The 2-1 vote would cut off the contempt proceedings that followed the admin's Alien Enemies Act flights to CECOT. Full review by all 11 D.C. Circuit judges could follow.
It seems the purpose of this administration's handpicked jurists is equivalent to Bulldozer Parents and their children. Let's clear the way of any obstacle that appears now or in the future; in the family context its for the children. In the legal context, its for the president.
All I can say is, thank God that it sounds like this will receive a full en banc review, and God help us if Trump and the MAGA congress are able to install too many more partisans to our courts.
These judges are supposed to work on behalf of our country and its people, not partisan wannabe kings and dictators or factional tribes or oligarchs. How can they so willfully and blatantly ignore our Constitution and separation of powers? I knew Trump would be bad, and to some extent, the current majority SCOTUS. But I never would have dreamed that too many in the high courts would ultimately become such obvious betrayers to American democracy and the rule of law and simultaneous benefactors of authoritarianism. It’s galling.
"Pamela J. Bondi, Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Yaakov M. Roth, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Drew C. Ensign, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Emil Bove, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, and Chad Mizelle, Acting Associate Attorney General, were on appellants’ emergency motion for a stay pending appeal or, in the alternative, a writ of mandamus and the reply. August E. Flentje, Acting Director, entered an appearance."
Judge Boasberg specifically told the lawyers on the call they did not need to write down his verbal order as he would issue a written order. Then the left proceeded to try to scream the oral order was enforceable. Disgusting tactics.
Because it makes the written Order the only enforceable Order. If you “don’t have to write this down” you are not responsible for following what you don’t need to write down. You get to rely on the judge writing it down. And that writing did not specify what the left proceeded to claim the order was.
The Trump administration is making a point of being offensive on many fronts. It's intentional. The point is to keep us busy doing one thing while being offensive somewhere else without supervision or scrutiny.
It's almost like they don't really want us to trust the goverment and to remove our support for it, even for the next administration in 2029.
It's good to have you back Chris and your Euro 🇪🇺 vacation sounded like a lot of fun.
Why do we keep getting three-judge panels, two of whom seem always to be Trump appointees? I thought those assignments were supposed to be random, but I think this most recent panel was the fourth such I've seen and I'm not even talking about just DC Appeals! Somehow the laws of probability aren't working.
Every day I'm reminded more and more of what Hamilton, Madison and Montesquieu emphasized about tyranny and the loss of liberty from the judiciary joining with the executive.
In Federalist No. 47, Madison emphasized, "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many [ ] may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." That is exactly what we have now in the U.S. government and some states.
Madison also quoted Montesquieu: "There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates," or, "if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers."
In Federalist No. 78, Hamilton emphasized, "I agree, that 'there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.' " Hamilton added that "liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments."
Another day, another diminution of the rule of law.
It seems the purpose of this administration's handpicked jurists is equivalent to Bulldozer Parents and their children. Let's clear the way of any obstacle that appears now or in the future; in the family context its for the children. In the legal context, its for the president.
All I can say is, thank God that it sounds like this will receive a full en banc review, and God help us if Trump and the MAGA congress are able to install too many more partisans to our courts.
These judges are supposed to work on behalf of our country and its people, not partisan wannabe kings and dictators or factional tribes or oligarchs. How can they so willfully and blatantly ignore our Constitution and separation of powers? I knew Trump would be bad, and to some extent, the current majority SCOTUS. But I never would have dreamed that too many in the high courts would ultimately become such obvious betrayers to American democracy and the rule of law and simultaneous benefactors of authoritarianism. It’s galling.
So I take it that the conservatives feel it is not nice to make oversight on the other branch?
"Pamela J. Bondi, Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Yaakov M. Roth, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Drew C. Ensign, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Emil Bove, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, and Chad Mizelle, Acting Associate Attorney General, were on appellants’ emergency motion for a stay pending appeal or, in the alternative, a writ of mandamus and the reply. August E. Flentje, Acting Director, entered an appearance."
Emil Bove. Now that name sounds familiar.
I gather a court can have no jurisdiction to handle an appeal but CAN issue a mandamus on the same issue? Isn't that screwy?
Judge Boasberg specifically told the lawyers on the call they did not need to write down his verbal order as he would issue a written order. Then the left proceeded to try to scream the oral order was enforceable. Disgusting tactics.
What does “not having to write it down” have to do with enforceability?
Because it makes the written Order the only enforceable Order. If you “don’t have to write this down” you are not responsible for following what you don’t need to write down. You get to rely on the judge writing it down. And that writing did not specify what the left proceeded to claim the order was.
Interesting. What authority do you cite for that rather outlandish claim?
The Parol Evidence Rule.
Outside that, basic common sense?
If someone says “you don’t have to write this down because I’ll write it for you” that means what they write is what matters…
The parol evidence rule has nothing to do with this. And the dissent cites cases that appear squarely on-point to the contrary.
The parol evidence rule is basic law taught to first year law students and it’s the same concept as applied here.
The Trump administration is making a point of being offensive on many fronts. It's intentional. The point is to keep us busy doing one thing while being offensive somewhere else without supervision or scrutiny.
It's almost like they don't really want us to trust the goverment and to remove our support for it, even for the next administration in 2029.
It's good to have you back Chris and your Euro 🇪🇺 vacation sounded like a lot of fun.
Why do we keep getting three-judge panels, two of whom seem always to be Trump appointees? I thought those assignments were supposed to be random, but I think this most recent panel was the fourth such I've seen and I'm not even talking about just DC Appeals! Somehow the laws of probability aren't working.
Every day I'm reminded more and more of what Hamilton, Madison and Montesquieu emphasized about tyranny and the loss of liberty from the judiciary joining with the executive.
In Federalist No. 47, Madison emphasized, "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many [ ] may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." That is exactly what we have now in the U.S. government and some states.
Madison also quoted Montesquieu: "There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates," or, "if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers."
In Federalist No. 78, Hamilton emphasized, "I agree, that 'there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.' " Hamilton added that "liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments."
Thank goodness for Judge Pollard's reasoned steady hand. May the Case proceed to en banc.