Law Supreme Court Allows Broad Enforcement of Asylum Limits - 7 - 2; Sotomayer and Ginsberg dissented

It's HK-47

Meatbag's Bounty of Bodies
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
456e914caf99d07814055fb9a2811ce5.png

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is allowing nationwide enforcement of a new Trump administration rule that prevents most Central American immigrants from seeking asylum in the United States.

The justices’ order late Wednesday temporarily undoes a lower-court ruling that had blocked the new asylum policy in some states along the southern border. The policy is meant to deny asylum to anyone who passes through another country on the way to the U.S. without seeking protection there.

Most people crossing the southern border are Central Americans fleeing violence and poverty. They are largely ineligible under the new rule, as are asylum seekers from Africa, Asia and South America who arrive regularly at the southern border.

The shift reverses decades of U.S. policy. The administration has said that it wants to close the gap between an initial asylum screening that most people pass and a final decision on asylum that most people do not win.

“BIG United States Supreme Court WIN for the Border on Asylum!” Trump tweeted.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the high-court’s order. “Once again, the Executive Branch has issued a rule that seeks to upend longstanding practices regarding refugees who seek shelter from persecution,” Sotomayor wrote.

The legal challenge to the new policy has a brief but somewhat convoluted history. U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco blocked the new policy from taking effect in late July. A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals narrowed Tigar’s order so that it applied only in Arizona and California, states that are within the 9th Circuit.

That left the administration free to enforce the policy on asylum seekers arriving in New Mexico and Texas. Tigar issued a new order on Monday that reimposed a nationwide hold on asylum policy. The 9th Circuit again narrowed his order on Tuesday.

The high-court action allows the administration to impose the new policy everywhere while the court case against it continues.

Lee Gelernt, the American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who is representing immigrant advocacy groups in the case, said: “This is just a temporary step, and we’re hopeful we’ll prevail at the end of the day. The lives of thousands of families are at stake.”
Full Article | Archive

Okay, so U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco blocked that new policy Trump put into effect for asylum seekers back in late July. A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals narrowed Tigar's order so that it effectively applied only in Arizona and California, states that are within the 9th Circuit. That left the administration free to enforce the policy on asylum seekers arriving in New Mexico and Texas. However, this apparently got Tigar's panties in a wad, so he issued a new order on Monday that reimposed a nationwide hold on asylum policy.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals essentially narrowed Tigar's order yesterday by issuing an administrative stay. The stay blocked Tiger's order nationally, but ruled it still had could take effect within 9th Circuit's boundaries. So the 9th Circuit Court came back and slapped him to the floor again, after already telling him off, and now the issue has been pushed through the Supreme Court. It was just given a 7-2 victory, with Sotomeyer and Ginsberg being the dissenting justices.

Tigar had the nerve to turn right around and issue another injunction in direct defiance of the 9th Circuit. Let's see if he has the nerve to buck what's now a 7-2 Supreme Court order. My money's on "No, probably not."
 

Coconut Gun

He's the gun member of the coconut crew
kiwifarms.net
Why/how the fuck does a district judge have the ability to say "nah, this thing you're trying to do isn't legal" to the president, and have his ruling apply to the entire country? As long as there are no consequences for doing it, why don't they just do this for every little thing that they possibly can? I understand that cocaine Mitch is trying his best to put non-activist judges into place, but as long as there's even one judge that wants to fuck everything up, wouldn't they still have the ability to delay anything they want for months at least?
 

Unpleasant

I tell you what
kiwifarms.net
Why/how the fuck does a district judge have the ability to say "nah, this thing you're trying to do isn't legal" to the president, and have his ruling apply to the entire country? As long as there are no consequences for doing it, why don't they just do this for every little thing that they possibly can? I understand that cocaine Mitch is trying his best to put non-activist judges into place, but as long as there's even one judge that wants to fuck everything up, wouldn't they still have the ability to delay anything they want for months at least?
The dirty little secret is that the founders never intended for all three branches of government to be truly equal, despite modern reinterpretation to that effect.

Judicial review also has no direct and explicit constitutional support for its existence, and like many facets of law in legal systems derived from common law, simply exists because it has been done that way for a long time, which, interestingly, is the rationale that Sotomayor attempted to use in the dissent against the rule.

Tl;dr, the framers always intended for the courts to be the weakest branch, and by no means coequal or greater than the legislative or executive, and statements by many of the framers support the ideal of legislative supremacy. The relatively recent farce of nonstop legal injunctions is a modern contrivance and the judges doing it for every little thing deserve to have bad things happen to them in minecraft.
 

