"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.
ImmigrationProf blogger Ingrid Eagly and Steven Shafer in an op/ed in the Los Angeles Times take on President Trump who “[l]ast week, during the final presidential campaign debate, President Trump renewed a claim he has often made: Migrants with pending court dates rarely show up for their hearings. In response to the charge by his Democratic challenger, former Vice President Joe Biden, that the administration’s treatment of would-be immigrants was inhumane, Trump told debate watchers that the number who`come back’ to immigration court is `less than 1%.’
The government’s data, however, tell a far different story.”
Check out the op/ed and the take down of President.
A new fact sheet by Nina Siulc and Noelle Smart of the Vera Institute of Justice summarizes new evidence showing that most immigrants appear for their immigration court hearings. The report includes data from Vera’s Safety and Fairness for Everyone (SAFE) Initiative that provides free representation through a universal access model of representation. Vera researchers found that 98 percent of SAFE clients released from custody have continued to appear for their court hearings. Read the full report for additional information on related research, including Vera’s ongoing evaluation of the New York Immigrant Family Unity Project (NYIFUP).
I[ngrid] E[agly]
***********************
Thanks, Ingrid and Steven! Our “Round Table” has used your scholarship in amicus briefs to educate Federal Courts at all levels about the realities of Immigration Court.
It’s particularly critical in an era where the politicized and “ethically challenged” DOJ often puts forth largely fictionalization versions of their self-manufactured “immigration emergency” that is actually little more than the outcome of studied ignorance, White Nationalism, “gonzo” enforcement, and maliciously incompetent administration of the Federal immigration bureaucracy.
Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com
If we kick out the kakistocracy next week, we could put qualified “practical scholars” like Ingrid and others like her in charge and remake both DHS and the Immigration Courts to actually operate as required by Due Process while also fulfilling legitimate law-enforcement objectives. To state the obvious, neither of these objectives is being realized at present. It’s bad for America and for humanity.
For far too long, the wrong individuals, lacking the necessary expertise in immigration and human rights, and also lacking a firm commitment to equal justice under law, have been “in charge” of the Government’s immigration policy and legal apparatus and appointed to the Federal Courts, at all levels. That’s particularly true at the Supremes where only Justices Sotomayor and (some days) Kagan appear “up to the job.”
We will never end institutionalized racism, achieve equal justice for all, and realize the true human and economic potential of America until we bring our broken immigration and refugee systems and our failing Federal Judicial System into line with our Constitutional and national values. That process must start, but certainly will not end, with this election!
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump‘s senior adviser Stephen Miller has fleshed out plans to rev up Trump’s restrictive immigration agenda if he wins re-election next week, offering a stark contrast to the platform of Democratic nominee Joe Biden.
In a 30-minute phone interview Thursday with NBC News, Miller outlined four major priorities: limiting asylum grants, punishing and outlawing so-called sanctuary cities, expanding the so-called travel ban with tougher screening for visa applicants and slapping new limits on work visas.
The objective, he said, is “raising and enhancing the standard for entry” to the United States.
Some of the plans would require legislation. Others could be achieved through executive action, which the Trump administration has relied on heavily in the absence of a major immigration bill.
AUG. 25, 202005:51Some of the plans would require legislation. Others could be achieved through executive action, which the Trump administration has relied on heavily in the absence of a major immigration bill.
“In many cases, fixing these problems and restoring some semblance of sanity to our immigration programs does involve regulatory reform,” Miller said. “Congress has delegated a lot of authority. … And that underscores the depth of the choice facing the American people.”
Miller, who serves in a dual role as an adviser in the White House and to Trump’s re-election campaign, stressed that he was speaking about second-term priorities only in his capacity as campaign adviser.
Immigration has been overshadowed by surging coronavirus case numbers and an economy shattered by a nearly yearlong pandemic, but it was central to Trump’s rise to power in the Republican Party, and Miller has been a driving force for the administration’s often controversial policies to crack down on illegal migration and erect hurdles for aspiring legal immigrants.
Miller has spearheaded an immigration policy that critics describe as cruel, racist and antithetical to American values as a nation of immigrants. He scoffs at those claims, insisting that his only priority is to protect the safety and wages of Americans.
And he said he intends to stay on to see the agenda through in a second term if Trump is re-elected.
In the near term, Miller wouldn’t commit to lifting the freeze on new green cardsand visas that’s set to expire at the end of the year, saying it would be “entirely contingent” on governmental analysis that factors in the state of the job market.
Asked whether he would support reinstating the controversial “zero tolerance” policy that led to families’ being separated, Miller said the Trump administration is “100 percent committed to a policy of family unity,” but he described the policy as one that would keep families together in immigration detention by changing what is known as the Flores settlement agreement.
Over the past year, the administration has sought to amend the Flores agreement, which says children can’t be held over 20 days in Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention. If it succeeds, immigrant families could be detained indefinitely as they await their day in immigration court.
On Trump’s watch, asylum grants have plummeted. Miller wants to keep it that way. He said a second-term Trump administration would seek to expand “burden-sharing” deals with Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador that cut off pathways to the U.S. for asylum-seekers.
“The president would like to expand that to include the rest of the world,” Miller said. “And so if you create safe third partners in other continents and other countries and regions, then you have the ability to share the burden of asylum-seekers on a global basis.”
. . . .
***************
Read the complete report at the link.
Kids in cages, refugees returned to torture and death, ethnic communities terrorized, lives destroyed, an economy and a society (make no mistake about it, immigrants will be essential to America’s recovery, future prosperity, and competitiveness) in tatters, tens of millions wasted on unnecessary and counterproductive Gulags, walls, and cruel enforcement while the Gruppenfuherer and his fellow human rights criminals remain at large and and an existential threat to our nation and our world!
