they remain willfully “tone deaf” to the reality of our dysfunctional and biased Immigration Courts and their impact on “real human lives.” ☠️

This is how individuals seeking justice and the courageous lawyers representing them, many serving at minimal or no compensation to inject a modicum of integrity into our system, are treated every day. Not every wronged individual has the ability to reach the Article IIIs.

And, given the Article IIIs failure to take the courageous, systemic steps necessary to stop abuses of migrants, the Trump regime has “taken it to a new level” by coming up with various illegal schemes and gimmicks to keep individuals seeking asylum from even getting a hearing in Immigration Court. Due Process? Fundamental Fairness? Rule of Law? No way!

Yet, this unfolds before us daily as the Article IIIs basically “twiddle their collective thumbs” 👎🏻 and “nibble around the edges” of a monumental Constitutional disaster and blot on the humanity and integrity of our nation and our own souls. The complicity starts with the Supremes who have “passed” on a number of critical opportunities to “just say no” to blatant violations of the Fifth Amendment, the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Refugee Act of 1980, international human rights conventions, and misuse and clear abuse of “emergency authority” to achieve a White Nationalist, racist agenda.

In other words, the Supremes’ majority is knowingly and intentionally encouraging the regime’s program of “Dred Scottification” — dehumanization or “de-personification” before the law — of “the other.” This disgusting and fundamentally un-American “resurrection and enabling” of a “21st Century Jim Crow Regime” might be “in vogue” with the “J.R. Five” and their right-wing compatriots right now. But, they are squarely on the “wrong side of history.” Eventually, the “truth will out,” and they will be judged accordingly!👎🏻

That’s why I say: “Constantly Confront Complicit Courts 4 Change.”

Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-11-20

REGIME SCOFFLAWS STUFFED AGAIN: 7th Cir. Blasts Barr’s Bogus Battle Bashing Local Law Enforcement In Chicago, Other Cities — Unconstitutional! — Nationwide Injunction Affirmed — “But states do not forfeit all autonomy over their own police power merely by accepting federal grants.“

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca7-on-byrne-jag-grant-conditions-chicago-v-barr

Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration Community:

CA7 on Byrne JAG Grant Conditions: Chicago v. Barr

Chicago v. Barr

“We conclude again today, as we did when presented with the preliminary injunction, that the Attorney General cannot pursue the policy objectives of the executive branch through the power of the purse or the arm of local law enforcement; that is not within its delegation. It is the prerogative of the legislative branch and the local governments, and the Attorney General’s assertion that Congress itself provided that authority in the language of the statutes cannot withstand scrutiny. … Accordingly, we affirm the grants of declaratory relief as to the declarations that the Attorney General exceeded the authority delegated by Congress in the Byrne JAG statute, 34 U.S.C. § 10151 et seq., and in 34 U.S.C. § 10102(a), in attaching the challenged conditions to the FY 2017 and FY 2018 grants, and that the Attorney General’s decision to attach the conditions to the FY 2017 and FY 2018 Byrne JAG grants violated the constitutional principle of separation of powers. In light of our determination as to the language in § 10153, it is unnecessary to reach the constitutionality of § 1373 under the anticommandeering doctrine of the Tenth Amendment. We affirm the district court’s grant of injunctive relief as to the application of the challenged conditions to the Byrne JAG grant program-wide now and in the future, which included enjoining the Attorney General from denying or delaying issuance of the Byrne JAG award to grants in FY 2017, FY 2018, FY 2019 and any other future program year insofar as that denial or delay is based on the challenged conditions or materially identical conditions. We remand for the district court to determine if any other injunctive relief is appropriate in light of our determination that § 10153 cannot be used to incorporate laws unrelated to the grants or grantees. Finally, because the injunctive relief is necessary to provide complete relief to Chicago itself, the concern with improperly extending relief beyond the particular plaintiff does not apply, and therefore there is no reason to stay the application of the injunctive relief.”

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

The complete 111-page decision is available at the above link.

The 7th Circuit Panel was BAUER, MANION, AND ROVNER, Circuit Judges. The opinion is by Judge Rovner. Judge Manion filed a separate opinion concurring in the legal analysis, but dissenting from the nationwide scope of the injunction.

