Trump Ignores the Courts

[hog88]

It doesn't matter.

A US judge has ZERO jurisdiction over a foreign flagged carrier outside of US airspace. Think about it for a minute, WTF can he do to them even if they received an order to turn around and they didn't? To have jurisdiction you have to have a mechanism to enforce that jurisdiction.

 

[LSU-SIU]

He guys, District Court judge issues an order for the military to just stand down... problem solved.

 

[hog88]

You know your stuff. The Federal Court System was created by the First Congress (one of the first bill). The only Federal Court that the Constitution recognized was the Supreme Court. Congress can bass a bill and change the Federal Court System (except Supreme Court). Granted, any action of this nature would be extremely controversial.

Judicial Activism has been a problem. To me both the Executive and Judicial Branches have become a little overpowered while Congress is losing power (mostly because they have given it away over time).

Agreed, congress has ceded much of it's power to the executive branch since the civil war. Congress doesn't want to be held responsible, they just want to be reelected.

 

[volbound1700]

Agreed, congress has ceded much of it's power to the executive branch since the civil war. Congress doesn't want to be held responsible, they just want to be reelected.

Going back to the case at hand, you can definitely argue that the District Court of DC did not have Jurisdiction or Standing to even hear the case based on rules of Civil Procedure. I imagine this could be discussed at the Appellate level. The actual topic in discussion seems like something that needs to be taken on and addressed at the Supreme Court level.

 

[McDad]

You know your stuff. The Federal Court System was created by the First Congress (one of the first bill). The only Federal Court that the Constitution recognized was the Supreme Court. Congress can bass a bill and change the Federal Court System (except Supreme Court). Granted, any action of this nature would be extremely controversial.

Judicial Activism has been a problem. To me both the Executive and Judicial Branches have become a little overpowered while Congress is losing power (mostly because they have given it away over time).

Good post. I was unaware.

 

[volbound1700]

Good post. I was unaware.

Yikes, I saw my typo in your reply of bass versus pass.

Look up the Judiciary Act of 1789 if you want the background.

 

[LSU-SIU]

Going back to the case at hand, you can definitely argue that the District Court of DC did not have Jurisdiction or Standing to even hear the case based on rules of Civil Procedure. I imagine this could be discussed at the Appellate level. The actual topic in discussion seems like something that needs to be taken on and addressed at the Supreme Court level.

I think its an interesting situation. The problem is what the judge has done imo, even IF some of this is eventually ruled differently on merits. He has decided to make himself important. Nobody can point to any harm being done which is not repairable. He didn't even make a statement as to the likelihood of the Plaintiff to win on merits even. These are basic processes that are done, I would say him not putting stuff in writing is part of his plan to make it about what he wants instead of his own duty.

The government should be asking for security from the Plaintiffs in all of these injunction cases.

 

[EasternVol]

Yes it does, matter of fact the has invoked Article II powers in this case and Proclaimed it. Whether or not its war does not matter, a district court does not control military aircraft in Guam.

That could be the reason higher courts side with the plaintiffs. We're not in a state of war with Venezuela so use of this act to deport Venezuelans is likely contrary to the scope of the law.

 

[jmacvols1]

 

[LSU-SIU]

That could be the reason higher courts side with the plaintiffs. We're not in a state of war with Venezuela so use of this act to deport Venezuelans is likely contrary to the scope of the law.

Its possible I guess. The President has war powers though without war being declared. Its something the judiciary tries to stay out of because its not practical and might be a constitutional crisis.

scope of the law.

The President still has the power i.e. U.S. Constitution without the statutory Law. What you are saying is the equivalent of saying the President can order the Supreme Court to rule a certain way. The goal is for branches of government to work together because each one doesn't necessarily have the authority over the other.

 

[volbound1700]

I think its an interesting situation. The problem is what the judge has done imo, even IF some of this is eventually ruled differently on merits. He has decided to make himself important. Nobody can point to any harm being done which is not repairable. He didn't even make a statement as to the likelihood of the Plaintiff to win on merits even. These are basic processes that are done, I would say him not putting stuff in writing is part of his plan to make it about what he wants instead of his own duty.

The government should be asking for security from the Plaintiffs in all of these injunction cases.

I don't know enough about the facts but already I am seeing an issue on Procedures. What gave this Court the jurisdiction/right to even hear the case? Generally that is addressed in the first part of the ruling so I will have to look into it.

That may create a challenge though in that if this court didn't have jurisdiction, the Appellate Court will have to cite that and remove the case. The problem with this is that it doesn't address the actual legal question on whether the actions by DHS are correct or not, the case is only removed because the judge had no authority to hear and rule on it.

From what I understand, the suspects were not even picked up in DC but another state, is that correct? Also, the Court has no authority to ask a plane to turn around once action has been performed.

The Court System has many rulings that cite that they shouldn't be involved in National Defense. In fact, there is a separate legal court system that was setup under DHS to rule on non-US citizens on terrorism. This court system is entirely separate from our Federal Court system and suspects cannot even appeal into our court system.

 

[volbound1700]

That could be the reason higher courts side with the plaintiffs. We're not in a state of war with Venezuela so use of this act to deport Venezuelans is likely contrary to the scope of the law.

Not under the Department of Homeland Security. Trump defined the cartels as terrorist and this was passed by Congress. Basically, they would fall under DHS jurisdiction and not our local Federal Court System.

Since it was passed by Congress, it overrides Judiciary Act of 1789 and there is jurisdiction for this as we have other court systems that are separate as well: Think of the Military Court System or Admiralty Court System.

 

[Vol8188]

everybody has some rights here. regardless of their status. there is due process for those who aren't here, even if it isn't the same as the due process due to us; we can't give the government a blank check to start ignoring established due process whenever they feel like it.

its abysmal precedence to set.

Sure. But when you’re already admittedly hear illegally, I’m not certain what else is required or why.

 

[hog88]

I wonder if congress has the power to limit the scope of injunctions made at the district court level? Can congress pass legislation saying a US district courts authority ends at it's geographic boundaries?

 

[Vol8188]

did you miss the qualifier I used? "When". that indicates to most people that it hasn't happened yet.

this board has never been so accepting of the government getting away with abuse of power before. never once been accepting of any diminished rights just because no one has been impacted YET.

I think we almost all agree being here legally does and should result in diminished rights.

 

[volbound1700]

I wonder if congress has the power to limit the scope of injunctions made at the district court level? Can congress pass legislation saying a US district courts authority ends at it's geographic boundaries?

They can. Read Judiciary Act of 1789. The Courts only have that power because Congress gave it to them.

The only Court that Congress can't limit is the Supreme Court (and well, State Court Systems which are managed by the States).

 

[EasternVol]

A US judge has ZERO jurisdiction over a foreign flagged carrier outside of US airspace. Think about it for a minute, WTF can he do to them even if they received an order to turn around and they didn't? To have jurisdiction you have to have a mechanism to enforce that jurisdiction.

Departed from the US, contracted by the US: I think US courts can claim jurisdiction.

 

[hog88]

Departed from the US, contracted by the US: I think US courts can claim jurisdiction.

You're thinking is wrong then. At most the judge can hold the carrier in contempt for not following his order.

 

[hog88]

They can. Read Judiciary Act of 1789. The Courts only have that power because Congress gave it to them.

The only Court that Congress can't limit is the Supreme Court (and well, State Court Systems which are managed by the States).

Then it's time for congress to reclaim it's balls and reign in both the judiciary and the executive branches.

 

[volbound1700]

Then it's time for congress to reclaim it's balls and reign in both the judiciary and the executive branches.

I will state this, regulations of courts is very unpopular. This came up in the 1930s with FDR who basically had the same approach as what is being discussed in this thread.

 

[Orange_Crush]

That could be the reason higher courts side with the plaintiffs. We're not in a state of war with Venezuela so use of this act to deport Venezuelans is likely contrary to the scope of the law.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. I thought so as well until doing a bit more research.

§21. Restraint, regulation, and removal​

Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies.

The Act specifically expands its use beyond times of war to include, among other things "predatory" incursions, etc... A problem that I had with it was that the incursion has to be the work of a foreign nation state, which TdA is not.

But then I found (and posted here) a letter from Congress to former head of DHS relating intel that the influx of TdA was due to Venezuela's having expelled them and sent them here, while refusing to take them back.

I don't think the "were not at war" bit is as cut and dry. TdA has been listed as a terrorist organization. Not sure the SCOTUS would disagree that they are "predatory incursion" here by the actions of a foreign nation state.

 

[LSU-SIU]

I don't know enough about the facts but already I am seeing an issue on Procedures. What gave this Court the jurisdiction/right to even hear the case? Generally that is addressed in the first part of the ruling so I will have to look into it.

That may create a challenge though in that if this court didn't have jurisdiction, the Appellate Court will have to cite that and remove the case. The problem with this is that it doesn't address the actual legal question on whether the actions by DHS are correct or not, the case is only removed because the judge had no authority to hear and rule on it.

From what I understand, the suspects were not even picked up in DC but another state, is that correct? Also, the Court has no authority to ask a plane to turn around once action has been performed.

The Court System has many rulings that cite that they shouldn't be involved in National Defense. In fact, there is a separate legal court system that was setup under DHS to rule on non-US citizens on terrorism. This court system is entirely separate from our Federal Court system and suspects cannot even appeal into our court system.

The problem with the appellate court at this stage is the injunction(?), if you want to call it that. As far as everything else, I would assume it should be just pushed back down to the district court and worked as a normal case. I think some push back on this is okay because honestly some of this has never been tackled before.

But nobody can really point to any real irreparable harm being done, not really.

Also, the Court has no authority to ask a plane to turn around once action has been performed.

I am not sure the Judge ever ordered that, its not in the minute order. ???? However, I have read people say it was part of the order. The government denies breaking the order even though its not a proper order.

This is something Clarence Thomas has been speaking about for years. He doesn't even believe the district courts have this ability, as the issue hasn't been tackled.

 

[LouderVol]

Do you have examples of how the deportees were not afforded all the due process they were entitled to?

sounds like that is what 5 of the venezuelan's lawyers are arguing. like I keep explaining Trump used A&E to circumvent the process.

the Venezuelans were facing the normal deportation process. Letter, go in front of a judge, if judge orders deportation they can appeal, and only after an appeal do they get deported. thats the normal process immigrants facing deportation go through.

at some point after the normal de-immigration process had started, the feds switched from the process requiring a judge BEFORE deportation, to a process that doesn't have a "trial" and only allows an appeal after deportation.

 

[hog88]

I will state this, regulations of courts is very unpopular. This came up in the 1930s with FDR who basically had the same approach as what is being discussed in this thread.

I think the public sentiment has changed since then.

 

[EasternVol]

You're thinking is wrong then. At most the judge can hold the carrier in contempt for not following his order.

I doubt it, and I doubt that it was a foreign registered plane.