To state the obvious, this has little or nothing to do with protecting American workers. Trump has shown that he couldn’t care less about the health, safety, and welfare of American workers (or frankly anybody except himself) except at election time. Immigration and immigrants create jobs and economic prosperity for America.
Also, even Miller couldn’t possibly believe that the Democratic House will pass any part of this racist manifesto. Truth is, Trump failed to pass any meaningful immigration legislation in four years, even when the GOP controlled all the political branches! In fact, Miller’s nativist legislative game-plan “poisoned the well” and was soundly defeated in both Houses of Congress! So, he intends to use Executive misrule, bureaucratic corruption, and a fascism-enabling, racially tone-deaf GOP Supremes’ majority to rule without Congress (as has been the case for the last four years.)
But make no mistake: the real “Reichsplan” here is directed at further institutionalizing racism, spreading hate, and targeting Americans of color. That’s what the regime’s “Dred Scottification” is really about. Reducing or eliminating YOUR Constitutional rights! Immigrants are the “usual suspects.” But, by no means will they be the only victims of Gruppenfuhrer Miller’s White Nationalist, racist, hate extravaganza.
As reported at the link above, The Biden-Harris campaign immediately and forcefully condemned the Gruppenfuhrer’s plans for “ethnic cleansing:”
“We are going to win this election so that people like Stephen Miller don’t get the chance to write more xenophobic policies that dishonor our American values,” Molina said. “Unlike Trump, Vice President Biden knows that immigrants make America stronger and helped build this country.”
America is immigration! It’s our past, present, and future! When we deny those truths, we deny ourselves and betray our own humanity!
Get out the vote for Joe, Kamala, and the Dems! Top to bottom of the ballot! Our lives and the future of American Democracy depend on it! Don’t let Gruppenfuhrer Miller and his neo-Nazi agenda, the GOP’s dark vision of the future, destroy our democracy! Vote the party of corruption, hate, and neo-fascism out!
Susan Church, an immigration attorney in Boston, ended the first week of the Trump administration arm in arm with protesters at Logan Airport, resisting an executive order banning travel from several predominantly Muslim countries. But what happened the next day, away from the public chants of “Let them stay!” was more typical of what the life of the former chair of the New England chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) was to become under the Trump administration.
Church and an associate filed an emergency lawsuit to secure the release of immigrants from Customs and Border Protection (CBP) custody. “I got a federal judge on the phone, you know, on a Saturday night at eight o’clock.” The judge told Church to go to court immediately. An hour later, the attorneys were in court defending their clients.
“For me, that was the canary in the coal mine about what the rest of my four years under the Trump administration was going to be like,” Church said. “It’s just a nonstop series of emergency litigation filed to try to rescue one or 10 or 100 or 1,000 people, depending on which issue it is.” Eventually, the speed of the work, and the physical and mental exhaustion it triggered, landed Church in the hospital. “I thought I was having a heart attack,” she said.
Church stayed with the fight to reunite parents with their children. She described the process of taking affidavits from clients, which require she learn every harrowing detail of a client’s trauma. In one instance, CBP ripped away one woman’s eight-year-old daughter at the border. “She had to comb her daughter’s hair and change her daughter’s clothes and put her on a bus and say goodbye to her,” Church said through tears. The two were separated for nearly two months, even after the mother was released from detention.
Church was able to reunite her client with her child, but the episode—like many, many other cases—weighs heavy on her shoulders. “I don’t think I’ll ever be quite the same person that I was beforehand,” she said.
Four years into this migration crisis, there’s a parallel migration under way—of immigration lawyers out of the profession. Survey data and interviews the Prospect conducted with more than a dozen lawyers around the country reveal the physical, mental, and financial toll endured by members of the bar. Given the extreme violence, trauma, and inhumanity their clients often endure, immigration attorneys don’t like to talk about how it affects them. But secondary trauma also leaves a mark, making it impossible to continue for some attorneys. Although numerical data is limited, there is evidence that some attorneys are cutting back on some types of cases, such as deportation defense work, or even leaving immigration law altogether. Removal defense casework is one of the most time-intensive, emotional, and exigent parts of lawyers’ loads. It’s also where the administration has aimed much of its cruelest policymaking, severely limiting lawyers’ efficacy.
Under the Trump administration, immigration law has changed not only profoundly, but also so rapidly that it’s hard for immigration attorneys to keep up. Susan Church—and several other attorneys interviewed for this article—described combating Trump’s policies as a game of whack-a-mole.
. . . .
**************
Read Marcia’s full article at the link.
Forget all the right wing BS and the “originalist hoax!” This is about “democracy (or the destruction thereof) in action.”
Remember, all of these cosmic “immigration law changes” have taken place without a single piece of major legislation enacted by Congress! Indeed, the Trump regime’s ham-handed attempt to force it’s nativist agenda down the throats of the Congress as part of the “Dreamer fiasco” fell flat on its face in both Houses!But, the Supremes have both encouraged and enabled Trump (actually notorious white supremacist Stephen Miller) to rewrite the law through. “Executive fiat.” Totally inappropriate, not to mention glaringly unconstitutional.
The Supremes’ majority has time and again improperly sided with the unethical, immoral, and Constitutionally bankrupt “Dred Scottification” of migrants, particularly asylum seekers. It’s not much different from what has happened to African Americans, Latinos, and other minorities following the Civil War. But, this is supposed to be the 21st Century where we have put “Jim Crow” behind us. Obviously, we haven’t!