The 7th Circuit strongly upholds the Constitutional separation of powers and local jurisdictions’ rights to police in a manner that protects their local communities. Compare this with the obsequious kowtowing to Executive abuses by the Second Circuit in State of New York v. Barr, https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/02/27/2d-cir-to-ny-six-other-so-called-sanctuary-states-tough-noogies-trump-rules/

Some Federal Courts stand up for our rights in the face of Trump’s tyranny; others “roll over.” History will be their judge!

That being said, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the “JR Five” on the Supremes — who seldom see a White Nationalist abuse of authority picking on immigrants that they aren’t willing to validate — will “torque the law and the facts as necessary” to further the regime’s scofflaw, xenophobic agenda.

History eventually will catch up with them too. History recognizes neither life tenure nor “absolute immunity.”

Due Process Forever!

Continue reading REGIME SCOFFLAWS STUFFED AGAIN: 7th Cir. Blasts Barr’s Bogus Battle Bashing Local Law Enforcement In Chicago, Other Cities — Unconstitutional! — Nationwide Injunction Affirmed — “But states do not forfeit all autonomy over their own police power merely by accepting federal grants.“

2D CIR. TO NY & SIX OTHER SO-CALLED “SANCTUARY STATES:” Tough Noogies, Trump Rules!

https://apple.news/A3IAKzyGETMeEwekcWLIIkA

Priscilla Alvarez reports for CNN:

Court says Trump administration can withhold money from NYC, 7 states in ‘sanctuary cities’ fight

Updated 1:07 PM EST February 26, 2020

The Trump administration can withhold federal money from seven states, as well as New York City, over their cooperation on immigration enforcement, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

The decision by the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling that blocked the Justice Department from withholding a key law enforcement grant the department said was available only to cities that complied with specific immigration enforcement measures.

The federal appeals court ruling comes amid an ongoing feud between the Trump administration and so-called “sanctuary cities,” which limit cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities. Over recent weeks, the administration has stepped up its fight against sanctuary jurisdictions and taken measures like barring New York residents from enrolling in certain Trusted Traveler programs, such as Global Entry.

Judge Reena Raggi, writing on behalf of the unanimous 3-judge panel, acknowledged the divisive nature of the issue at hand, writing: “The case implicates several of the most divisive issues confronting our country and, consequently, filling daily news headlines: national immigration policy, the enforcement of immigration laws, the status of illegal aliens in this country, and the ability of States and localities to adopt policies on such matters contrary to, or at odds with, those of the federal government.”

The city of New York is a plaintiff in the lawsuit, along with New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Washington, Massachusetts, Virginia and Rhode Island.

In July 2017, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that applicants for Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants would have to comply with federal immigration enforcement. States pushed back and sued over the move.

. . . .

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

Read the complete article at the above link. Thanks for keeping us up to date, Priscilla! Love your timely and accessible reporting!

My “Quick Takes:”

This one is headed to the Supremes, as there is now a “Circuit split.”
Don’t expect this to have much effect on actual immigration enforcement.
- Coercing states and localities is unlikely to foster much meaningful cooperation.
- It’s more likely to simply channel resistance to the regime elsewhere.
- The affected jurisdictions always have the option of just taking a “pass” on “Byrne Grants.”
In any event, interior apprehensions are a minuscule part of the DHS civil enforcement program.
- They accounted for fewer than 100,000 removals during the last fiscal year.
- At that rate, it would take more than a century for DHS to remove the estimated 10+ million undocumented U.S residents.
On the other hand, this is a major “propaganda victory” for the regime. And, make no mistake, this was always about anti-immigrant propaganda not legitimate law enforcement.
- The Administration will be able to tout that Second Circuit Judge Reena Raggi bought their disingenuous “enforcement policy” argument “hook line and sinker.” (The DHS “Community Terrorism” program has actually been shown to inhibit legitimate law enforcement by making it much less likely that victims of domestic violence and gang crimes will report them to local law enforcement.)
- However, more thoughtful judges in the 7th Circuit and elsewhere have exposed the weaknesses of Judge Raggi’s reasoning.
It’s unlikely that the Supremes will resolve this before the November election.
- If Trump wins, the “Roberts Five” have already demonstrated their obsequiousness in the face of Trump’s war on immigrants.
- On the other hand, a Democratic Administration would be likely to withdraw this “punishment initiative” completely and try to reach a more harmonious working relationship with state and local law enforcement on immigration issues, thus “mooting” this litigation.

