Three judges issued three rulings protecting constitutional rights in cases relating to Trump admin actions against federal inmates, Alien Enemies Act deportees, and Sen. Mark Kelly.
can there be any doubt about what they're trying to do to due process? I heard someone make an analogy of the t-rex in jurrassic park testing the fences, and then the power goes out..
a friend of mine has opined from the get-go of 2.0 that courts will not do anything to stop this regime. I share his skepticism about the Extremes (though I have trouble seeing how they will apply the unitary executive theory to the AG cases, given that it is the Constitution that gave Congress the right to set up the system for interim AGs, power right there in the middle of Article II about the powers given to the President. )
But the courts in general (with the notably horrific exception of the 5th Circuit and to some extent the 8th) have done an exemplary job. I am proud of the legal system of which I am a (retired) part. The EFFORT with which the lower courts have reasoned and fleshed out their opinions regarding specific evidentiary findings has been in so many ways superb. The only way the Extremes seem to have responded in the shadow docket or in opinions has been to ignore the actual findings of fact. (My main and most obvious example is the Bremerton Coach case, which relied on a completely made-up fact; the dissent included a PICTURE that refuted their faux fact.)
Actually, they should all be disbarred, including KAOS Agent Bondi. It is time the State bar associations protect the integrity of the law and the legal profession.
Yes, Yes, a thousand times, Yes!! What is with the state bar not doing their jobs when confronted with the absolute lawlessness of these attorneys?! Chickensh!ts or completely lawless themselves; only revealing themselves to be a useless conglomeration, complicit in the criminal acts of the current "administration" or scared out of their wits, neither of which is anything at all to admire...
Question concerning the commuted sentences case. Plaintif requested and were granted the court to “enjoin all Defendants except President Trump from implementing the categorical redesignations”.
Why exclude President Trump, and does that jean he can personally assign them to ADX? By implication, the President dies not have to follow the processes required by law?
There is an argument out there that one cannot enjoin the president, while being able to enjoin those who would implement an action. Generally, lower courts exclude the president from injunctions so as to avoid this question.
It generally doesn't matter. For example, even if Trump, personally, reassigned people, he would not be able to transfer them himself unless he's going to drive them across the country himself and then run the prison. So, the effects could still be blocked by enjoining others from acting.
"The trio of judges — along with the grand jurors in D.C. — provided strong statements this week that lawless actions from the executive are not ultimately lawlessness if they are stopped by others who maintain respect for the law."
Chris, respectfully, I'm not sure I agree with the above conclusion. Lawless actions from the executive are just that, lawless and entirely unconstitutional based on the executive's sworn obligation to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Thankfully, the judiciary (excluding the Supreme Court and 5th District) have upheld the rule of law negating the unconstitutional lawlessness of the executive (and the Supreme Court).
Almost lethal use of exclamation points!
Note he referred to it as the Department of Defense, not the War Department.
!
Always appreciate …
🇺🇸Chris Geidner’s reporting
can there be any doubt about what they're trying to do to due process? I heard someone make an analogy of the t-rex in jurrassic park testing the fences, and then the power goes out..
a friend of mine has opined from the get-go of 2.0 that courts will not do anything to stop this regime. I share his skepticism about the Extremes (though I have trouble seeing how they will apply the unitary executive theory to the AG cases, given that it is the Constitution that gave Congress the right to set up the system for interim AGs, power right there in the middle of Article II about the powers given to the President. )
But the courts in general (with the notably horrific exception of the 5th Circuit and to some extent the 8th) have done an exemplary job. I am proud of the legal system of which I am a (retired) part. The EFFORT with which the lower courts have reasoned and fleshed out their opinions regarding specific evidentiary findings has been in so many ways superb. The only way the Extremes seem to have responded in the shadow docket or in opinions has been to ignore the actual findings of fact. (My main and most obvious example is the Bremerton Coach case, which relied on a completely made-up fact; the dissent included a PICTURE that refuted their faux fact.)
It’s so hard to realize that this is happening today … and not in a modern dress version of the rise of Nazism. Or even of Stalin’s reign.
Government lawyers signing these pleadings include
Brett Shumate
Alexander Haas
Andrew Warden
Kevin Bell
Marianne Kies
Drew Ensign
Tiberius Davis
Anthony Nicastro (Office of Immigration Litigation)
Eric Hamilton
Jean Lin
Joseph Borson
John Bailey
Shumate is on all the pleadings; he is an Assistant Attorney General
None of these people can be held accountable for their participation in the mob law firm run by Bondi. Name, shame, and shun.
Actually, they should all be disbarred, including KAOS Agent Bondi. It is time the State bar associations protect the integrity of the law and the legal profession.
Yes, Yes, a thousand times, Yes!! What is with the state bar not doing their jobs when confronted with the absolute lawlessness of these attorneys?! Chickensh!ts or completely lawless themselves; only revealing themselves to be a useless conglomeration, complicit in the criminal acts of the current "administration" or scared out of their wits, neither of which is anything at all to admire...
Hope lives
Question concerning the commuted sentences case. Plaintif requested and were granted the court to “enjoin all Defendants except President Trump from implementing the categorical redesignations”.
Why exclude President Trump, and does that jean he can personally assign them to ADX? By implication, the President dies not have to follow the processes required by law?
There is an argument out there that one cannot enjoin the president, while being able to enjoin those who would implement an action. Generally, lower courts exclude the president from injunctions so as to avoid this question.
It generally doesn't matter. For example, even if Trump, personally, reassigned people, he would not be able to transfer them himself unless he's going to drive them across the country himself and then run the prison. So, the effects could still be blocked by enjoining others from acting.
Also, á fine point, we now know he could not be held in criminal contempt for thumbing his nose at the court.
Ah... I missed the idea that he would have to do the transfer personally. Thank you!
"The trio of judges — along with the grand jurors in D.C. — provided strong statements this week that lawless actions from the executive are not ultimately lawlessness if they are stopped by others who maintain respect for the law."
Chris, respectfully, I'm not sure I agree with the above conclusion. Lawless actions from the executive are just that, lawless and entirely unconstitutional based on the executive's sworn obligation to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Thankfully, the judiciary (excluding the Supreme Court and 5th District) have upheld the rule of law negating the unconstitutional lawlessness of the executive (and the Supreme Court).
Meanwhile, retired General Michael Flynn is a right wing hero. Absolutely ridiculous.