Failing to protect “officers of the court” (lawyers) and their clients from a scheme of abuses heaped upon them by a corrupt, biased, out of control, overtly racist Executive and his sycophants is a gross dereliction of duty by the Supremes. It’s basically like allowing, and even encouraging, the badgering of a witness during trial!
It’s painfully obvious that we have many of the wrong folks on the bench — from the Immigration Courts to the Supremes. Indeed, the nation and the world would be much better served if many more of those courageous lawyers who serve the immigrant community and human rights experts were on the Federal Bench at all levels.
Trump, Roberts, and the GOP judicial misfits have also shown us first-hand the profiles of individuals who should not be serving in judicial positions. Let them litigate their “originalist,” “unitary Executive,” and other “far out” righty philosophies as lawyers appearing before real judges —“practical scholars” who live in the 21st Century and are committed to problem solving rather than problem creating. As Joe Biden has noted, the entire judicial selection system and particularly the Supremes need a thoughtful re-examination and reform.
Never again should we have Justices like Amy Coney Barrett and Clarence Thomas performing highly inappropriate and unethical televised “campaign stunts” for an incumbent President during an ongoing election. Geez! What kind of “impartial jurists” are they?
Most first year law students could tell you that’s a “no-go!” Why have we “normalized” and “accepted” such obvious bias, misbehavior, and lack of sound judgment at the highest levels of our (not Trump’s or Mitch’s personal) Judiciary?
It’s not “Rocket Science!” The fundamental building blocks of our society are immigration, human rights, and equal justice! Any lawyer who who doesn’t embody those virtues and doesn’t publicly embrace them should not in the future be given a lifetime appointment as a Federal Judge — at any level!
We need better judges for a better America! We will never achieve constitutionally-required “equal justice for all” for African Americans, Latinos, or anyone else, nor can we reach our diverse nation’s full potential, if we don’t start “pushing back” against Roberts and the GOP’s right wing judicial oligarchy, their obtuse legal gibberish, and their anti-democratic “jurisprudence.”
It starts with voting to take back our country from the far right. But, that’s just the beginning of the changes needed if equal justice for all is to become a reality, rather than an ever unfulfilled promise, limited to certain privileged (predominantly White) groups within our society!
And, all of society owes a debt of gratitude to Ms. Church and other brave lawyers like her who represent the best our country has to offer and have actually suffered for standing up for the rule of law and the legal and human rights of the most vulnerable among us. In other words, standing up for all of our rights against a tyranny!
Compare that with the utterly dismal composition of the “Trump kakistocracy” and its “Dred Scottification” of “the other.”
“They are so well taken care of. … They’re in facilities that were so clean,” President Donald Trump said during last week’s presidential debate, of the children his administration ordered separated from their parents at the southern border. As my colleague Jeremy Stahl points out, this isn’t the first time that an administration official has argued that because the separated children—over 500 of whom are still being kept from their parents—have (supposedly!) been physically taken care of, they should be “just fine.” But if the life histories of children forced to be parted from parents for years of their childhoods are any indication, these periods of separation will have long-lasting, devastating, and unpredictable effects.
I’ve been reading historian Rebecca Clifford’s new book, Survivors: Children’s Lives After the Holocaust, which is a painful history of Jewish kids who somehow made it through World War II when they were very small, and had to figure out how to forge a life afterward. Combining analysis of survivors’ testimonies recorded over the years, documents from the archives of organizations that came into contact with these children, and oral histories Clifford herself collected, the book shows how many of these survivors struggled with the act of making sense of their lives—even the lucky ones, who didn’t witness violence, and whose material needs were well met during the period of conflict and persecution. Clifford calls the work “fundamentally a book about the history of living after, and living with, a childhood marked by chaos.”
Survivors is, of course, about a group of children whose lives were marked by the Nazi regime, not about children fleeing violence in Central America, who were then separated from their families by Border Patrol agents. But it’s also fundamentally concerned with the human consequences of children’s separations from parents. In the group of survivors in Clifford’s history, there are kids who were sent to live with host families, who hid them until the war was over; kids incarcerated in different labor camps from their parents; kids who wandered the forests alone, tended only by older siblings.
Asking the historical record, and the grown-up survivors she interviewed, how this period of separation had affected the children’s lives in the long term, Clifford found things that she described as “not only unexpected, but shocking.” One such finding was the fact that for many of the kids, the war years were fine; it was liberation that was traumatic. “Children are adept at treating the exceptional as normal, and because they had no other life to compare it with, the years of persecution did not necessarily feel dangerous, fraught, or chaotic to young survivors,” Clifford writes. But after liberation, as well-meaning adults did everything they could to bring the kids back together with their surviving family members, or to find them places in Jewish homes, many of the separated survivors were profoundly destabilized. “My war began in 1945, not in 1940,” one such survivor said.
The German Jewish parents of Felice Z., who was born in October 1939, put their 1½-year-old daughter in the hands of aid workers in early 1941, and the girl spent the war years hidden by farmers in France. Felice Z. remembered in later interviews that she loved her host parents, and in particular her host mother, Madame Patoux: “All they were interested in was taking care of me. She basically saved my life. She was always ready to run. … I took it for granted that she was my mother, I called her meme (nana) and it was really the first close relationship that I had with another human being. I became very attached to them. Very.” At the end of the war, Felice got no joy out of being reunited with her sister, who had become a stranger. Soon after that reunion, she was removed from the family where she had grown up; as she remembered it, nobody bothered to explain why.