PWS

02-28-20

THE “MAINSTREAM MEDIA” HAS FALLEN FOR BILLY BARR’S LATEST “CON JOB” HOOK, LINE & SINKER — But YOU Shouldn’t — Bess Levin @! Vanity Fair Decodes Billy’s Real Message to His Don: “Let [me] turn the judicial branch into your own personal score-settling operation in peace!“ — Plus, My Bonus “Friday Essay” — “Don’t Believe A Word Billy Barr Says!”

Bess Levin
Politics & Finance Writer
Vanity Fair

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/02/william-barr-trump-doj-tweets

Bess writes:

Even before he was hired as Donald Trump’s attorney general, William Barr made it clear that he would be acting as the president’s lackey first and the chief lawyer for the United States second, having auditioned for the role by sending an unsolicited letter to the Justice Department calling the Russia inquiry “fatally misconceived” and describing Robert Mueller’s actions as “grossly irresponsible.” Since then, Barr has told Congress it’s perfectly okay for the president to instruct aides to lie to investigators, suggested that Mueller’s report fully exonerated Trump, which of course it did not, and attempted to bury the “urgent“ whistle-blower report that became the basis of the House’s impeachment proceedings.

Now, if it were up to Barr, he’d happily carry on doing the president’s dirty work, but for one problem: Trump, with his flapping yap and quick trigger finger, has been making it a little too obvious that the DOJ, in its current form, exists to punish his enemies and spare his friends. The most recent example of this, of course, came this week, when the president tweeted, at 1:48 a.m., that the sentencing recommendation of seven to nine years for his longtime pal Roger Stone was “horrible,” “very unfair,” and a “miscarriage of justice.” Then, after Barr’s DOJ intervened with a new filing calling for a much lighter sentence—which prompted the four prosecutors on the case to withdraw from it—the president tweeted his thanks, congratulating the attorney general on getting involved in matters relevant to his personal interests.

For many people long aware of Barr’s status as a boot-licking hack, this was a bridge too far. The calls for him to resign or be impeached were swift. And they got so bad that on Thursday, the attorney general felt compelled to sit down with ABC News and send the message to the president that if he’d like the DOJ to continue to do his dirty work, he needs to stop tweeting about it. Do criminals tell their social-media followers “Check out this sweet scam I just pulled”? No! Of course, rather than stating directly that the president’s penchant for telling the world about the many ways he’s corrupted the government have made it difficult for that corruption to continue, Barr had to pretend his comments were all about ensuring the DOJ’s independence, which would be a funny, not-at-all-believable thing for him to start caring about now.

“I’m not going to be bullied or influenced by anybody….whether it’s Congress, newspaper editorial boards, or the president,” Bill Barr tells @ABC News.

“I cannot do my job here at the department with a constant background commentary that undercuts me.”

http://

abcn.ws/39yd9bE

“I’m not going to be bullied or influenced by anybody,” Barr insisted to ABC News chief justice correspondent Pierre Thomas. “Whether it’s Congress, a newspaper editorial board, or the president. I’m gonna do what I think is right. And you know…I cannot do my job here at the department with a constant background commentary that undercuts me.” Just in case that extremely obvious hint was lost on its intended audience, Barr added: “I think it’s time to stop the tweeting about Department of Justice criminal cases.”

Maybe it’s not the tweets damaging his integrity but the nakedly partisan and quasi-legal decisions he’s made on the tweeter’s behalf? Just a thought.

AG Bill Barr: “I’m not going to be bullied or influenced by anybody.” He says Trump’s tweets “make it impossible for me to do my job and to assure the courts and the prosecutors in the department that we’re doing our work with integrity.” via @ABC @PierreTABC @alex_mallin

Asked about the decision to reverse the sentencing recommendation for Stone, Barr insisted that it definitely had nothing to do with the guy being a longtime friend of Trump’s, claiming that he came to the unbiased conclusion on his own that the seven-to-nine-years call was excessive and that he was planning to file an update even before Trump tweeted about it being “horrible and unfair.” (He was not asked about the NBC News report that he additionally removed a U.S. attorney from her post for failing to punish Trump’s enemy Andrew McCabe, or that the Justice Department also intervened to change the sentencing recommendation for convicted criminal and former national security adviser Michael Flynn.)