MagneticTowels

Soyga Man Feministic Hunter CuX
kiwifarms.net
Why/how the fuck does a district judge have the ability to say "nah, this thing you're trying to do isn't legal" to the president, and have his ruling apply to the entire country? As long as there are no consequences for doing it, why don't they just do this for every little thing that they possibly can?
Why don't Conservative judges ever try this?
 
Last edited:

Your Weird Fetish

Intersectional fetishist
kiwifarms.net
Why/how the fuck does a district judge have the ability to say "nah, this thing you're trying to do isn't legal" to the president, and have his ruling apply to the entire country? As long as there are no consequences for doing it, why don't they just do this for every little thing that they possibly can?
If they do it for everything and not just border stuff I'm for it. Make America Ancapistan Again.
 

TowinKarz

Is it Morning Yet?
kiwifarms.net
These 9th circuit temper-tantrums are frustrating, but ultimately futile at stopping immigration crackdowns as long as the Admin has the will to keep pressing.

The dirty little secret is that the founders never intended for all three branches of government to be truly equal, despite modern reinterpretation to that effect.
As envisioned by the founders, the Supreme Court would hear maybe 2 cases a year where state "A" had a problem with state "B", like a dispute over a border, or one tried to sue another for damages caused by erosion of farmland in state "A" that was directly caused by state "B" building a canal..... the idea of judicial review of legislation for Constitutional issues raised by individual private citizens was seen as laughable, up there with nuisance lawsuits or vexatious litigants trying to sue God him/her/itself.



Now, the way it evolved I'd argue is for the better, an activist Judge can clog the system for months, maybe a year, but they cannot hold back the ultimate passage of that which is legal, whereas a defanged Judiciary is powerless to stop genuine abuse.



It sucks that legal-on-it's-face matters are drug into court and turned into teeth-pulling exercises by people looking for the proverbial "i" without a dot to invalidate the whole mess for political reasons. But. The flip side is the court saying "The Seminoles have a right to their land, taking it without compensation is a violation of the Constitutions 5th Amendment" and Andrew Jackson saying "That's nice, but I'm taking it anyway because I have an army and Justice Marshall does not, now fuck off"
 
Last edited:

Unpleasant

I tell you what
kiwifarms.net
So Tigar overplayed his hand and got completely shut down for it and now it's nationwide rather than two states.

What a fuckup he is.
However, he will face no consequences for his actions, despite going directly against the organ that had just rebuked him, and will instead be held up as a hero in certain circles for disrespecting the integrity of his office.
 

RodgerDodger

kiwifarms.net
I think this quote bothers me the most, coming as it does from one of the highest judges in the land

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the high-court’s order. “Once again, the Executive Branch has issued a rule that seeks to upend longstanding practices regarding refugees who seek shelter from persecution,” Sotomayor wrote.
Note Sotomayor claims itupends long-standing “practices” but says nothing about The Law. The Law is actually what Trump is enforcing. Not simply US Law but International Law. That Asylum Seekers must stop and apply for asylum at the first safe country, and cannot cross multiple borders or asylum shop for the best deal is a core covenant of the 1951 Convention on Refugees. And under that treaty, anyone who is using claims of refugee status for economic migration is to be denied outright.

But it’s never allowed to be about the law. It’s always about the “feels” with the courts liberal wing. Thus they create a judicial dictatorship.
 

ForTheHoard

Mocha Butt Fleshlight
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Why don't Conservative judges ever try this?
There's a fundamentally different view on the role of courts between the left and right. The right and most moderates see the court as a body designed to uphold and enforce the constitution. The left sees the court as a means to pass legislation that wouldn't otherwise pass through the house/presidential veto. It's even a bit weird as I've had liberal law/government professors spend hours instilling the idea that legislation from the bench is unethical/immoral/unconstitutional, then turn around and say Roe v. Wade is iron clad.
 

Philosophy Phil

King of Denmark
kiwifarms.net
Why/how the fuck does a district judge have the ability to say "nah, this thing you're trying to do isn't legal" to the president, and have his ruling apply to the entire country? As long as there are no consequences for doing it, why don't they just do this for every little thing that they possibly can? I understand that cocaine Mitch is trying his best to put non-activist judges into place, but as long as there's even one judge that wants to fuck everything up, wouldn't they still have the ability to delay anything they want for months at least?
Orange Man Bad.
 
Tags
None

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
LTC: LSZsFCLUreXAZ9oyc9JRUiRwbhkLCsFi4q
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino