—> ICE / Immigration Catch-All

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 3K
  • Views: 109K
  • Politics 
ChileG said:
This is who many voters believed would save Christianity in the USA.
I just have no words for a person like this.
Click to expand...
American Christianity is dead. There's a remnant, like the people living in the Cappadocian catacombs in CE 300, but it will be centuries, if we survive that long, before authentic Christianity can be relevant again. The golden calf was just too appealing.
 
nycfan said:


“… During the hearing, Justice Department lawyer Erez Reuveni conceded that the U.S. government should not have deported Abrego García but said he was unable to answer the judge’s questions about the government’s legal authority to do so.

“On what authority was he seized?” Xinis asked.

“My answer to a lot of these questions is going to be frustrating,” Reuveni said. “And I’m frustrated that I don’t have answers to a lot of these questions.”

Xinis noted that the government lacked an arrest warrant or other documents to support his detention, a sign that “from the moment he was seized, it was unconstitutional.”

“That is not in the record and the government has not put that in the record,” Reuveni responded, “and that’s the best I can do.”

“Why can’t the United States get Mr. Abrego García back?” Xinis later asked.

“When this case landed on my desk, I asked my clients that very question,” Reuveni said.

“To date, I have not received an answer that is satisfactory.” …”
Click to expand...
Justice Dept. suspends lawyer who acknowledged deportation was a mistake

MSN

www.msn.com
 
Calheel said:
I'm guessing that is one of those surveys in which word choice very much affects the results. By including the phrase "suspected foreign gang members" in the poll question, it is going to skew the results because the responder is already primed to think that you are talking about gang members.

If the question were phrased "Do you believe persons lawfully in the United States should have an opportunity to present their case to a judge before being deported?" I suspect the results would be a bit different.
Click to expand...
Absolutely.
 
nycfan said:
Wilkinson got to the same result - stay denied — via a different approach that was more sympathetic to the government’s separation of powers arguments:

IMG_6200.jpeg
Click to expand...
The problem here is that the separation of powers argument isn't exactly wrong. Suppose a judge ordered the administration to get all the people back. Then El Salvador says, "we had a deal, now the US is backing out, and this shows us that the US can't be trusted." This is, of course, a hypothetical with no application to today, but anyway the law deals in hypotheticals. And that would be an intrusion on foreign policy.

On the other hand, obviously it was an executive branch fuckup, and if rights mean anything, there have to be remedies. "Oops, sorry I did that but I can't help you now," is actually not a principle of constitutional law, no matter how hard certain Justices push it.

Ideally, the guy would sue Bondi etc. under the Alien Tort Statute but I doubt he will. There should be personal consequences for the decision makers. Immunity should never extend to "shocks the conscience" level disregard of law.
 
This is not surprising. It will be concerning if the resolution of the appeal takes more than a day or so.
 
nycfan said:
Decision: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a931_2c83.pdf
Click to expand...
This is actually not a bad decision. In fact, it's what I predicted would happen.

1. The specific issue is whether the case can proceed under the APA or has to use habeas corpus. That's a question with two basic consequences: a) can one lawyer represent all the defendants (in effect) by using the APA as a claim aggregator; and b) where must the case be litigated. In both cases, the primary concern has been that the defendants will be deprived of any meaningful ability to challenge the confinement. The court in Louisiana will probably find that due process isn't required, and also each defendant would need to argue individually about the constitutionality/legality of their removal.

2. But in this opinion, the Supreme Court actually did that work. It clarified that due process is required. So the LA court can't just affirm Trump, and the venue doesn't matter as much.

3. The Supreme Court conservatives generally have a bug up their butt about jurisdictional technicalities. It's actually something of a decent test for distinguishing conservative and liberal legal folks. So that was likely the outcome all along. It would have been worse to get a summary order.
 
superrific said:
This is actually not a bad decision. In fact, it's what I predicted would happen.

1. The specific issue is whether the case can proceed under the APA or has to use habeas corpus. That's a question with two basic consequences: a) can one lawyer represent all the defendants (in effect) by using the APA as a claim aggregator; and b) where must the case be litigated. In both cases, the primary concern has been that the defendants will be deprived of any meaningful ability to challenge the confinement. The court in Louisiana will probably find that due process isn't required, and also each defendant would need to argue individually about the constitutionality/legality of their removal.

2. But in this opinion, the Supreme Court actually did that work. It clarified that due process is required. So the LA court can't just affirm Trump, and the venue doesn't matter as much.

3. The Supreme Court conservatives generally have a bug up their butt about jurisdictional technicalities. It's actually something of a decent test for distinguishing conservative and liberal legal folks. So that was likely the outcome all along. It would have been worse to get a summary order.
Click to expand...
The venue may matter quite a bit in how Justice is meted out in the application of due process to each case, but at least SCOTUS didn’t put the threshold of requiring some sort of due process.
 
superrific said:
This is actually not a bad decision. In fact, it's what I predicted would happen.

1. The specific issue is whether the case can proceed under the APA or has to use habeas corpus. That's a question with two basic consequences: a) can one lawyer represent all the defendants (in effect) by using the APA as a claim aggregator; and b) where must the case be litigated. In both cases, the primary concern has been that the defendants will be deprived of any meaningful ability to challenge the confinement. The court in Louisiana will probably find that due process isn't required, and also each defendant would need to argue individually about the constitutionality/legality of their removal.

2. But in this opinion, the Supreme Court actually did that work. It clarified that due process is required. So the LA court can't just affirm Trump, and the venue doesn't matter as much.

3. The Supreme Court conservatives generally have a bug up their butt about jurisdictional technicalities. It's actually something of a decent test for distinguishing conservative and liberal legal folks. So that was likely the outcome all along. It would have been worse to get a summary order.
Click to expand...
So can the people already in El Salvador file a habeas petition or is too late?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top