"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
Days before they were to go into effect, a federal court in the Northern District of California issued a national injunction blocking a dramatic fee hike for appliations for naturalized citizenship, permanent residency, asylum, and access to other immigration benefits. The new fees would have made immigration benefits unattainable for many. It would have nearly doubled citizenship from $640 to $1,170; increased lawful permanent residency and related application fees from $1,125 to $2,270; and added a $50 fee for asylum applications (the first time a fee has been assessed for asylum applications). The rule would have also eliminated most fee waivers for immigrants who cannot afford to pay the fees.
Judge Jeffrey White ruled that the nonprofit organizations that had challenged the fee increases would be likely to prevail in showing that Wolf’s appointment as Acting Director of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, without Senate confirmation, violated the rules of succession. As a result, the fees ordered under his stewardship cannot take effect while the litigation progresses. Similar reasoning had been used in a separate lawsuit regarding Ken Cucinelli and his asylum directives.
MHC
*******************************
MHC = Professor Ming Hsu Chen one of the all-star ⭐️ team of bloggers at ImmigrationProf Blog. Thanks, Professor, for this timely item! These illegal and clearly punitive fee increases were scheduled to into effect at the beginning of October!
Ming Hsu Chen Associate Professor of Law Colorado Law Courtesy Appointment in Political Science Ethnic Studies Faculty Affiliate Faculty-Director, Immigration and Citizenship Law Program Photo: ImmmigrationProf/ Col. Law
This is also a great illustration of why, totally contrary to the nonsense GOP party line and folks like GOP-owned Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, the nationwide injunction is an essential tool for achieving justice. According to the GOP’s false dogma, plaintiffs, many pro se, or appearing with pro bono or “low bono” representation, should be required to win their cases before over 650 U.S. District Judges and in 12 Circuits to get effective relief from the Trump regime’s unrelenting war on our Constitution and the rule of law.
While Trump and his GOP toadies and sycophants spout BS platitudes about “law and order” the truth is simple: This is a party of arrogant, immoral “scofflaws” from top to bottom!
This Fall, vote like your life and our future as a nation depend on it! Because they do! Vote the GOP kakistocracy out at every level! Don’t let their dark & dishonest plans become YOUR future!☠️⚰️
Bill Barr Consigliere Artist: Pat Bagley Salt Lake Tribune Reproduced under license“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”
From the EOIR website:
Garry Malphrus
Deputy Chief Appellate Immigration Judge
Attorney General William P. Barr appointed Garry Malphrus as a deputy chief appellate immigration judge in September 2020. Judge Malphrus earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1989 from the University of South Carolina and a Juris Doctor in 1993 from the University of South Carolina. From August 2008 to September 2020, he served on the Board of Immigration Appeals, Executive Office for Immigration Review, including as acting board chairman from October 2019 to May 2020. From 2005 to 2008, he served as an immigration judge at the Arlington Immigration Court. From 2001 to 2005, he served as associate director of the White House Domestic Policy Council. From 1997 to 2001, he worked for the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, which included serving as chief counsel and staff director on the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice Oversight and the Subcommittee on the Constitution. From 1995 to 1997, Garry served as a law clerk for the Honorable Dennis W. Shedd, U.S. District Judge for the District of South Carolina. From 1994 to 1995, he was a law clerk for the Honorable William W. Wilkins of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. From 1993 to 1994, he was a law clerk for the Honorable Larry R. Patterson, Circuit Judge for South Carolina. Judge Malphrus is a member of the South Carolina Bar.
****************
No surprise here, folks, as Courtside had predicted this back in May:
This appears to be the “penultimate step” in the ongoing process of “benching” the long-time “holdover” Vice Chair Chuck Adkins-Blanch. First, he was “passed over” when Judge Malphrus became the BIA’s Acting Chair following the hasty departure of former Chair David Neal. Now, Malphrus basically has been “layered in” to be the “real Deputy,” who will faithfully continue to carry out Billy’s nativist political agenda, presumably until Adkins-Blanch reaches retirement and finally pulls the plug.
Needless to say, Judge Adkins-Blanch’s name has been conspicuously absent from the BIA’s most recent barrage of anti-immigrant, anti-asylum “precedents.” That is, of course, the “precedents” that Billy lets the BIA write as opposed to the ones that he and his fellow political hacks at “Main DOJ” issue as “AG precedents.”
More and more, the AG, whom nobody except, perhaps, a few intentionally tone-deaf Circuit Court of Appeals Judges, would mistake for an “expert” in immigration law, has taken over the BIA’s precedent setting function. That leaves the BIA basically to do the “mop-up work” of maximizing the impact of Billy’s anti-immigrant policies and insuring that just and fair results below favoring immigrants are reversed upon demand of “EOIR’s masters” at DHS Enforcement.
Talk about the need for an Article I Court with a new cast of characters selected on a merit basis for their demonstrated immigration expertise, and established commitment to due process, fundamental fairness, equal justice, human rights, and practical applied scholarship! That so many Article III judges continue to “go along to get along” with this vile legal charade says some pretty sad things about the overall state of justice and the judiciary in America!
An Article I Court requires judicial leadership that replaces “built to fail ‘Vatican Style’ (or “Legacy INS Style”) hierarchical bureaucracy” with professional court administration and a much “leaner and flatter” judicial structure. A judicial structure where most resources are devoted to actually fairly and efficiently deciding cases, establishing “best practices,” and leading by example. That would eliminate the “Mickey Mouse” demeaning “control freak supervision (“suppression”)” of supposedly senior level “judges” who, if properly selected, would need effective support, but little to no “supervision” in the normal bureaucratic sense of the term.
In the meantime, expect the backlog to grow unabated and the Article IIIs to continue to reverse and return an essentially random selection of the BIA’s reliably “one-sided” jurisprudence for “redos!” That will further increase the backlog without effectively addressing the fundamental problem of an unconstitutional system with a clearly established anti-immigrant political bias!
Just more signs of an Americanjustice system now in the throes of institutional failure!
The Board of Immigration Appeals has issued a decision in the Matter of J-G-T-, 28 I&N Dec. 97 (BIA 2020)
(1) In assessing whether to admit the testimony of a witness as an expert, an Immigration Judge should consider whether it is sufficiently relevant and reliable for the expert to offer an informed opinion, and if it is admitted, the Immigration Judge should then consider how much weight the testimony should receive.
(2) In considering how much weight to give an expert’s testimony, the Immigration Judge should assess how probative and persuasive the testimony is regarding key issues in dispute for which the testimony is being offered.
PANEL:MALPHRUS, MULLANE, and CREPPY , Appellate Immigration Judges.
OPINION BY: MALPHRUS, Appellate Immigration Judge
*************
In this case, the BIA sent an asylum grant well-supported by expert opinion back to the IJ for no particular reason other than the DHS didn’t like the result.
The message: The IJ should always look for reasons to disallow, disbelieve, or diminish the weight of the asylum applicant’s persuasive evidence. The IJ should always be looking for “any reason to deny” asylum applications because that’s what Billy wants from his wholly-owned. “judges.”
To quote my friend and Round Table colleague retired IJ Jeffrey S. Chase:
[The BIA], McHenry, and Barr are engaging in tag-team destruction of asylum.So this gives the signal to ignore country experts when their opinions support grants of asylum.Which was stated more explicitly in the proposed 161-page asylum regs.And then if the IJ relies on the DOS report, the Board or AG will say the quoted passage was too vague and generalized to support a finding of social distinction or nexus.
The good news is that a number of brigades of the NDPA are hard at work on comprehensive alternative expert country reports that are much more accurate and well-documented than current DOS propaganda. A number of Courts of Appeals already have “called out” the BIA for routinely ignoring evidence and expert opinions favorable to asylum applicants.
I certainly hope they will see through and expose this rather transparent attempt to further “game the system” against asylum applicants. Actually, under the U.N. Handbook asylum seekers are supposed to receive the “benefit of the doubt.” But, not from this scofflaw regime and their toadies masquerading as “judges.”
It’s also worth noting that this case has already been pending for almost a decade. Obviously, time is no object for EOIR when it comes to looking for ways to deny asylum.
To Trump and his core enablers and supporters, the laws of Trump Nation authorize him to do whatever he wants. Anti-Trump Nation’s laws constrain him, but they’re illegitimate because they are made and enforced by the people who reject him.
If he loses the election, Trump will not accept the result because it would be the product of Anti-Trump Nation
So Trump’s call to the president of Ukraine seeking help with the election was “perfect”. It was fine for Russia to side with him in 2016, and it’s fine for it to do so again. And of course the justice department, postal service and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention should help him win re-election. They’re all aiding Trump Nation.
By a similar twisted logic, Anti-Trump Nation is dangerous. Hence, says Trump, the armed teenager who killed two in Kenosha, Wisconsin, acted in “self-defense”, yet the suspected killer of a rightwinger in Portland deserved the “retribution” he got when federal marshals killed him.
