Friday’s bombshell opinion suggested a powerful tool for lower courts to hold the Trump administration to account. With birthright citizenship and more at stake, here’s hoping SCOTUS runs with it.
I guess the question is, do you really think this Court would do the Constitutional thing let alone the right thing. After all, it violated precedence on precedence in its ruling on Roe, it violated the Constitution in its ruling of presidential immunity, and it violated the Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment in its ruling concerning the gerrymandering in a District where Black Americans were disenfranchised from voting for who they wanted for their representative.
As an aside, gerrymandering anywhere is unconstitutional. The Founders put in the Constitution a Congress made up of the Senate so States could be equally represented and the House so that the people could be equally represented. Gerrymandering is an affront to equal representation by the people. It's "taxation without representation".
The Justice Dept. has many tools enforcing compliance that they are not using. And, the media is closed mouth with blinders on about not enforcing compliance. That they are not using them is, in its own right, a crime. Judges who do not use these tools of enforcement should be investigated.
That’s the old Justice Department you’re talking about, the one whose mission was representing the interests of the people. This is the new Trump Justice Department, representing his administration *against* the people, arguing *against* enforcing compliance with the courts.
Unfortunately, this will not work with the orange fellow for two reasons:
1. The "supreme" court has given him unlimited immunity, which means he cannot be fined.
2. He loves to litigate and with the chicken shit law firms who have given him several hundreds of millions of pro bono legal defense work, they will tie up these cases in the courts for many years to come.
But today's Supreme Court decision allowing Trump to proceed with deporting Venezuelans even though the legitimacy of removing their TPS status is being litigated reminds us that it's still the same, right-wing, civil rights-hostile bunch. They did this by simply crediting the government's statements that the stay would harm public safety - even though you can't get TPS status if you have a criminal record.
TPS was created by federal statute, the Immigration Act of 1990, which sets out criteria for designating countries and the effects of TPS status. The director of Homeland Security makes the designations, pursuant to the statutory criteria, and is required to consult with other agencies before doing so. The challenge to revocation of these immigrants' TPS status is based on failure to act through the statutorily required means. A characteristic of virtually all of Trump's chainsaw efforts to destroy the government built over the past 80 years or so.
The reason is that an injunction preventing the defendant from taking action before the court reaches a final judgment, such as the plaintiffs are asking for here, is a matter of balancing several factors, including the harm to the parties. The lower courts held that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm (e.g., they were granted TPS status precisely because they were in physical danger in Venezuela). The Supreme Court, to the contrary, accepted the government's statement that keeping them in the country while court proceedings play out would cause great harm to public safety.
So glad the Supreme Court has decided to strengthen the US judicial structure. Could it be that the gender makeup of the bench has something to do with this most recent affirmation of the coequal status of the three branches of government?
What makes these universal injunctions a thorny issue is that they *are* subject to abuse and *have* been abused by both sides of the political spectrum. The ideal outcome would be a nuanced opinion limiting the use of universal injunctions to specific, narrowly defined circumstances, such as facially unconstitutional government actions or imminent irreparable harm to the constitutional rights of large classes of individuals. That would rein in their use in general while allowing them to proceed in egregious cases like deportation without due process or the denial of birthright citizenship.
I guess the question is, do you really think this Court would do the Constitutional thing let alone the right thing. After all, it violated precedence on precedence in its ruling on Roe, it violated the Constitution in its ruling of presidential immunity, and it violated the Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment in its ruling concerning the gerrymandering in a District where Black Americans were disenfranchised from voting for who they wanted for their representative.
As an aside, gerrymandering anywhere is unconstitutional. The Founders put in the Constitution a Congress made up of the Senate so States could be equally represented and the House so that the people could be equally represented. Gerrymandering is an affront to equal representation by the people. It's "taxation without representation".
The Justice Dept. has many tools enforcing compliance that they are not using. And, the media is closed mouth with blinders on about not enforcing compliance. That they are not using them is, in its own right, a crime. Judges who do not use these tools of enforcement should be investigated.
That’s the old Justice Department you’re talking about, the one whose mission was representing the interests of the people. This is the new Trump Justice Department, representing his administration *against* the people, arguing *against* enforcing compliance with the courts.
All the courts have the power to force compliance virtually immediately. An example.
"The court rules a $1000.00 fine daily, to be doubled daily", let's say to Donald Trump (just for an example).
He would be a pauper unable to blow his nose by the end of the month. The law would be followed within days.
This example has been used successfully, often in the past.
Unfortunately, this will not work with the orange fellow for two reasons:
1. The "supreme" court has given him unlimited immunity, which means he cannot be fined.
2. He loves to litigate and with the chicken shit law firms who have given him several hundreds of millions of pro bono legal defense work, they will tie up these cases in the courts for many years to come.
Please note it is not the AARP, as in retired folks, rather A.A.R.P. are the initials of the people involved in this case.
But today's Supreme Court decision allowing Trump to proceed with deporting Venezuelans even though the legitimacy of removing their TPS status is being litigated reminds us that it's still the same, right-wing, civil rights-hostile bunch. They did this by simply crediting the government's statements that the stay would harm public safety - even though you can't get TPS status if you have a criminal record.
TPS was created by federal statute, the Immigration Act of 1990, which sets out criteria for designating countries and the effects of TPS status. The director of Homeland Security makes the designations, pursuant to the statutory criteria, and is required to consult with other agencies before doing so. The challenge to revocation of these immigrants' TPS status is based on failure to act through the statutorily required means. A characteristic of virtually all of Trump's chainsaw efforts to destroy the government built over the past 80 years or so.
The reason is that an injunction preventing the defendant from taking action before the court reaches a final judgment, such as the plaintiffs are asking for here, is a matter of balancing several factors, including the harm to the parties. The lower courts held that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm (e.g., they were granted TPS status precisely because they were in physical danger in Venezuela). The Supreme Court, to the contrary, accepted the government's statement that keeping them in the country while court proceedings play out would cause great harm to public safety.
So glad the Supreme Court has decided to strengthen the US judicial structure. Could it be that the gender makeup of the bench has something to do with this most recent affirmation of the coequal status of the three branches of government?
What makes these universal injunctions a thorny issue is that they *are* subject to abuse and *have* been abused by both sides of the political spectrum. The ideal outcome would be a nuanced opinion limiting the use of universal injunctions to specific, narrowly defined circumstances, such as facially unconstitutional government actions or imminent irreparable harm to the constitutional rights of large classes of individuals. That would rein in their use in general while allowing them to proceed in egregious cases like deportation without due process or the denial of birthright citizenship.