Since my earlier post, a Washington State Federal District Judge [perhaps on slightly different facts – have not seen the complaint] rules that the Trump “Executive Order” aka “Edict” aka “Ban” is not constitutional and issues a nationwide ruling. DOJ, with its hand-picked servile AG files an appeal in the Federal Circuit Court.
DHS issues a memo to halt enforcing the Ban as currently unenforceable.
Once there are conflicting rulings in two federal Circuit Courts [Courts of Appeals) the Ban will go to the USSCT.
Of course, I find the rationale behind the Edict/ban ludicrous as most of the terrorists who perpetrated 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia – not subject to the Edict/ban and the Marathon bombers came from Chechnya – not subject to the edict/ban.
OLD, ORIGINAL POST
Sadly, a different judge heard the ACLU Amended Complaint seeking to continue the TRO [Temporary Restraining Order] against enforcement of Pres. Trump’s Executive Order impacting visa holders from seven muslim-majority countries, immigration, and refugees – AND DENIED EXTENDING THE ORDER which goes back into effect in Boston at 2:00 AM Sunday morning, after saying he would not issue an order right away but take it under advisement. After everyone left the court house, Judge Gorton drafted and issued a decision. A link to that decision is embedded in this PBS story:
http://www.wbur.org/news/2017/02/03/boston-judge-trump-immigration-hearing
I have printed out the ACLU Amended Complaint AND Judge Gorton’s 21 page order issued at some point after 5:00 PM today [Friday 2/3/17]
I intend to read both, read some case law, and come to my own opinion and comment in more depth later. I feel I can do that effectively, having completed 186 appeals and made law 19 times in reported decisions, albeit in state court only.
You do not have to take my word for the number of appeals I have prosecuted for appellants and appellees. It is a matter of public record. See: http://www.ma-appellatecourts.org/search_attorney.php?aln=butler&afn=Deborah&dfy=&dsc=&ddt=&dtp=&sort=&get=Search
Which judge you get makes a difference. Who is on your panel makes a difference. The theory or theories used and the facts presented also make a difference. It is demanding, exciting work fighting to uphold, interpret, or change the law albeit usually not in the fiery crucible, as is today’s legal work and decision.
I am personally offended by governance via edict.
Under Obama and now Trump, it has turned into “find a friendly local judge to put a nationwide halt on policy changes.” With so many judgeships being elected positions, judges have incentives to do this.
I don’t watch televised news [well, except for when I am on a treadmill at PeopleFit, the assistive health club where I am working to get mobility fully back. I read newspapers though.
. . . can make all the difference.
Spoke with a co-worker yesterday, a nice young man who I just met while we were walking through the parking lot to work in the early morning. He’s a Syrian refugee. His family is Christian and his parents still live in Syria where he tells me they are surrounded by “Isis” and there are bombings every day. His parents want to come to the USA but it’s been difficult and he said “Now with your president Trump, they may never be able to come here and I may never be able to travel to see them.”
I put my arm around him as we walked and said “I am embarrassed that we have such a man as our president and I am ashamed at how we are treating you and your parents. I am sorry for all this and I will fight to make things better.”
I’ve been embarrassed to be an American, I’ve been proud to be an American.
Today was the first time I was ashamed to be an American.
ashamed of some of our country’s actions, we might have more to be proud of.
Article III of the US constitution. Once the “first responder” Federal Judges decisions start differing, and are taken to the 10 Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal, and there are conflicting decisions, THEN the “case and controversy” is considered “ripe” for the United States Supreme Court [USSCT]. I truly wish the intensive civics and governance training considered normal and requisite to an informed citizenry back in the 50s and 60s had not been eliminated. Everyone should know Federal judges are appointed, and must be confirmed by the US Senate, even at the Federal District Court level [this was done to insulate these judges from the whims of subsequent politics, in part. We see how wise that is] – some states to elect state judges; not Massachusetts which is closer to the Federal model. Anyway, we will see the issues as to separation of powers, checks and balances, and limitations on the power of the President, who is, after all, not supposed to be an absolute monarch or dictator.
He only said “judgeships” and not “federal judgeships” above, and with so much activity being initiated by states there is a role for state judges, many of whom in other states are of course elected.
No harm in a short civics lesson. After all, civics hasn’t been taught as a course at all, let alone a required course, for a long time.
One of the things I hope to fix as a teacher. They’ll get a civics course whether it’s on the MCAS or not…
I’m familiar with the general charge to provide public education (“Wisdom and knowledge, as well as virtue…”), but am not aware of specific class requirements in the constitution.
A real constitutional crisis is brewing, and not enough of us are talking about it.
The REAL crisis is whether Donald Trump’s police will obey the rulings of these federal judges — and whether our GOP has the courage to actually DO something if not.
The various national police forces, like customs, the military, homeland security, and so on are all ultimately under Mr. Trump’s authority (they are all part of the “executive branch”). The judicial and legislative branches are intended to check and limit the power of the executive branch.
America has not yet faced a situation where a President has given a raised middle finger to a sitting US judge. We pretty much saw that this weekend, and in my view we should all be watching all this very carefully.
…”John Marshal has made his decision – now let him enforce it,” though I don’t remember without looking how far that got. Military are bound NOT to follow an unlawful order and other employees of the executive branch who are not political appointees do have some civil service protections (and of course are themselves bound by oath to uphold the Constitution and defend the US against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC (*cough* Trump *cough*).
I understand that various authorities are not obligated to follow an unlawful order. My question is what we do when those authorities DO enforce an unlawful order.
There is rather compelling evidence that custom’s police ignored a temporary restraining order at Logan on the first day. Yesterday, Mr. Trump ordered “Homeland Security to check people coming into our country VERY CAREFULLY.”
My concern is much more with out-of-control authorities who are eager to carry out unlawful orders — how do we stop them?
…is that sympathetic Governors send in the National Guard to airports in their respective states to escort lawful persons through customs, kind of a Central High School scenario in reverse.
… you just divided SomervilleToms one big problem into (at least) 51 problems, each just as big. Nice trick, that…
…but that’s what we have to work with in a federal system (though it will be fewer than 51 because not every state has both an international airport and a sympathetic Governor).
And yes, they did. Andrew Jackson. The result was the forced displacement of the Cherokees, the trail of tears, and hundreds if not thousands of deaths.