It follows that if he loses the election, Trump will not accept the result because it would be the product of Anti-Trump Nation, and Trump isn’t the president of people who would vote against him. As he recently claimed, “The only way we’re going to lose this election is if the election is rigged.”
In the warped minds of Trump and his acolytes, this could lead to civil war. Just this week he refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power. His consigliere Roger Stone urges him to declare “martial law” if he loses. Michael Caputo, assistant secretary of public affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services, warns “the shooting will begin” when Trump refuses to go.
Civil war is unlikely, but the weeks and perhaps months after election day will surely be fraught. Even if Trump is ultimately forced to relinquish power, his core adherents will continue to view him as their leader. If he retains power, many if not most Americans will consider his presidency illegitimate.
So whatever happens, Trump’s megalomaniacal ego will prevail. America will have come apart over him, and Trump Nation will have seceded from Anti-Trump Nation.
Perhaps ironically, the pro-democracy, pro-health care, pro-environment, pro-jobs, pro-science, more fiscally responsible Government promoted by Biden & Harris will help “Trump Nation” much more than anything in Trump’s tiny and overwhelmingly negative book of “achievements.” Even the pre-pandemic economy that Trump and his cult like to tout was as at least as much Obama as Trump.
Vote like your life and our future depend on it. Because they do!
The Times obtained Donald Trump’s tax information extending over more than two decades, revealing struggling properties, vast write-offs, an audit battle and hundreds of millions in debt coming due.
Donald J. Trump paid $750 in federal income taxes the year he won the presidency. In his first year in the White House, he paid another $750.
He had paid no income taxes at all in 10 of the previous 15 years — largely because he reported losing much more money than he made.
As the president wages a re-election campaign that polls say he is in danger of losing, his finances are under stress, beset by losses and hundreds of millions of dollars in debt coming due that he has personally guaranteed. Also hanging over him is a decade-long audit battle with the Internal Revenue Service over the legitimacy of a $72.9 million tax refund that he claimed, and received, after declaring huge losses. An adverse ruling could cost him more than $100 million.
The tax returns that Mr. Trump has long fought to keep private tell a story fundamentally different from the one he has sold to the American public. His reports to the I.R.S. portray a businessman who takes in hundreds of millions of dollars a year yet racks up chronic losses that he aggressively employs to avoid paying taxes. Now, with his financial challenges mounting, the records show that he depends more and more on making money from businesses that put him in potential and often direct conflict of interest with his job as president.
The New York Times has obtained tax-return data extending over more than two decades for Mr. Trump and the hundreds of companies that make up his business organization, including detailed information from his first two years in office. It does not include his personal returns for 2018 or 2019. This article offers an overview of The Times’s findings; additional articles will be published in the coming weeks.
The returns are some of the most sought-after, and speculated-about, records in recent memory. In Mr. Trump’s nearly four years in office — and across his endlessly hyped decades in the public eye — journalists, prosecutors, opposition politicians and conspiracists have, with limited success, sought to excavate the enigmas of his finances. By their very nature, the filings will leave many questions unanswered, many questioners unfulfilled. They comprise information that Mr. Trump has disclosed to the I.R.S., not the findings of an independent financial examination. They report that Mr. Trump owns hundreds of millions of dollars in valuable assets, but they do not reveal his true wealth. Nor do they reveal any previously unreported connections to Russia.
. . . .
*****************
Read the full report at the link.
Duh! According to NBC’s Stephanie Ruhle, an American who actually worked for a living and made $18,000 would pay $760 in taxes.
Not much of a surprise to those familiar with Trump’s endemic lies, corruption, and dishonesty. You can be sure that whatever lies and misdirection Trump spews forth about this report, it will have little or nothing to do with truth.
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.
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!
I am a lawyer specializing in asylum and refugee law. I have taught refugee law at George Washington University, University of San Francisco and Howard University. I have worked with the U.S. government and the UN Refugee Agency in refugee resettlement all over the world, most recently in Rwanda until COVID shut down our interviews.
In 2011 I self-published my legal memoir, My Trials: Inside America’s Deportation Factories, focusing upon the deportation system and my time as an immigration judge. It is time to update the book, given all the changes and destructive policies that have occured in recent years to our asylum system. The book received great reviews: “My Trials is both a scathing indictment of a broken immigration system that sends vulnerable immigrants back to perilous situations from which they fled, and a heartfelt call for a return to the values upon which our nation was founded.” American Immigration Lawyers Association. It was endorsed by renowned criminal defense attorney Gerry Spence.
The budget will include $2000 for editing and formatting, and $3000 for a limited publicity campaign. I am currently working with an editor to make the book available on Amazon by first week of October, so funds are essential now. It will be available on all other platforms mid-October.
This book has been a labor of love and education, and I have not profited from it. I will be tremendously grateful for assistance to make this updated book available at this critical junction in our nation’s history.
Click here it contribute to Paul’s “Go Fund Me” Campaign:
Judge, educator, public servant, humanitarian, author, role model, tireless advocate for due process, fundamental fairness, and equal justice for all: Thanks, Paul, for all you have done and continue to do. It’s a total honor to serve with you on the Round Table!🛡⚔️👍🏼
The Attorney General has issued a decision in Matter of A-C-A-A-, 28 I&N Dec. 84 (A.G. 2020)
In conducting its review of an alien’s asylum claim, the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) must examine de novo whether the facts found by the immigration judge satisfy all of the statutory elements of asylum as a matter of law. See Matter of R‑A‑F‑, 27 I&N Dec. 778 (A.G. 2020).
When reviewing a grant of asylum, the Board should not accept the parties’ stipulations to, or failures to address, any of the particular elements of asylum—including, where necessary, the elements of a particular social group. Instead, unless it affirms without opinion under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4)(i), the Board should meaningfully review each element of an asylum claim before affirming such a grant, or before independently ordering a grant of asylum. See Matter of L‑E‑A‑, 27 I&N Dec. 581, 589 (A.G. 2019).
Even if an applicant is a member of a cognizable particular social group and has suffered persecution, an asylum claim should be denied if the harm inflicted or threatened by the persecutor is not “on account of” the alien’s membership in that group. That requirement is especially important to scrutinize where the asserted particular social group encompasses many millions of persons in a particular society.
An alien’s membership in a particular social group cannot be “incidental, tangential, or subordinate to the persecutor’s motivation . . . [for] why the persecutor[] sought to inflict harm.” Matter of A‑B‑, 27 I&N Dec. 316, 338 (A.G. 2018) (citations omitted). Accordingly, persecution that results from personal animus or retribution generally does not support eligibility for asylum.
To state the obvious, “personal animus” and “retribution” often are involved in cases where race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social, or political opinion is “at least one central reason” for the persecution. That’s what the “mixed motive” doctrine is all about.
Look at Nazi Germany where many of the persecutors stood to gain personally or professionally or to extract retribution from the removal of their Jewish neighbors or former colleagues from society. What do you think happened to the property, possessions, and positions of those sent off to be gassed?
Billy the Bigot’s unethical, illegal, and immoral attempt to rewrite asylum law is part and parcel of the “any reason to deny” program aimed disproportionally at women (probably the “most persecuted social group in the world“) and applicants of color. Yet, time and again, Article III Courts fail to effectively “call out” this racism and misogyny driving an illegal rewrite of asylum laws! Asylum is intended to “protect, not reject.”
Also to state the obvious, this decision makes party stipulations, a key to fairly reducing the backlog and achieving justice in an adversary system, meaningless. Applied across the board, this would basically disable the American justice system at both the Federal and State levels.
But, of course, the Bigot’s real intent is to dump on asylum seekers, who tend to be individuals of color. The same standards won’t necessarily be applied when the interests of certain privileged White folks are at stake. It’s the unconstitutional, intentionally “unequal justice system” promoted by the GOP.
It’s another example of “Dred Scottification” of minorities and the most vulnerable by the regime and the Federal Courts. Once, a better qualified Supremes required the Executive to carry out the statutory mandate of a generous asylum system that complied with international standards (INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca). Now, it’s all about the Supremes’ majority’s furthering the regime’s White Nationalist agenda!
The Supremes’ GOP majority has been too intellectually dishonest and past Dem Administrations too “willfully dense” to connect the dots. But, this type of neo-Fascist nonsense by a bigot totally unqualified for public office, let alone purporting to serve in a quasi-judicial capacity, is a gross violation of established ethical standards that ties directly into the breakdown in the fabric of our society in a crescendo of racism, bigotry, false narratives, public mistrust, and authoritarianism! Lawyers with immigration and human rights experience recognize this, even if others are blind — whether willfully or negligently.
There is no excuse for an intentionally enfeebled, intellectually dishonest, and too often anti-democracy Federal Judiciary that has failed to hold Trump, Barr, Wolf, Miller, Francisco, and other other members of the anti-democracy, Jim Crow movement that drives today’s GOP accountable for their unethical, unconstitutional conduct, overt racism, and other gross misdeeds!
Better judges for a better America! Vote the kakistocracy out this Fall and usher in the age of the “Radical Progressive Humanitarian Judiciary” before it’s too late! Equal justice applies to all persons, not just Billy the Bigot’s favored, largely White male, class.
Convicted felons get reduced sentenced and motions to dismiss charges. Corrupt public officials avoid the law and mock ethical standards. Refugees of color get banishment and death!
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg 1933-2020 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States, Photographer: Steve Petteway Public RealmKaren Tumulty Political Columnist Photo: Rick Reinhard via Inter-American Dialogue Creative Commons License
In fact, McConnell’s actions are totally in keeping with the opportunism with which he has led the Senate. Given a chance, he will always abuse his power. Branding McConnell a hypocrite misses the point. Hypocrisy — coupled with an utter lack of shame — is not a character fault in his eyes. It is a management style, a means to an end.
[Obituary: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Supreme Court justice and legal pioneer for gender equality, dies at 87]
And would we have expected anything different from Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), the shape-shifting chairman of the Judiciary Committee?
Back in the days when he pretended to care about something more than sucking up to power, Graham used to say Republicans would have to live with what they had done to Obama’s 2016 nominee, Merrick Garland. In October 2018, shortly before taking the gavel of the committee that will consider Trump’s nomination, Graham promised: “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait till the next election.”
Now — surprise! — Graham has promised, via Twitter: “I will support President @realDonaldTrump in any effort to move forward regarding the recent vacancy created by the passing of Justice Ginsburg.” His rationale, if you can dignify it by calling it that, is that Democrats did things that offended him. So it’s payback time.
Oh, and let’s consider the sanctimonious and pseudointellectual Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), whom Trump has said he would consider for future openings on the court. When running for president in early 2016, he loftily declared to NBC’s Chuck Todd: “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year. And what this means, Chuck, is we ought to make the 2016 election a referendum on the Supreme Court.”
What Cruz said wasn’t true, as is so often the case. There had indeed been instances of presidential nominees being confirmed during election years. In February 1988, a Democratic-led Senate voted 97-0 to put Ronald Reagan’s pick, Anthony M. Kennedy, on the court.
But this was only the beginning for Cruz. When it still appeared that Hillary Clinton would win in 2016, he also suggested that the court could get along just fine with only eight members indefinitely. Now — surprise! — Cruz is warning that having an even number of justices constitutes a “grave danger.”
. . . .
******************
Read Karen’s complete op-ed at the link at the link.
As political sage Willie Nelson would say: “Vote ‘Em Out, Vote ‘Em Out!”
The best, perhaps only, way to honor RGB’s legacy and life work is to remove from office the party of inhumanity, inequality, and unbridled corruption who would spit and stomp on her legacy, NOW! Think about the “cultists” running around in “Fill Her Seat” shirts! Do you want these “princes and princesses of darkness, ignorance, bias, racism, and institutionalized inequality” to be running YOUR nation and determining the future of YOUR children and grandchildren? Pull out all the stops, open your wallets, and tell all your family, friends, and neighbors to register and vote for Joe and Kamala. It’s clearly “the last stand” for American democracy and human decency as we envision it (but also a great opportunity to make America better by voting for Biden/Harris)!
The consensusamong legaland politicalanalysts 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.
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!
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!
President Trump promised in 2016 that he would protect the Constitution’s “Article I, Article II, Article XII.” (There is no Article XII.) Instead, he has shown how fragile the constitutional order can be when a president does not respect the rule of law. He has not grown into the office; instead, he has learned how to more effectively abuse its powers. The damage of a second term might be irreparable.
Our Democracy in Peril
Part seven of a series of editorials on the damage President Trump has caused — and the danger he would pose in a second term.
A president’s core responsibility is to use the awesome power of his office fairly and with neutrality. Mr. Trump has shown that he has a different understanding: The law is a weapon with which to reward loyalists, punish enemies and frighten everyone else to fall in line.
His distortion of the criminal justice system began within months of his inauguration. When FBI Director James B. Comey tried to explain the proper relationship between the president and the FBI, Mr. Trump demanded loyalty and asked the FBI director to go easy on his former national security adviser Michael Flynn. Mr. Comey declined to promise the former or do the latter, and the president fired him.
The tumult that Mr. Comey’s dismissal elicited might have taught a lesson to a more sensible person: There is substance and expectation behind the presidential oath’s pledge to faithfully execute the laws. Mr. Trump did not learn that lesson. His pick for attorney general, Jeff Sessions, properly recused himself from the federal investigation into Russia’s attack on the 2016 U.S. presidential election — and any coordination with the Trump campaign — leading to the appointment of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. So Mr. Trump viciously attacked Mr. Sessions, and then fired him, too.
In part because the president’s staff more effectively restrained him back then, the special counsel was allowed to complete his investigation relatively unhindered. But Mr. Trump had no patience for standard Justice Department procedure — recusal when conflicts of interests may exist, special care to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. He reportedly complained that he needed a “Roy Cohn” at the Justice Department — that is, an aggressive protector of his personal interests. So, after firing Mr. Sessions, he hired an attorney general with no apparent concern about the appearance or reality of impropriety, William P. Barr.
Whether out of ideological fervor or fear of Mr. Trump’s wrath, Mr. Barr has aided the president’s friends, hurt his enemies and vociferously attacked anyone who has found these actions untoward. Mr. Barr sicced handpicked prosecutors on the Russia probe, despite independent investigations concluding it was warranted. Then Mr. Barr intervened to lessen the charging recommendation for Trump friend and convicted felon Roger Stone. Mr. Barr also ordered charges against Mr. Flynn, the admitted felon whom Mr. Trump had asked Mr. Comey to help, to be dropped. Yet another Justice Department official, FBI General Counsel Dana Boente, was fired after he opposed cooperating with the plot to clear Mr. Flynn.
Mr. Trump waited until after Senate Republicans voted to dismiss articles of impeachment in February to do more of his own dirty work. His White House already had issued illegal orders to prevent current or former executive branch officers from turning over documents or giving testimony to Congress, betting correctly that lawmakers would not be able to litigate the issue in time for the information they sought to matter. Free of the threat of removal, he committed revenge firings of impeachment witnesses who had only done their jobs and followed the law, including patriots such as Army Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman — and, for good measure, Mr. Vindman’s brother, who had nothing to do with impeachment.
Mr. Trump fired intelligence community inspector general Michael Atkinson for forwarding to Congress a whistleblower complaint that had implicated the president in his scheme to use public funds to extract political help from a foreign government. The message was clear: The lawful performance of one’s duties is secondary to protecting the president.
Mr. Trump commuted Mr. Stone’s sentence so that his friend would not have to serve one day, mocking the notion of equal justice before the law. He fired the inspector general tapped to monitor the administration’s coronavirus response programs, for reasons that are unclear, beyond his aversion to authentic oversight. The White House has inquisitors dedicated to rooting out federal staff who are insufficiently loyal to Mr. Trump, and they appear to be planning a broader purge after the November election.
Because the courts move slowly, the president discovered that he can sustain even the most egregious stonewalling and violations for years. The remaining checks would be Congress, but Republicans have almost uniformly chosen subservience to Mr. ‘Trump over fealty to the Constitution, and the executive branch, but Mr. Trump has sought to fire or cow anyone who would stand in the way of his lawlessness.
Last month brought two bright warning signs that the president feels ever-less inhibited. The Government Accountability Office found that Chad Wolf’s appointment as acting director of the Department of Homeland Security is illegal, yet Mr. Wolf is still there, overseeing a department that assisted in Mr. Trump’s alarming overreaction to protesters in Portland, Ore. Mr. Trump then used the White House for his Republican National Convention acceptance speech, which almost certainly resulted in violations of a law that prohibits federal resources from being used for political purposes. The New York Times reported that Mr. Trump “relished the fact that no one could do anything to stop him.”
Americans have long been taught that the U.S. political system has effective checks and balances. But in the past years, a frightening truth has emerged. Much of that balance has depended on the good character of the president, and there are surprisingly few ways to check a malign president from abusing the enormous powers of his office. Mr. Trump is committed to using those powers for his own personal ends, and he has slowly but surely chipped away at any limitations. How many would remain after four more years?
*************
One reason it’s taken some folks so long to raise the alarm is because they lack understanding of our immigration and human rights laws and their foundational relationship to our democracy. Those of us who do, sounded the alarm early on!
The lack of progressive immigration and human rights expertise and influence across all three branches of our Government and in much of the media has been a major factor in the rapid deterioration of our democracy. The progressive talent is out there in abundance; it’s just in the wrong place, outside of the power structure.
While I agree with the Post’s “bottom line,” I disagree somewhat with the analysis of why our Judicial System has failed so miserably when we most needed it. It’s not just an institutional weakness of “slowness;” it’s a defect in the qualifications, ideology, and character of too many GOP-appointed Federal Judges including the majority of our Supremes.
Yes, the wheels of justice can grind slowly. But, there is no institutional bar to integrity, creative emergency responses, or putting ideology aside to “do the right thing” for the rule of law and for human decency and human dignity. It’s happened before; but not this time around, with our nation in peril.
We saw an early example of the lack of legal and moral leadership on our highest Court with the invidious and blatantly unconstitutional and outright fraudulent “Muslim Ban.”
The lower Federal Courts reacted immediately with proper urgency to “just say no” to this invidious, unconstitutional, dishonest political gimmick. Because their answer clearly was correct, the Supremes had only to reinforce that message to the regime — that Trump would be required to operate within the law and to conduct himself with professionalism, honesty, and the same modicum of human decency exhibited by all other Presidents. This should have been “a piece of cake” and a golden moment for the Court to assert its independence and reinforce human decency regardless of ideology.
Rather than upholding and reinforcing this courageous and timely conduct by their subordinate jurists, the Supremes improperly and incorrectly undermined them. Then, after unnecessary delay, they let the Trump bigot/scofflaws/liars off the hook. The rout of honesty, human dignity, and our Constitution was on!
Since then, the Roberts Court has engaged in a “pattern or practice” of improper intervention to disable timely actions by the lower courts and thereby aid the White Nationalist regime’s illegal, racism-driven actions and unethical legal tactics. Nowhere has that been worse than in the gross and deadly erosion of immigrants’ rights and human rights. Real human beings continue to suffer grotesque degradations and die because some Justices wouldn’t do their jobs!
Roberts & Co. should spend some time suffering with their fellow humans in the squalid camps in Mexico they helped create; in dangerous and disgusting DHS detention that falls below standards we would inflict on convicted felons; in “baby jails;” on flights returning refugees to danger after not even taking the time to fairly listen and evaluate their claims; in “safe” third countries that are actually functionally war zones without functioning legal systems, let alone asylum systems, where corrupt regimes have neither the interest nor the ability to protect those being persecuted; or in our “Modern Star Chambers” known as “Immigration Courts” where maliciously incompetent management and a systemic contempt for due process actually threatens the lives of not only migrants, but also lawyers on both sides, the “judges,” and “court” staff.
Too many “righty judges” exist outside the reality of the daily human misery inflicted on others by their intransigence and warped anti-humanity ideology! Even some so-called“liberal” judges too often live in an “intellectual bubble” far removed from the unending ugliness and human despair daily unfolding at the “retail level of our justice system” — known as Immigration “Courts” that these days are nothing remotely resembling actual “courts.”
Those rights of the most vulnerable among us being ground into mush are all of our rights to equal justice and fundamental fairness under law. The failure to stand up for equal justice under law and social justice for all is currently ripping our nation apart and fueling a resurgence of Jim Crow racism.
Life tenure insures that our judiciary will only change over time. But, more anti-democracy, right wing jurists on our Federal Bench will exponentially decrease our chances of saving our republic. And, we can be sure that the Trump/Mitch pick to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will push American Justice to the precipice.
We need fundamental changes in what type of persons with what type of values control and comprise all three Branches of our Government. Wemust start now, before it is too late. No system will stand up to the actions of individuals who don’t believe in its fundamental Constitutional guarantees of due process, fundamental fairness, and equal justice for all persons under law!
It’s also long past time for future Democratic Administrations aggressively to embrace and elevate the pool of tremendous legal expertise, administrative talent, moral and intellectual courage, and proven problem solving ability now out there in the private, academic, and NGO human rights and immigrants’ rights community!
These are the “anti-Stephen-Millers,” “anti Billy-the-Bigots,” and “anti-Wolfmans,” who would strive to make our Constitutional promises finally come alive for all Americans, insure equality for all before the law, and make our nation a better place for everyone, not just the privileged and powerful. Government utilizing the skills of smart, practical, humane problem solvers would also be much more efficient in spending our tax dollars than the current Government of bigots and incompetents driven by extreme bias, an exclusive vision, and highly counterproductive ideologies!
This Fall, vote like your life and the future of our Constitutional republic depend on it. Because they most certainly do!
WASHINGTON — Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died on Friday of “complications of metastatic pancreas cancer,” the Supreme Court announced.
“Our nation has lost a jurist of historic stature,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said in a statement. “We at the Supreme Court have lost a cherished colleague. Today we mourn, but with confidence that future generations will remember Ruth Bader Ginsburg as we knew her — a tireless and resolute champion of justice.”
The development will give President Trump the opportunity to name her successor, and Senate Republicans have promised to try to fill the vacancy even in the waning days of his first term. The confirmation battle, in the middle of a pandemic and a presidential election, is sure to be titanic.
Mr. Trump has appointed two members of the Supreme Court, Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh, moving the court slightly to the right. The replacement of Justice Ginsburg, the leader of the court’s four-member liberal wing, could transform the court into a profoundly conservative institution, one in which Republican appointees would outnumber Democratic ones six to three.
. . . .
***************
Read the complete article at the Link.
I don’t know how “epic” the battle to replace RBG will be. Trump and McConnell have basically announced an intent to ram through the most reactionary Justice available; one who will undermine the Constitution, advance a White Nationalist agenda, and continue the program of “Dred Scottifying” people of color and other vulnerable minorities. The Dems don’t have the votes to block it.
It’s a sad day for American Justice in more ways than one. And the worst is yet to come!
Scenes from “The Beautiful Vision” of U.S. racial history:
Gathering the dead after the Colfax massacre, published in Harper’s Weekly, May 10, 1873, Public Realm
Public Realm
“At least they weren’t asked to wear masks or socially distance; now that would have been a real crime against humanity,” says Billy the Bigot. Public realm
From The Levin Report by Bess Levin:
. . . .
At this point, there are thousands of examples underscoring the need to remove the president from society, but the most recent is his unhinged response to the New York Times’ 1619 Project, which he wants abolished in schools and replaced with a revisionist history of America that teaches children how white people have only ever had their Black peers’ best interest at heart, including when said white people literally owned slaves.
Speaking at the National Archives Museum on Thursday, Trump announced that he would be signing an executive order establishing the “1776 Commission” to promote a “patriotic education.” Apparently attempting to reach his white nationalist supporters, Trump said that the left is “attempting to destroy [the] beautiful vision” that the founding fathers had for America, and that things like the 1619 Project, which teach children about systemic racism and reframe the country’s history by examining the consequences of slavery, are “toxic propaganda” and “ideological poison” that “if not removed, will dissolve the civic bonds that tie us together” and “will destroy our country.” Then he claimed liberals want to tear down Mount Rushmore . . . .
*****************
Read the rest of the article and the full Levin Report here:
Trump’s view of America is unrelentingly bogus. racist, unethical, and unpatriotic! This is “Dred Scottification” in action. And, we must never forget the disgraceful failure of Chief Justice John Roberts and the Supremes’ majority to take a strong stand against the very overt White Nationalist racism of Trump, Miller, and the GOP. They are indeed promoters of “Dred Scottification,” racial divisiveness, inequality, and the breakdown of the rule of law and ethical and moral norms that should guide 21st Century governance.
American democracy is indeed “on the ropes.” But, we still have a chance to save our republic this Fall. Don’t blow it!
This Fall, vote like your life and the future existence of our nation depend on it. Because they do!
“At least they weren’t asked to wear masks or socially distance; now that would have been a real crime against humanity,” says Billy the Bigot. Public realm
Washington (CNN)Democratic South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn got right to the point when asked about Attorney General William Barr’s comment on Wednesday that calls for a nationwide lockdown to stem the spread of the novel coronavirus were the “greatest intrusion on civil liberties” in US history “other than slavery.”
“I think that that statement by Mr. Barr was the most ridiculous, tone-deaf, God-awful thing I’ve ever heard,” Clyburn, longtime Black leader from South Carolina, said on Thursday. “It is incredible, as chief law enforcement officer in this country, to equate human bondage to expert advice to save lives. Slavery was not about saving lives. It was about devaluing lives.”
Slavery was not about saving lives. It was about devaluing lives. For hundreds of years, enslaved Africans were beaten, tortured, raped and treated as property.
Or as the author Isabel Wilkerson puts it in her new book, “Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents”: “The institution of slavery was, for a quarter of a millennium, the conversion of human beings into currency, into machines who existed solely for the profit of their owners, to be worked as long as the owners desired, who had no rights over their bodies or loved ones.”
In this system, African captives “could be mortgaged, bred, won in a bet, given as wedding presents, bequeathed to heirs, sold away from spouses or children to cover an owner’s debt or to spite a rival or to settle an estate,” Wilkerson writes.
That Barr painted a few months of being told — or as it was in many cases, asked — to stay home during a global pandemic as being even remotely in the same category as the practice of enslavement is ridiculous. (To say nothing of the fact that he skipped over, among other things, Jim Crow, Japanese internment during World War II and the slaughter of Native Americans.)
But even during a summer that’s been seized by a racial reckoning, the attorney general’s comment was the furthest thing from surprising.
. . . .
******************
Read the rest of the article at the link.
Up until recently, it might have seemed surprising to have an Attorney General more than century and a half after the end of the Civil War spread such blatantly racist, intentionally ignorant, anti-historical nonsense! But, under the Trump regime, racist tropes and policies as well as historically and factually false claims have become the norm.
This Fall, vote like your life and the future of America depend on it. Because they do!