Barr said Trump’s middle-of-the-night tweet put him in a bad position. He insists he had already discussed with staff that the sentencing recommendation was too long. “Do you go forward with what you think is the right decision or do you pull back because of the tweet? And that just sort of illustrates how disruptive these tweets can be,” he said.

Barr also told ABC he was “a little surprised” that the entire Stone prosecution team had resigned from the case—and one from the DOJ entirely—which presumably has something to do with the fact that after using your department to do the president’s bidding for so long, you sometimes forget that other people will take issue with such behavior.

Asked if he expected Trump to react to his criticism of the tweets, Barr responded: “I hope he will react.”

“And respect it?” Thomas asked.

“Yes,” Barr said. You hear that, Mr. President? Let the man turn the judicial branch into your own personal score-settling operation in peace!

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

DON’T BELIEVE A WORD BILLY BARR SAYS!

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

Exclusive for immigrationcourtside.com

Feb. 14, 2020

Even smart folks like The NY Times’ David Leonhardt are babbling about, perhaps, giving Billy “the benefit of the doubt.” Come on, man!

As Bess Levin points out, Barr’s faithfully been doing Trump’s “dirty work” for him since even before he set foot inside the DOJ again. It’s not like he’s suddenly had a “moral awakening” or discovered human decency.

No, Trump is the “unitary Executive” that Billy and some of his GOP righty neo-fascists have always salivated over. But, understandably he’d prefer more privacy as he deconstructs the DOJ and undermines fair and impartial justice, including, of course, further trashing the Immigration Courts that, incredible as it might seem in a country that actually has a written Constitution supposedly guaranteeing Due Process to “all persons,” belong exclusively to him.

Remarkably, and quite stunningly to anyone who has actually studied the law, the Article III Courts, all the way up to the feckless Supremes, have gone along with this absurd charade. You get the message: Immigrants, migrants, and asylum seekers aren’t really “persons” at all. They have been dehumanized by the regime and “Dred Scottified” by the Article IIIs.

There is no particular legal rationale or justification for this ongoing miscarriage of justice. It’s just a matter of enough folks in black robes being too cowardly or self-absorbed, or maybe in a few cases too ignorant, to stand up for the Constitutional and human rights of the most vulnerable among us.

To paraphrase an expression from the world of religion: “What would Jesus think about this blindness to human suffering?” Nothing good, I’m sure!

If he’s actually out there among us today, he’s undoubtedly among those suffering in the regime’s “New American Gulag” or waiting in squalor along the Mexican border for a “fixed hearing” that’s probably never going to happen anyway. I know where he isn’t: among the sign waving crazies shouting hateful slogans glorifying human rights abuses at the “hate fests” z/k/a “Trump rallies!”

In Immigration Court, the conflicts of interest and threats to human decency aren’t just “implied” or “apparent.” They are very real, and they are destroying real human lives, even killing innocent folks, every day.

And, unlike U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, whose life tenure allows her to “ignore the noise and do what she thinks is right” (as Trump’s GOP toadies love to point out), Immigration Judges are “wholly owned commodities” of Billy and the regime: disposable, subservient, and told to “follow orders.” They can’t even schedule their own cases without political interference, let alone apply the law in a way that conflicts with Billy’s unethical precedents or those entered by his “wholly owned appellate body,” the Board of Immigration Appeals!

The latter has recently gone out of its way to show total subservience to the regime’s White Nationalist anti-asylum, anti-due-process, anti-immigrant agenda. Indeed, they have even drawn the ire of at least one conservative GOP-appointed Article III Judge by contemptuously disobeying a direct court order in favor of a footnote in a letter from the Attorney General.

This remarkable, yet entirely predictable, event was first highlighted in “Courtside.” https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/01/25/contempt-for-courts-7th-cir-blasts-bia-for-misconduct-we-have-never-before-encountered-defiance-of-a-remand-order-and-we-hope-never-to-see-it-again-members-of-the-board-must-count-themse/

It was also the subject of a highly readable analysis by my good friend and NDPA leader Tess Hellgren, at Innovation Law Lab, certainly no stranger to scofflaw behavior by EOIR and “go along to get along” complicity by Article IIIs. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/02/01/tess-hellgren-innovation-law-lab-when-it-comes-to-the-captive-bia-weaponized-immigration-courts-the-article-iiis-need-to-put-away-the-rubber-stamp-restore-integrity-to-the-law-fac/

More recently, EOIR’s trashing of judicial norms under Billy Barr has been highlighted in another fine article in CNN by Professor Kimberly Wehle, herself a former DOJ prosecutor.https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/12/a-conservative-judge-draws-a-line-in-the-sand-with-trump-administration-114185

“Shocking” as this professional malpractice and contempt for the justice system might be to those journalists and former DOJ employees who haven’t been paying attention, it’s nothing new to those of us involved in immigration. For the last three years, the regime has been actively and unethically “gaming” the unconstitutional Immigration “Court” system against the very migrants and asylum seekers whose legal rights and human dignity they are actually supposed to be protecting! How is this “just OK?”

Feckless Article III Courts have largely “gone along to get along,” although they might be showing less patience now that the scofflaw actions and disrespectful attitudes promoted by Billy and his predecessor “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions are directed at them personally rather than just screwing vulnerable migrants and asylum seekers.

While it’s nice that at least some Article III Judges are finally reacting to being “given the finger” by Barr, Trump, and their gang of White Nationalist thugs, outrage at their own disrespectful treatment pales in comparison with the death, torture, rape, extortion, and the other parade of horribles being inflicted daily on vulnerable migrants by the Immigration “Courts” and the human rights criminals in the Trump regime while the Article IIIs fail to step in and save lives.

In the end of the day, as history will eventually show, human lives, which are the key to the “rule of law,” will prove to be more important than “hurt feelings” among the Article III “lifers” or the kind of legal gobbledygook (much of it on “jurisdiction” which often translates into “task avoidance”) that Article IIIs, particularly those from the right wing, like to throw around to obscure their legal tone-deafness and moral failings from their fellow humans.

Due Process Forever; Complicity in the Face of Tyranny Never!

PWS

02-14-20

TESS HELLGREN @ INNOVATION LAW LAB: When It Comes To The Captive BIA & Weaponized Immigration Courts, The Article IIIs Need To Put Away The Rubber Stamp & Restore Integrity To The Law! — “Faced with the Trump Administration’s weaponization of the immigration courts against asylum-seeking individuals, the role of the federal courts is more important than ever.”

http://innovationlawlab.org/blog/the-role-of-judges-to-say-what-the-law-is-judicial-oversight-of-immigration-adjudication/

THE ROLE OF JUDGES TO “SAY WHAT THE LAW IS”: JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT OF IMMIGRATION ADJUDICATION

By Tess Hellgren, Staff Attorney and Justice Catalyst Legal Fellow

January 31, 2020

Since the beginning of the Trump Administration, the immigration court system has been used as a tool to further the executive branch’s anti-immigrant agenda. The Attorney General and other executive officials have enabled widespread due process violations and skyrocketing case backlogs while imposing case quotas and docketing rules that prevent judges from serving as impartial adjudicators.[1]

Last week, the Seventh Circuit highlighted a new abuse of power: the refusal of executive officials in the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to follow a direct order from a federal court.

The BIA is the administrative body responsible for reviewing decisions that are appealed from sixty-eight immigration courts across the country. Like these immigration courts, the BIA is part of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) – the immigration court system, located in the executive branch, that is ultimately overseen by the Attorney General of the United States. Despite the serious flaws inherent in the design of this system, BIA decisions may at least be appealed up to the appropriate federal circuit court, providing a crucial layer of independent judicial review in individual cases.[2]

In the case of Baez-Sanchez v. Barr, the Seventh Circuit had previously held that the immigration laws unambiguously grant immigration judges the power to waive a noncitizen’s inadmissibility to the United States, overruling the BIA’s prior decision to the contrary.[3] On remand, the BIA “flatly refused to implement” the court’s direct order.[4] Writing that the BIA’s decision “beggars belief,” the Seventh Circuit stated that

We have never before encountered defiance of a remand order, and we hope never to see it again. Members of the Board must count themselves lucky that [the Respondent] has not asked us to hold them in contempt, with all the consequences that possibility entails.[5]

This language is an extraordinary rebuke: it is very rare for a circuit court to issue an implicit threat to hold members of an administrative agency in contempt for directly disregarding a court order. The Seventh Circuit was clear that the BIA was mistaken if it thought that “faced with a conflict between our views and those of the Attorney General it should follow the latter.”[6] Affirming foundational separation of powers principles, the Seventh Circuit admonished that

[I]t should not be necessary to remind the Board, all of whose members are lawyers, that the “judicial Power” under Article III of the Constitution is one to make conclusive decisions, not subject to disapproval or revision by another branch of government . . . Once we reached a conclusion, both the Constitution and the statute required the Board to implement it.[7]

The Seventh Circuit’s decision also noted that the Attorney General had submitted a brief asking the court to give the BIA another opportunity to issue “an authoritative decision” on this issue, arguing that such a decision could be entitled to judicial deference.[8] The court aptly responded that this “request is bizarre,” as the court had already held that the applicable regulation was unambiguous – and an agency “cannot rewrite an unambiguous [law] through the guise of interpretation.”[9] As the Supreme Court made clear in Kisor v. Wilkie, “if the law gives an answer—if there is only one reasonable construction of a regulation—then a court has no business deferring to any other reading, no matter how much the agency insists it would make more sense.”[10]

Notably, even if the Seventh Circuit had found the laws in question to be ambiguous, the Attorney General and members of the BIA do not have free reign to impose any interpretation they choose. It is true that federal courts must defer to the reasoned decisions of administrative agencies when Congress has left the agency’s discretion to interpret an ambiguous provision of law, under the doctrine of Chevron deference.[11] But this deference is not boundless. As the Supreme Court made clear in Chevron, courts should defer to agencies’ interpretation of ambiguous statutes when the agency interpretation is “a reasonable accommodation of conflicting policies that were committed to the agency’s care by the statute.”[12] The agency’s interpretation must thus still fall “within the bounds of reasonable interpretation.”[13]

This standard, and the Seventh Circuit’s reprimand, is especially important as the Attorney General attempts to aggressively expand his control of immigration court adjudication. Under the Trump Administration, the Attorneys General have issued a number of “certified” decisions that attempt to restrict eligibility for asylum based on factors such as domestic violence, gang violence, or past persecution due to family membership.[14] In these decisions, which upend years of established immigration precedent, the Attorney General has pointedly asserted his authority to construe the terms of the Immigration and Nationality Act and implied that federal courts must fall in line with his interpretations.[15]

Yet the Attorney General’s reasoning holds only if his interpretations are actually entitled to judicial deference: if the laws in question are ambiguous and the federal courts find his interpretations reasonable.[16] And as the Supreme Court has admonished, “let there be no mistake: That is a requirement an agency can fail.”[17] Indeed, in addressing the application of the Attorney General’s certified decision in Matter of A-B-, at least one federal court has already held that a “general rule against domestic violence and gang-related claims during a credible fear determination is arbitrary and capricious and violates the immigration laws.”[18]

Faced with the Trump Administration’s weaponization of the immigration courts against asylum-seeking individuals, the role of the federal courts is more important than ever. As the Attorney General and other executive officials attempt to expand their authority to define the terms of immigration adjudication, federal courts should heed the Seventh Circuit’s decision – and remember the foundational legal principle that “[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”[19]

[1] See generally Innovation Law Lab and Southern Poverty Law Center, The Attorney General’s Judges: How the U.S. Immigration Courts Became a Deportation Tool, 14–15 (June 2019), https://innovationlawlab.org/reports/the-attorney-generals-judges/; Complaint, Las Americas v. Trump, No. 3:19-cv-02051-SB (D. Or. Dec. 18, 2019), https://innovationlawlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/ECF-1-Las-Americas-v.-Trump-No.-19-cv-02051-SB-D.-Or..pdf.

[2] See Immigration and Nationality Act § 242; 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

[3] Baez-Sanchez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 854, 856 (7th Cir. 2017); Baez-Sanchez v. Barr, No. 19-1642, slip op. at 2–3 (7th Cir. Jan. 23, 2020).

[4] Baez-Sanchez, slip op. at 3.

[5] Id. at 3–4.

[6] Id. at 4.

[7] Id.

[8] Id. at 4–5.

[9] Id. at 5.

[10] Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S.Ct. 2400, 2415 (2019).

[11] Chevron v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842–43 (1984).

[12] Id. at 844–45; see also 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) (a reviewing court shall set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law”).