“Family reunions could be among the most difficult and distressing experiences that children went through after the war,” Clifford writes. “The youngest children might have no memory of their parents or relatives at all, and were effectively returned to strangers. … Not one child in this study who was returned to his or her family found this process easy or joyful.” The reunions brought up feelings of anger and terror—even if, as Clifford points out, the kids could rationally understand the reasons their parents had put them in safer places for the duration of the war. They had spent years suppressing childish impulses—“they had had to be obedient, quiet, and good to stay safe during the war, whether they were in hiding, in ghettos or in camps”—and often became explosive and “difficult to manage” after the separation was over.
. . . .
**********************
Read the rest of Rebecca’s article at the link.
So much wanton cruelty; such gross illegality; so little accountability; such glaring lack of integrity in our justice system! What has our country become? How is this “normal” or within the proper scope of “Executive authority.” What is impeachment for if not for “crimes against humanity?”
Vote ‘Em out, vote ‘Em out! Then start re-examining the failed and continuously failing institutions that couldn’t or wouldn’t effectively stand up to Trump, Miller, Sessions, Barr, Wolf, and the rest of their gang of thugs and scofflaws!
That starts, but by no means ends, with the highly politicized Supremes and their systemic failure to uphold our Constitution, the rule of law, and human dignity against an onslaught of White Nationalist, racist-inspired abuses by Trump, Miller, and their GOP cronies. This is a Court that disgracefully has been more interested in carrying out GOP shenanigans overtly intended to suppress votes, remove minority voting rights guaranteed by statute and Constitution, and throw the election to Trump than it has been in enforcing the Constitution and the rule of law to save the lives of refugees and asylum seekers, including women and children!
Better, more courageous, more humane judges for a better America!
PWS
10-29-20
*******************************
UPDATE: HOUSE REPORT LAYS BARE “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” COMMITTED BY REGIME OFFICIALS!
Here’s the just-released Report (courtesy of Dan Kowalski @ LexisNexis):
VI. Conclusion
While we may never know the full extent of the damage inflicted by the Trump Administration’s family separation policy, it is evident—as a result of this investigation and public reporting—that it was driven by an Administration that was willfully blind to its cruelty and determined to go to unthinkable extremes to deliver on political promises and stop migrants fleeingviolencefromseekingprotectionintheUnitedStates. Asillustratedinthisreport:
• Within weeks of President Trump’s inauguration, the Administration began formulating a plan to separate parents from their children as a means to deter migration.
• Before a formal policy had even been developed, the Administration was accelerating familyseparations. ByMarch2017,thenumberofseparatedchildrentransferredtoORR custody had increased by nearly 900 percent, as compared to November 2016.
• In July 2017, without warning, the Administration implemented a family separation pilot programintheElPasoBorderPatrolSector. Thepilotprogramlastedfivemonthsand resulted in hundreds of additional children being taken from their parents and placed in ORR custody.
• During the pilot program, the Administration discovered that it was unable to track separated family members in a way that would facilitate eventual reunification.
• Knowing this, and without doing anything to address the tracking systems employed by deferral agencies, the Administration chose to expand the policy nationwide in May 2018.
• To make matters worse, the Administration failed to provide advance notice of the policy to front line agents and officers, which caused unnecessary chaos and inconsistent implementation of the policy across border sectors.
121 Dan Diamond, HHS Reviews Refugee Operations as Trump Calls for Border Crackdown, POLITICO (Oct. 23, 2018), https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/23/trump-caravan-border-hhs-873152.
122 Email from Scott Lloyd to Evelyn Stauffer, Press Secretary, Dep’t of Health and Human Services (Nov. 19, 2018), at Appendix AY.
21
• When judicial intervention and political pressure eventually resulted in the end of the policy, the lack of interagency cooperation and preparedness was laid bare by the inability of the Administration to quickly reunite separated parents and children.
As a result of this dark chapter in our nation’s history, hundreds of migrant children may never be reunited with their parents.
Despite considerable stonewalling by Administration officials, Judiciary Committee Members and staff have pushed relentlessly to obtain data and conduct much needed oversight of the agencies responsible for the family separation policy. This report details the Committee’s findings thus far. We remain committed to holding the Trump Administration accountable and continuing to shed light on this dark moment in our country’s history.
As my friend, “Immigration Guru” Ira J. Kurzban would say: “Folks, this is NOT NORMAL!”
As we both say: “This is unacceptable conduct for which there must be accountability if we are to remain a nation under law.”
Jeffrey Goldberg Interviewing John Kerry Official USG Photo Public RealmDonald J. Trump Famous American Clown (Officially titled “Ass Clown”) Artist: Scott Scheidly Orlando, FL Reproduced by permissionTrump Regime
In 1973, a United States Air Force officer, Major Harold Hering, asked a question that the Air Force did not want asked. Hering, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, was then in training to become a Minuteman-missile crewman. The question he asked one of his instructors was this: “How can I know that an order I receive to launch my missiles came from a sane president?”
The writer Ron Rosenbaum would later call this the “forbidden question.” Missile officers are allowed to ask certain sorts of questions—about the various fail-safe systems built to prevent the accidental launching of nuclear weapons, for instance. But the Air Force would not answer Hering’s question, and it moved to discharge him after determining that officers responsible for launching nuclear weapons did not “need to know” the answer. “I have to say I feel I do have a need to know because I am a human being,” Hering said in response.
Hering’s question was taboo because the national defense strategy of the United States is built on the unstated assumption that the American people will not allow a lunatic to become president. If that assumption is wrong, then no procedural, legal, or technological mechanisms exist that are able to fully protect the human race from such a lunatic. Hering discovered a catastrophic flaw in U.S. nuclear doctrine, and for this he was driven from the Air Force.
In most matters related to the governance and defense of the United States, the president is constrained by competing branches of government and by an intricate web of laws and customs. Only in one crucial area does the president resemble, in the words of the former missile officer and scholar Bruce Blair, an absolute monarch—his control of nuclear weapons. Richard Nixon, who was president when Major Hering asked his question, was reported to have told members of Congress at a White House dinner party, “I could leave this room and in 25 minutes, 70 million people would be dead.” This was an alarming but accurate statement.
When contemplating their ballots, Americans should ask which candidate in a presidential contest is better equipped to guide the United States through a national-security crisis without triggering a nuclear exchange, and which candidate is better equipped to interpret—within five or seven minutes—the ambiguous, complicated, and contradictory signals that could suggest an imminent nuclear attack. These are certainly not questions that large numbers of voters asked themselves in 2016, when a transparently unqualified candidate for president won the support of 63 million Americans.
At the time, Donald Trump had not yet served in public office, so concerns about his ability to protect the United States from harm were hypothetical, though grounded in his long and terrible record as a human being. As The Atlantic stated in its October 2016 endorsement of his opponent, Hillary Clinton, Trump “traffics in conspiracy theories and racist invective; he is appallingly sexist; he is erratic, secretive, and xenophobic; he expresses admiration for authoritarian rulers, and evinces authoritarian tendencies himself … He is an enemy of fact-based discourse; he is ignorant of, and indifferent to, the Constitution; he appears not to read.”
What we have learned since we published that editorial is that we understated our case. Donald Trump is the worst president this country has seen since Andrew Johnson, or perhaps James Buchanan, or perhaps ever. Trump has brought our country low; he has divided our people; he has pitted race against race; he has corrupted our democracy; he has shown contempt for American ideals; he has made cruelty a sacrament; he has provided comfort to propagators of hate; he has abandoned America’s allies; he has aligned himself with dictators; he has encouraged terrorism and mob violence; he has undermined the agencies and departments of government; he has despoiled the environment; he has opposed free speech; he has lied frenetically and evangelized for conspiracism; he has stolen children from their parents; he has made himself an advocate of a hostile foreign power; and he has failed to protect America from a ravaging virus. Trump is not responsible for all of the 220,000 COVID-19-related deaths in America. But through his avarice and ignorance and negligence and titanic incompetence, he has allowed tens of thousands of Americans to suffer and die, many alone, all needlessly. With each passing day, his presidency reaps more death.
But let us lay all of this aside for the moment. Let us even lay aside the extraordinary fact that Donald Trump has been credibly accused of rape. Compelling evidence suggests that his countless sins and defects are rooted in mental instability, pathological narcissism, and profound moral and cognitive impairment. Which returns us to the subject of Major Hering.
Trump’s opponent, Joe Biden, is in many ways a typically imperfect candidate, but if we judge these men on two questions alone—Who is a more trustworthy steward of America’s nuclear arsenal? Which man poses less of a threat to our collective existence?—the answer is spectacularly obvious.
The Atlantic has endorsed only three candidates in its 163-year history: Abraham Lincoln, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Hillary Clinton. The latter two endorsements had more to do with the qualities of Barry Goldwater and Donald Trump than with those of Johnson and Clinton. The same holds true in the case of Joe Biden. Biden is a man of experience, maturity, and obvious humanity, but had the Republican Party put forward a credible candidate for president, we would have felt no compulsion to state a preference. Donald Trump, however, is a clear and continuing danger to the United States, and it does not seem likely that our country would be able to emerge whole from four more years of his misrule. Two men are running for president. One is a terrible man; the other is a decent man. Vote for the decent man.
— Jeffrey Goldberg, on behalf of the editors of The Atlantic
******************
Sadly, this is sort of the “Duh” article of the week. It’s not like Courtside (and others) haven’t been sounding the alarm for the past several years. The only questions are 1) why has it taken others so long to figure it out; and 2) why anyone outside Trump’s immediate family would vote for this Anti-American maniac?
Vote like your life depends on it! Because it does!
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to review two major Trump administration immigration initiatives: a program that has forced at least 60,000 asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their requests are heard and the diversion of $2.5 billion in Pentagon money to build a barrier on the southwestern border.
Lower courts blocked both measures.But the Supreme Court, in earlier orders, allowed them to remain in effect while appeals moved forward.
The arguments in the two cases will not be heard until after the November election. Should President Trump’s Democratic opponent, Joseph R. Biden Jr., win, his administration could take steps to make the cases moot.
In the case on asylum seekers, an appeals court in February blocked the program, known as Remain in Mexico, saying it was at odds with both federal law and international treaties and was causing “extreme and irreversible harm.”
. . . .
*************************
Read the rest of the article at the link.
The losers in these cases have already been determined: the innocent human lives destroyed, the rule of law, the Constitution, human decency, and the Supremes’ reputation. If the Supremes’ majority hadn’t already “pre-judged” these cases in the regime’s favor, then their unwarranted and ethically questionable “early intervention” in the process to allow the abuses of humanity, Congressional authority, and the public fisc to continue would be even more unconscionable.
Indeed, both of these cases are examples of a democracy in danger, a judicial system in decay, and a Supremes who have established themselves as part of the problem, not the solution.
Better Federal Judges for a Better America! It starts at the polls!
Donald J. Trump Famous American Clown (Officially titled “Ass Clown”) Artist: Scott Scheidly Orlando, FL Reproduced by permissionD. Vader Minister of Justice Banana Republic of TrumpTrump Regime
Donald Trump’s re-election campaign poses the greatest threat to American democracy since World War II.
Mr. Trump’s ruinous tenure already has gravely damaged the United States at home and around the world. He has abused the power of his office and denied the legitimacy of his political opponents, shattering the norms that have bound the nation together for generations. He has subsumed the public interest to the profitability of his business and political interests. He has shown a breathtaking disregard for the lives and liberties of Americans. He is a man unworthy of the office he holds.
Elizabeth Gibson Attorney, NY Legal Assistance Group Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
COVID-19
Note: Policies are rapidly changing, so please verify information on the relevant government websites and with colleagues on listservs as best you can.
EOIR Status Overview & EOIR Court Status Map/List: Hearings in non-detained cases at courts without an announced date are postponed through, and including, October 30, 2020. [Note: Despite the standing order about practices upon reopening, an opening date has not been announced for NYC non-detained at this time.]
Buzzfeed: Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials have started to implement a policy that allows officers to arrest and rapidly deport undocumented immigrants who have been in the US for less than two years, according to internal emails and documents obtained by BuzzFeed News.
Reuters: Detention centers now house fewer than half as many people as before the pandemic – less than 20,000 as of early October – in part because emergency health measures established in March have allowed authorities to expel nearly 150,000 migrants at the border. At the same time, the ICE data show, the average amount of time immigrants spent in U.S. detention almost tripled to three months this September compared to September 2016, before President Donald Trump took office. Detainees in September 2020 were being held nearly double the amount of time as in September 2019.
LA Times: Under the ruling, at least four immigration detention centers with the capacity to house about 5,000 people would be phased out over the coming years.
SF Chron: The U.S. Justice Department has suspended all diversity and inclusion training and events for its employees, according to a memo obtained by The Chronicle, which would include judges in San Francisco and elsewhere hearing cases of immigrants seeking to avoid deportation.
DocumentedNY: A prosecuting attorney for ICE losing a detainee´s file, immigrants spending more time in jail because the video teleconferencing system malfunctioned, a judge deporting children because they failed to show up to court. The following are some of the negligences we saw after we spent three months in the immigration courts.
Buzzfeed: The arrests were the latest effort by ICE to target the state and its policies that reduce the cooperation between local police and federal agents when it comes to immigration enforcement.
LatinoUSA: In 2018, a young Guatemalan man named Reynaldo Castro Tum was ordered deported even though no one in the U.S. government knew where he was, or how to find him. Now, more than two years later, his unusual journey through the United States’ immigration system has sucked another man back into a legal quagmire he thought that he’d escaped. This episode follows both of their stories and the fateful moment they collided.
EOIR: The EOIR Payment Portal is available to pay BIA Filing Fees associated with the form EOIR-26 and related BIA Motions. Filing fees for the Form EOIR-29 and related motions should continue to be paid in accordance with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) instructions. Payments for immigration court fees must follow current processes (See 8 C.F.R. 1103.7).
EOIR announced the investiture of 20 new immigration judges, including three assistant chief immigration judges. Per the notice, EOIR’s immigration judge corps has increased nearly 70 percent since January 2017. Notice includes the judges’ biographical information and courts of appointment. AILA Doc. No. 20101200
ImmProf: Oral argument in the case is scheduled for this Wednesday morning, October 14, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Eastern. The argument may be listened to live. In Pereida, the Supreme Court will decide whether a criminal conviction bars a noncitizen from applying for relief from removal when the record of conviction is merely ambiguous as to whether it corresponds to an offense listed in the Immigration and Nationality Act.
SCOTUSblog: The case asks whether a grant of Temporary Protected Status authorizes eligible noncitizens to obtain lawful-permanent-resident status if those noncitizens originally entered the United States without being “inspected and admitted” – a term of art referring to lawful entry and authorization by an immigration officer.
USCIS is updating policy guidance in the Policy Manual confirming that a grant of TPS is not admission for INA §245(a) adjustment purposes; clarifying that the applicability of decisions in the sixth and ninth circuits is limited to those jurisdictions; and incorporating Matter of Z-R-Z-C. AILA Doc. No. 20100635
A district court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and stayed the effective date of the USCIS Final Rule (except for those fees set by statute) pending resolution of the matter or further order of the court. (NWIRP et al., v. USCIS, et al., 10/8/20) AILA Doc. No. 20100909
A federal district court in Washington State declared unlawful a 2018 policy requiring state courts to have jurisdiction to order reunification, if warranted, before making the relevant Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) findings. (Moreno Galvez, et al. v. Cuccinelli, et al., 10/5/20) AILA Doc. No. 20100842
The BIA ruled that if a criminal conviction was charged as a ground of removability when cancellation of removal was granted, that conviction cannot serve as the sole factual predicate for a charge of removability in subsequent removal proceedings. Matter of Voss, 28 I&N Dec. 107 (BIA 2020) AILA Doc. No. 20100840
The court held that the petitioner’s withholding of removal claim failed, because it found that “wealthy immigrants returning to the country of Jamaica” did not form a cognizable particular social group. (Lee v. Barr, 9/22/20) AILA Doc. No. 20100535
The court upheld the BIA’s denial of asylum, finding that terror attacks in Kenya by Al-Shabaab constituted generalized violence, and rejecting the petitioner’s proposed social group of westernized and Americanized Christian Kenyans who oppose Al-Shabaab. (Zhakira v. Barr, 10/2/20) AILA Doc. No. 20100901
Where petitioner, who had been convicted of an aggravated felony, argued that the BIA erred in upholding the IJ’s denial of his motion for a continuance, the court dismissed the petition, finding he had failed to state a constitutional claim or question of law. (Mirambeaux v. Barr, 10/2/20) AILA Doc. No. 20100903
Where BIA had dismissed petitioner’s appeal on the ground that his removal would not cause his daughters “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship,” the court rejected his two due process challenges, finding that neither was a constitutional claim. (Hernandez-Morales v. Att’y Gen., 9/2/20) AILA Doc. No. 20100902
The court upheld the BIA’s denial of asylum to the Chinese petitioner, finding that the evidence did not compel a reasonable factfinder to conclude that the petitioner had been persecuted for his political opinion rather than for personal reasons. (Du v. Barr, 9/14/20) AILA Doc. No. 20100540
The court upheld the BIA’s denial of the petitioner’s motion to reopen, finding that the petitioner had not substantially complied with the requirements in Matter of Lozada for reopening removal proceedings based on alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. (Avitso v. Barr, 9/22/20) AILA Doc. No. 20100537
The court denied the government’s motion for a stay of the district court’s order precluding DHS from placing minors detained under a Title 42 public health order in hotels for more than three days in the process of expelling them from the United States. (Flores v. Barr, et al., 10/4/20) AILA Doc. No. 20100906
Upholding the denial of asylum to the petitioner, who had been abused by her ex-boyfriend, the court held that substantial evidence supported the conclusion that the Guatemalan government could have protected the petitioner had she reported her abuse. (Velasquez-Gaspar v. Barr, 9/30/20) AILA Doc. No. 20100904
The court held that the termination of petitioner’s grant of asylum by reopening his asylum-only proceedings was not error, and that the IJ did not have jurisdiction to consider his request for adjustment of status because of the limited scope of such proceedings. (Bare v. Barr, 9/16/20) AILA Doc. No. 20100630
The court held that Oregon Revised Statute §475.992(1)(a) is divisible as between its “manufacture” and “delivery” terms, and that the petitioner’s conviction under that statute for manufacturing marijuana was thus an aggravated felony. (Dominguez v. Barr, 7/21/20, amended 9/18/20) AILA Doc. No. 20081036
Deferring to the BIA’s decision in Matter of Wu, the court held that a conviction under California Penal Code §245(a)(1), which proscribes certain aggravated forms of assault, is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT). (Safaryan v. Barr, 9/17/20) AILA Doc. No. 20100631
The en banc court overruled Minto v. Sessions, holding thatthe petitioner, who was present in the Commonwealth of theNorthern Mariana Islands (CNMI) when the INA became applicable there, was not removable under INA §212(a)(7)(a)(i). (Torres v. Barr, 9/24/20) AILA Doc. No. 20100538
DOS announced that due to the injunction in NAM v. DHS, any J-1, H-1B, H-2B, or L-1 applicant who is either sponsored (as an exchange visitor) by, petitioned by, or whose petitioner is a member of, one of the plaintiffs in the suit is no longer subject to PP 10052’s entry restrictions. AILA Doc. No. 20100536
RESOURCES
National Bail Fund Network2nd round of bailouts across the country, as part of an action on 10/21 called Fall Freedom Day 2020.Referrals by sending us an email at constanza.nbfn@gmail.com and including the following information: Name and link to your practice or organization, Detention center where person is detained, and their bond amount.
Only the “tip of the iceberg” in a thoroughly corrupt and totally dysfunctional system that nobody seems willing to put out of its misery and the injustices that it causes humanity and the rule of law each day that it continues to grind out gross miscarriages of justice!
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!
“This appeal presents the question of whether the emergency military construction authority provided by 10 U.S.C. § 2808 (“Section 2808”) authorized eleven border wall construction projects on the southern border of the United States. We conclude that it did not. We also consider whether the district court properly granted the Organizational Plaintiffs a permanent injunction and whether the district court improperly denied the State Plaintiffs’ request for a separate permanent injunction. We affirm the decision of the district court on both counts. … We hold that the States and Sierra Club both have Article III standing and a cause of action to challenge the Federal Defendants’ border wall construction projects, that Section 2808 did not authorize the challenged construction, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in either granting a permanent injunction to Sierra Club or in denying a separate permanent injunction to the States.”
**************
PANEL:THOMAS, Chief Judge, and WARDLAW and COLLINS, Circuit Judges
Opinion by Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas; Dissent by Judge Collins
The only real question here is whether the Supremes will bail out the regime’s scofflaws once again.
WASHINGTON — The five U.S. attorneys along the border with Mexico, including three appointed by President Trump, recoiled in May 2018 against an order to prosecute all undocumented immigrants even if it meant separating children from their parents. They told top Justice Department officials they were “deeply concerned” about the children’s welfare.
But the attorney general at the time, Jeff Sessions, made it clear what Mr. Trump wanted on a conference call later that afternoon, according to a two-year inquiry by the Justice Department’s inspector general into Mr. Trump’s “zero tolerance” family separation policy.
“We need to take away children,” Mr. Sessions told the prosecutors, according to participants’ notes. One added in shorthand: “If care about kids, don’t bring them in. Won’t give amnesty to people with kids.”
Rod J. Rosenstein, then the deputy attorney general, went even further in a second call about a week later, telling the five prosecutors that it did not matter how young the children were. He said that government lawyers should not have refused to prosecute two cases simply because the children were barely more than infants.
“Those two cases should not have been declined,” John Bash, the departing U.S. attorney in western Texas, wrote to his staff immediately after the call. Mr. Bash had declined the cases, but Mr. Rosenstein “instructed that, per the A.G.’s policy, we should NOT be categorically declining immigration prosecutions of adults in family units because of the age of a child.”
The Justice Department’s top officials were “a driving force” behind the policy that spurred the separation of thousands of families, many of them fleeing violence in Central America and seeking asylum in the United States, before Mr. Trump abandoned it amid global outrage, according to a draft report of the results of the investigation by Michael E. Horowitz, the department’s inspector general.
The separation of migrant children from their parents, sometimes for months, was at the heart of the Trump administration’s assault on immigration. But the fierce backlash when the administration struggled to reunite the children turned it into one of the biggest policy debacles of the president’s term.
Though Mr. Sessions sought to distance himself from the policy, allowing Mr. Trump and Homeland Security Department officials to largely be blamed, he and other top law enforcement officials understood that “zero tolerance” meant that migrant families would be separated and wanted that to happen because they believed it would deter future illegal immigration, Mr. Horowitz wrote.
The draft report, citing more than 45 interviews with key officials, emails and other documents, provides the most complete look at the discussions inside the Justice Department as the family separation policy was developed, pushed and ultimately carried out with little concern for children.
This article is based on a review of the 86-page draft report and interviews with three government officials who read it in recent months and described its conclusions and many of the details in it. The officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they had not been authorized to discuss it publicly, cautioned that the final report could change.
Before publishing the findings of its investigations, the inspector general’s office typically provides draft copies to Justice Department leaders and others mentioned in the reports to ensure that they are accurate.
Mr. Horowitz had been preparing to release his report since late summer, according to a person familiar with the investigation, though the process allowing for responses from current and former department officials whose conduct is under scrutiny is likely to delay its release until after the presidential election.
Mr. Sessions refused to be interviewed, the report noted. Mr. Rosenstein, who is now a lawyer in private practice, defended himself in his interview with investigators in response to questioning about his role, according to two of the officials. Mr. Rosenstein’s former office submitted a 64-page response to the report.
“If any United States attorney ever charged a defendant they did not personally believe warranted prosecution, they violated their oath of office,” Mr. Rosenstein said in a statement. “I never ordered anyone to prosecute a case.”
The Government did not seriously question the correctness of this finding!
Intentionally violating Constitutional rights (not to mention lying and attempting to cover it up) is clearly a violation of 18 USC 242.
Here’s the text of that section from the DOJ’s own website:
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Sure looks like an”open and shut” case for prosecution.
The irony: Families and their kids have been traumatized for life, perhaps even killed or disabled by the actions of these criminal conspirators; however, the “perps” remain at large.
Hamilton is on the public dole continuing to wreak-havoc on the Constitution, the rule of law, the Immigration Courts, and human decency at the corrupt Barr DOJ; Rosenstein works for a “fat cat” law firm hauling down a six figure salary while he avoids justice and accountability for his misdeeds; “Gonzo” had the absolute audacity to try to reinsert himself onto the public dole by running for the Senate from Alabama (thankfully, unsuccessfully, even though he previously held the seat for years and misused it as a public forum to spread his racist ideas, xenophobic venom, lies, false narratives, and unrelenting cruelty).
Where’s the “justice” in a system that punishes victims while letting “perps” prosper and go free?
“The Trump administration proposed its annual refugee admissions ceiling just before midnight on Wednesday, September 30, committing to resettle just 15,000 individuals in Fiscal Year 2021, which would be the lowest admissions ceiling since the inception of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP).
The announcement comes on the heels of what was previously the lowest level of refugee admissions in American history. For FY 2020, which ended on September 30, the administration had set a goal to welcome just 18,000 refugees, in stark contrast to the average admissions ceiling of approximately 95,000 since the beginning of the USRAP. Despite this historically low target, the administration barely attained 65% of allotted admissions – resettling only 11,814 refugees this fiscal year, according to Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service.
“In just four years, this Administration has cut the refugee resettlement program from 110,000 to a historic low of fifteen thousand. At a time of unprecedented global need, today’s decision to further cut the refugee admissions ceiling is a complete abdication of our humanitarian and moral duty.” said Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, a resettlement agency that has welcomed hundreds of thousands of refugees since 1939. “Let this serve as a wake-up call to those who believe this administration supports avenues of legal immigration. Refugees go through extreme vetting and have done everything our government has asked of them, yet they continue to be met with open hostility and egregious processing delays from this administration”
The record-low admissions figures have also disproportionately impacted certain groups. Admissions of Muslim refugees have declined to just 2,503, down from approximately 38,900 in FY 2016 and approximately 4,900 in FY 2019. Additionally, the Trump administration set aside 4,000 slots for Iraqi allies who assisted U.S. interests in their home country. However, it fell drastically short, resettling only 123 individuals in this category, or just 3% of the admissions goal.
“It shows the tragic extent to which we have abandoned our Iraqi allies who risked their lives, and those of their family members, to assist U.S. government and military personnel,” noted Vignarajah. “This further undermines our diplomatic and military efforts, rendering it nearly impossible to garner support from regional allies moving forward.”
Given FY2020’s record-low admissions numbers and an FY2021 proposed admissions ceiling of only 15,000, refugee advocates are deeply concerned by the human toll on the most vulnerable.
“In real terms, this means that families who have already waited years are forced to postpone reunification. It means that thousands who would otherwise find safety on our shores are left to languish in refugee camps, with no end in sight,” concluded Vignarajah. “This heartless decision is diametrically opposed to our values as a welcoming nation and it dishonors our common humanity at a time of dire need.”
**********************
Here’s then”Trump Regression” — From international leader, to outlier, to outlaw state!🏴☠️
This Fall, vote for a return to humanity and the rule of law!
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!
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!
