Yes. The action of deporting the criminal foreign national to El Salvador when there was a withholding order that allowed his deportation to anywhere except El Salvador was illegal. That is irrelevant to the lower court judge's order also being illegal. If someone is found by the courts to have done something illegal then they are subject to some sort of sanction. They pay a fine. Ordering a defendant to pay a fine is within the court's constitutionally designated power. It is NOT within a court's constitutionally designated power to order the Executive Branch to invade a foreign country, seize one of the foreign country's citizens, and import him to the United States. That is why SCOTUS got involved to invalidate the lower court's order. The unelected lower court judge effectively made herself Super-President who wields the power of controlling the Executive Branch by decree.The Supreme Court said the action was illegal…
That is fine, but if you take what they are saying at face value then that makes you a dupe. They are lawyers being paid by a client to deliver an argument. Listening to people, even those you disagree with, is admirable, but don't turn your brain off. Don't shrug your shoulders and let them think for you.Not being a legal maven, I have no problem listening to people like Tribe and Luttig.
Yes! Exactly! They are opposed to authoritarianism. If an unelected judge violates the separation of power or acts outside of jurisdictional limits, those ultra vires decisions will not be honored, and they should not be honored. They aren't limits on power if exercised power extending beyond the limits is forced to be honored. I would make the argument they line you quote doesn't go far enough. I would support making judges found to be acting beyond their scope of power to be subject to legal jeopardy. Corruption of government officials, including judges, should not be tolerated.“Page 146 is where he instructs that they will not follow judge orders if the judge does not have jurisdiction: 'USCIS should make it clear that where no court jurisdiction exists, it will not honor court decisions”.
That would be admitting he was wrong and in Trump's twisted psychopathy that's the worst possible thing he could ever do. If admitting he was wrong on adding up the check at dinner would immediately save the lives of his own grandchildren he would let them die.All trump needs to do to get that dude back in the US is make a phone call.
Yes. That is how it works when you win the election to become the US President. You get that power. Where you lefties go off the rails is in cheering for an unelected lower court judge to usurp the power of the US President. She didn't win the election to become US President and her efforts to pretend she can seize control of the Executive Branch marks her as someone who shouldn't even have the power of a lower court judge.All trump needs to do to get that dude back in the US is make a phone call.
Exactly. Its very easy for trump to do the right thing.That would be admitting he was wrong and in Trump's twisted psychopathy that's the worst possible thing he could ever do. If admitting he was wrong on adding up the check at dinner would immediately save the lives of his own grandchildren he would let them die.
The Roberts Court is siding with the US Constitution, and so is the Trump administration.
The weirdest aspect to this story is how Trump critics are cheering for authoritarianism, and against the rule of law, without realizing it.
The US Constitution is very clear on the separations of powers. The Judicial Branch, including the Supreme Court, has no say over foreign affairs. It is not in the court's allotted powers. Per the US Constitution, they have no voice on such matters. Trump critics want unelected judges to exercise power over Trump's handling of foreign affairs, and that is what makes Trump critics champions of authoritarianism. They want judges to be all powerful rulers who are immune from elections and can dictate anything.
The El Salvador citizen currently sitting in an El Salvador prison broke US law when he crossed the border illegally. The Executive Branch has the constitutional power to expel the criminal foreign national. Garcia's terrorist gang involvement is irrelevant, and a catch-22. The reason there was a prohibition against deporting Garcia to El Salvador was because there was a rival gang who tries to kill members of Garcia's gang. If Garcia isn't a member of the gang then he can be deported to El Salvador, and if he is a member of the gang then he's a designated terrorist who should be deported. Either way, the correct and lawful course of action is to deport the criminal foreign national. None of that is authoritarian.
It would be dangerously authoritarian for the judicial branch to order the executive branch to go overseas to El Salvador, take possession of the citizen of El Salvador, and bring him to the United States. Such an order would violate limits on jurisdiction and separation of powers which is why Robert's court didn't order that. Robert's order isn't a violation of the US Constitution, and Trump's administration doing nothing more than offering a free airline ticket back to the US if Garcia shows up at the US embassy in El Salvador to claim it also isn't a violation of the US Constitution or Robert's court order.
STOP CHEERLEADING FOR AUTHORITARIANISM!!!!
At this point I’m worried that the phone call would need to be made to a necromancer.All trump needs to do to get that dude back in the US is make a phone call.
Correct. What a foreign sovereign nation does to their own citizen is a foreign affair. What El Salvador does or does not do with El Salvadorian nationals is not within the purview of a lower court judge in the United States. A judge here in the United States can rule the deportation was illegal and levy a sanction, such as a fine, but is constitutionally barred from issuing court orders that direct foreign affairs. Doing so would "exceed the District Court’s authority" as SCOTUS succinctly put it. That a lower court judge in the United States is clearly trying to usurp power beyond the limits placed on the power granted to her by her office should terrify you, and be cause for her removal from the bench. Do not fall into the trap of letting bad actors train all your focus on Trump so they can break laws for there may come a day where you desperately need the guardrails to hold.has to be a “foreign affairs” issue, whatever the **** that means, in order for all the misguided and incorrect posts to be relevant.
Correct. What a foreign sovereign nation does to their own citizen is a foreign affair. What El Salvador does or does not do with El Salvadorian nationals is not within the purview of a lower court judge in the United States. A judge here in the United States can rule the deportation was illegal and levy a sanction, such as a fine, but is constitutionally barred from issuing court orders that direct foreign affairs. Doing so would "exceed the District Court’s authority" as SCOTUS succinctly put it. That a lower court judge in the United States is clearly trying to usurp power beyond the limits placed on the power granted to her by her office should terrify you, and be cause for her removal from the bench. Do not fall into the trap of letting bad actors train all your focus on Trump so they can break laws for there may come a day where you desperately need the guardrails to hold.