[13] See Kisor, 139 S.Ct. at 2416, quoting Arlington v. FCC, 569 U.S. 290, 296 (2013).

[14] See Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 316 (2018); Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 581 (2019). Note inconsistencies

[15] See Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N at 326–27; Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N at 591–92.

[16] See Nat’l Cable & Telecommunications Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 982 (2005) (allowing for agency interpretation to override judicial interpretation in certain circumstances, when the agency interpretation is “otherwise entitled to Chevron deference”).

[17] See Kisor, 139 S.Ct. at 2416.

[18] Grace v. Whitaker, 344 F. Supp. 3d 96, 127 (D.D.C. 2018).

[19] See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177 (1803).

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

Well said, Tess!

Thanks for being such a NDPA stalwart!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

02-01-20

Category: 7th Circuit

🏴‍☠️👎🏻ONLY THE BEGINNING: SUPREMES AGAIN INTERFERE WITH LOWER COURT RULING IN AID OF TRUMP’S CENSUS UNDERCOUNT SCHEME! — Communities Of Color, Democrats Likely To Be Screwed By Trump/GOP Scheme!

Vote ‘Em out, vote ‘Em out! At every level of Government, the GOP and their ideological judges are committed to unrelenting corruption, inequality, destroying democracy, and forcing an extreme right-wing agenda on the majority of Americans!

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

Vote ‘em out, vote. ‘em out!

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

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

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

This Fall, vote like your life and the future of humanity depend on it! Because they do!

JEFF “GONZO APOCALYPTO” SESSIONS ILLEGALLY STRIPPED IMMIGRATION JUDGES OF AUTHORITY TO CLOSE CASES – 7th Cir. Shreds White Nationalist Former AG’s Bogus “Precedent” in Matter of Castro-Tum — Meza Morales v. Barr

⚖️👍🏼🗽7TH CIR. REFUSES TO FOLD IN FACE OF “J.R. FIVE’S” KOWTOWING TO MILLER’S WHITE NATIONALIST AGENDA — Circuit Court Re-Instates Injunction Against Illegal, Racially-Motivated “Public Charge” Regulation Change Aimed at Ethnic Communities — Cook County v. Wolf

Suzanne Monyak @ Law360: FEDERAL COURTS RECOGNIZE THAT BILLY BARR’S BIA IS A FRAUD! — So Why Do They Let The Unconstitutional Abuse Of Persons Seeking Justice Continue Under Their Noses?

That’s why I say: “Constantly Confront Complicit Courts 4 Change.”

Due Process Forever!

PWS

REGIME SCOFFLAWS STUFFED AGAIN: 7th Cir. Blasts Barr’s Bogus Battle Bashing Local Law Enforcement In Chicago, Other Cities — Unconstitutional! — Nationwide Injunction Affirmed — “But states do not forfeit all autonomy over their own police power merely by accepting federal grants.“

Due Process Forever!

2D CIR. TO NY & SIX OTHER SO-CALLED “SANCTUARY STATES:” Tough Noogies, Trump Rules!

DON’T BELIEVE A WORD BILLY BARR SAYS!

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

Exclusive for immigrationcourtside.com

Feb. 14, 2020

THE ROLE OF JUDGES TO “SAY WHAT THE LAW IS”: JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT OF IMMIGRATION ADJUDICATION

By Tess Hellgren, Staff Attorney and Justice Catalyst Legal Fellow

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Vote ‘Em out, vote ‘Em out! At every level of Government, the GOP and their ideological judges are committed to unrelenting corruption, inequality, destroying democracy, and forcing an extreme right-wing agenda on the majority of Americans!

Related posts:

Vote ‘em out, vote. ‘em out!

Related posts:

Related posts:

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

Related posts:

This Fall, vote like your life and the future of humanity depend on it! Because they do!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

That’s why I say: “Constantly Confront Complicit Courts 4 Change.”

Due Process Forever!

PWS

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

DON’T BELIEVE A WORD BILLY BARR SAYS!

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

Exclusive for immigrationcourtside.com

Feb. 14, 2020

Related posts:

THE ROLE OF JUDGES TO “SAY WHAT THE LAW IS”: JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT OF IMMIGRATION ADJUDICATION

By Tess Hellgren, Staff Attorney and Justice Catalyst Legal Fellow

Due Process Forever!

Related posts: