SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 18642
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Re: SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

#526

Post by Volkonski » Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:25 am


The Hill

@thehill

JUST IN: Gorsuch sides with liberals, rules against Trump on deportation law
http://
hill.cm/KDirAf7

10:16 AM - Apr 17, 2018


Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 28035
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

#527

Post by Addie » Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:27 am

TIME: Trump's Supreme Court Pick Just Dealt the White House a Big Blow on Immigration ...

The case was initially argued in January of 2017 by a court that was short a member because the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat had not yet been filled. An eight member court didn’t decide the issue, presumably because the justices were deadlocked 4-4. After Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the court, the justices heard the case re-argued. Gorsuch joined the court’s more liberal justices in finding the clause too vague.

The case is Sessions v. Dimaya, 15-1498.


¡Sterngard! come home.

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 10583
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

#528

Post by Notorial Dissent » Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:50 am

Addie wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:27 am
TIME: Trump's Supreme Court Pick Just Dealt the White House a Big Blow on Immigration ...

The case was initially argued in January of 2017 by a court that was short a member because the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat had not yet been filled. An eight member court didn’t decide the issue, presumably because the justices were deadlocked 4-4. After Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the court, the justices heard the case re-argued. Gorsuch joined the court’s more liberal justices in finding the clause too vague.

The case is Sessions v. Dimaya, 15-1498.
Ooooh, that won't go over well, LaRump will want to fire "his" Justice now. Treason, betrayal. :rotflmao:


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater
Posts: 4982
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: East Coast
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

#529

Post by Dr. Kenneth Noisewater » Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:54 am

I suspect trump will be on twitter saying he's going to fire Gorsuch.



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

#530

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:58 am

Gorsuch was merely following his idol, Antonin Scalia, who had voted with the libs in Johnson v. U.S.

Don't get too excited. Scalia didn't like vague langwitch.



User avatar
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater
Posts: 4982
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: East Coast
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

#531

Post by Dr. Kenneth Noisewater » Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:59 am

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:58 am
Gorsuch was merely following his idol, Antonin Scalia, who had voted with the libs in Johnson v. U.S.

Don't get too excited. Scalia didn't like vague langwitch.
You're assuming Trump understands a thing called nuance.



User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7236
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 2 dogs, 1 cat, and 1 horse

Re: SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

#532

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer » Tue Apr 17, 2018 6:00 pm

Wonkette's legal splaining:

https://wonkette.com/632734/justice-gor ... get-better
. Thanks Justice Gorsuch! (NO REALLY)
Justice Gorsuch Accidentally Forgets To Bone Immigrants For A Second, But Don’t Worry, He’ll Get Better


“But wait,” you are saying. “Is burglary really a crime of violence?”

That was mighty clever of you! The California Penal Code defines burglary as entering an inhabited building with the intent to steal something. It specifically includes tents, outhouses, and mines. So under DHS’s interpretation of the INA, stealing a flashlight from your neighbor’s tent is a crime of violence and appropriate grounds for deportation. Which is pretty harsh!

See, when Congress wrote a law that referred to “crimes of violence,” without defining the term, it gave DHS sole discretion to decide what it meant. And that is not how due process works — a reasonable person should be able to figure out whether he’s breaking the law. Which is why Justice Scalia struck down a similar provision of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) in 2014, ruling that the undefined term “crime of violence” was “void for vagueness.”

Don’t think of it as telling Jeff Sessions to get fucked. This is more like a love note to Antonin Scalia. So simmer down, wingnuts. He’s still your guy!


"The people must know before they can act, and there is no educator to compare with the press." - Ida B. Wells-Barnett, journalist, newspaper editor, suffragist, feminist and founder with others of NAACP.

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 28035
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

#533

Post by Addie » Tue Apr 17, 2018 7:34 pm

The Hill
Trump wants loophole closed after Gorsuch casts decisive vote in immigration case

President Trump on Tuesday called on Congress to pass stricter immigration laws after Justice Neil Gorsuch cast the deciding vote in the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision that ruled in favor of an immigrant threatened with deportation.

“Today’s Court decision means that Congress must close loopholes that block the removal of dangerous criminal aliens, including aggravated felons,” Trump tweeted.

“This is a public safety crisis that can only be fixed by Congress — House and Senate must quickly pass a legislative fix to ensure violent criminal aliens can be removed from our society,” he added. ...

In a statement after Tuesday's ruling, a Justice Department spokesman called on Congress to close loopholes that allow "criminal aliens" to remain in the country.


¡Sterngard! come home.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24927
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

#534

Post by bob » Fri Apr 20, 2018 1:55 pm

The U.S. Supreme Court threw out a provision in federal immigration law that was used to deport foreigners convicted of serious crimes.

The justices, voting 5-4 Tuesday on the core question, said the law’s definition of "crime of violence" was so vague as to be unconstitutional. People convicted of a violent crime are subject to mandatory deportation, meaning government officials don’t have discretion to let them stay.
Although not widely reported, SCOTUS affirmed a 9th Circus Circuit decision (2-1), authored by ... the recently departed Reinhardt.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 28035
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

#535

Post by Addie » Sat Apr 21, 2018 9:46 am

The Hill
Supreme Court to consider Trump’s travel ban

The Supreme Court will close out arguments for the term on Wednesday by weighing the constitutionality of President Trump’s third attempt to block nationals from majority-Muslim countries from entering the United States.

Hawaii’s state government, the Muslim Association of Hawaii and three individuals have been battling different iterations of the ban Trump contends is needed for national security for the last 15 months, arguing it’s tainted with animus towards Muslims.

Hawaii argues the latest ban unconstitutionally discriminates against Muslims and exceeds the president’s powers over immigration delegated to him by Congress.

The administration says the president has broad constitutional and statutory authority to limit immigration.

The Supreme Court initially agreed to consider Trump’s second order, which banned people from Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and Sudan. It then dismissed that case as moot when the ban expired before the scheduled arguments.

Trump’s latest ban, issued by a presidential proclamation, swaps Sudan for Chad, and made the restrictions on travelers from the effected countries indefinite. Chad has since been dropped from the list.


¡Sterngard! come home.

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 28035
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

#536

Post by Addie » Sun Apr 22, 2018 8:47 pm

WaPo
In travel ban case, Supreme Court considers ‘the president’ vs. ‘this president’

The Supreme Court’s final oral argument of the term will be one of its most important and potentially far-reaching, an examination of the president’s authority to protect the country by banning some foreigners who seek entry.

But, similar to a debate that has consumed Washington for the past 15 months, a major issue for the court is separating “the president” from “this president.”

The justices on Wednesday will consider President Trump’s third iteration of a travel ban that bars most nationals from a small group of mostly Muslim nations. It is the first time the court has considered the merits of a policy that has consumed the administration since its start, and raises deep questions about the judiciary’s role in national security issues usually left to the political branches. ...

But challengers to the ban point to another section of the law, which says a person may not be denied an immigration visa “because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.”

Allowing the president to ban citizens of a nation, the challengers said, amounts to giving the president a “line-item veto over the entire immigration code.”

Besides examining the immigration statute, the court has said it will review the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit that the ban violates the First Amendment’s guarantee against religious discrimination.

And the court will also consider whether the judiciary even has authority to “look behind” the face of an immigration proclamation to examine whether it was drawn with improper motives.


¡Sterngard! come home.

Sunrise
Posts: 756
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 3:29 pm

Re: SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

#537

Post by Sunrise » Sun Apr 22, 2018 10:38 pm

I hope Justice Gorsuch will make the responsible decision again in this case. :pray:


"I am no longer accepting the things I cannot change. I am changing the things I cannot accept."
Angela Davis

User avatar
Turtle
Posts: 2641
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 5:27 pm
Occupation: SPACE FORCE COMMANDER

Re: SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

#538

Post by Turtle » Wed Apr 25, 2018 5:58 pm




User avatar
Addie
Posts: 28035
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

#539

Post by Addie » Fri Apr 27, 2018 7:04 pm

The Hill OpEd
Justice Gorsuch, make the originalist's case against Trump's travel ban

More than a year after President Donald Trump issued his first of three travel bans on the pretext of ramping up national security, the Supreme Court is now pondering whether the government may bar immigrants from six Muslim-majority countries. The court’s decision will test the constitutional originalism of Trump’s first nominee to the high court, Justice Neil Gorsuch. Although Justice Gorsuch remained mostly silent during arguments April 25, the immigration ban is both a constitutional and statutory challenge to one of Trump’s key policy initiatives.

For an originalist like Justice Gorsuch, this shouldn’t be a tough call. Our nation’s founders believed that the firmly-established constitutional principle of religious liberty makes us a stronger nation. And the First Amendment makes clear the government is meant to remain neutral in this area.

Furthermore, during his confirmation hearing, Gorsuch adamantly claimed his independence from President Donald Trump, even getting testy with Senator Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) when he mentioned that a Republican lawmaker suggested Gorsuch would be a sure vote in favor of Trump’s travel ban. Gorsuch snapped: “Senator, he has no idea how I’d rule in that case.”

As the Fourth Circuit previously ruled, the travel ban “second-guesses our nation’s dedication to religious freedom and tolerance.”

That dedication is rooted in the earliest days of our nation’s founding. Religious intolerance is what drove Europeans to flee their communities in the 17th century and make the dangerous ocean crossing to America. That experience, as well as the persistence of religious persecution in the colonies against Catholics and Quakers, persuaded the drafters of our Constitution to protect against religious intolerance clearly and conspicuously.


¡Sterngard! come home.

User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 18642
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Re: SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

#540

Post by Volkonski » Tue May 01, 2018 10:11 am

Farm Bureau members tell Zeldin severe labor shortage jeopardizes the future of agriculture on the East End

https://riverheadlocal.com/2018/04/30/f ... -east-end/
Instead of conversation about the bureaucratic difficulties they encounter with the H2A visa program — the federal program that allows a foreign national entry to the United States for seasonal agricultural work — Farm Bureau members told Rep. Lee Zeldin they are facing a severe labor shortage that’s jeopardizing their ability to expand — and even their ability to survive.

“If you go around the room, the overhwelming concern you’d hear is the shortage of labor, the lack of labor,” L.I. Farm Bureau president Karl Novak told the congressman, opening up comments from the gathering of about 20 local ag industry representatives. “And if you listen to any of the economists talk about the economy one of the biggest threats they see to economic growth is the labor shortage,” Novak said.

“We operate in the highest cost production area in the U.S. as far as agriculture is concerned. We’ve been talking about this for 20 years — a workable, streamlined guest worker program, immigration reform and one thing that’s becoming a concern and just made headlines this week, ICE raids and immigration enforcement,” Novak said.

“There’s a tremendous shortage of labor for low-skilled jobs,” said Novak, general manager at Half Hollow Nursery in Laurel. “We need immigration reform.”
Zeldin is a Trump supporter.


Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7236
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 2 dogs, 1 cat, and 1 horse

Re: SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

#541

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer » Tue May 01, 2018 10:19 am

It amazes me that some farmers and those in the farming industry who are Trump supporters were so, shall we say, OBLIVIOUS to the impact on farming of Trump's Build That Wall approach. Were they tantalized about deregulation? Tax cuts? WHAT?

It don't make no sense to this here girl who is from a farming state. Of course, not all farming requires manual labor to pick the crops - soybeans and rice par example. :confused:


"The people must know before they can act, and there is no educator to compare with the press." - Ida B. Wells-Barnett, journalist, newspaper editor, suffragist, feminist and founder with others of NAACP.

User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 7316
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:31 pm

Re: SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

#542

Post by RVInit » Tue May 01, 2018 10:47 am

Tiredretiredlawyer wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 10:19 am
It amazes me that some farmers and those in the farming industry who are Trump supporters were so, shall we say, OBLIVIOUS to the impact on farming of Trump's Build That Wall approach. Were they tantalized about deregulation? Tax cuts? WHAT?

It don't make no sense to this here girl who is from a farming state. Of course, not all farming requires manual labor to pick the crops - soybeans and rice par example. :confused:
I can't help but think that at least part of the problem is because they have been conditioned to react to hot button phrases instead of actual policy positions. Trump didn't have a single coherent policy position. On anything. And in the primaries he was running against at least 5 or 6 others who actually had fully fleshed out policy positions. Yes, those policy positions were scary as hell to most sane people, but that isn't the point.

I feel bad for the ones who didn't vote for Trump and are getting caught up in this. But people make a choice when they turn on that AM radio every morning. Most of those guys on their tractors - they put the earphones on and listen to AM radio all day long. And they made their choice at the polls. I hope it sinks in with them that choices matter. And that when someone manages to get through an entire primary season and general election without ever once putting forth any kind of coherent policy positions that this might be some indication of how that person is going to run their administration.


"I know that human being and fish can coexist peacefully"
--- George W Bush

ImageImage

User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 5374
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:26 am

Re: SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

#543

Post by pipistrelle » Wed May 02, 2018 7:20 am

They voted for a "celebrity." They got a reality show. And shouldn't be surprised.



User avatar
ZekeB
Posts: 14715
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Northwest part of Semi Blue State

Re: SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

#544

Post by ZekeB » Wed May 02, 2018 7:35 am

Tiredretiredlawyer wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 10:19 am
It don't make no sense to this here girl who is from a farming state. Of course, not all farming requires manual labor to pick the crops - soybeans and rice par example. :confused:
It goes beyond labor. Farmers use very little manual labor in my state. Exports, now that's a different story. Even with AG programs, the democrats have had more farmer-friendly programs. Of course the farm subsidies also include some entitlements for the poor. Somehow farmers think those come at their expense. Why do farmers vote republican? Who knows. It isn't in their best interests.


Ano, jsou opravdové. - Stormy Daniels

Nech mě domluvit! - Orly Taitz

User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 18642
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Re: SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

#545

Post by Volkonski » Tue May 15, 2018 3:36 pm

Trump-voting crab town left shell-shocked by his visa changes

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald ... ey-n874041
But this year, the Trump administration's cap on H-2B visas — and a shift from the first-come, first-served based model to a lottery system that has disadvantaged Hoopers Island seasonal workers — has left the island without 40 percent of the visas they have needed in the past.

:snippity:

Just two miles away, in what should be the start of the peak season, Harry Phillips, owner of Russell Hall Seafood, stands in an empty picking room once filled with the women he's had working for him for over 25 years.

"We can't operate the way we're going," Phillips told NBC News. "I've had to let truck drivers go. I don't need truck drivers if I don't have the product. It's going to affect us to the point where we may have to totally close."

:snippity:

But given the chance, many Hoopers Island residents say they'd vote for Trump again. They believe that if he only knew about their plight, he would change his policy.
That last paragraph is just pathetic. :roll:


Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 18642
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Re: SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

#546

Post by Volkonski » Fri May 25, 2018 2:17 pm

The feds lost – yes, lost – 1,475 migrant children

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion ... 631627002/
The Office of Refugee Resettlement reported at the end of 2017 that of the 7,000-plus children placed with sponsored individuals, the agency did not know where 1,475 of them were.

Republican Sen. Rob Portman said, “It’s just a system that has so many gaps, so many opportunities for these children to fall between the cracks, that we just don’t know what’s going on — how much trafficking or abuse or simply immigration law violations are occurring.”
The Office of Refugee Resettlement data the above article was based on.
From October to December 2017, ORR attempted to reach 7,635 UAC and their sponsors. Of
this number, ORR reached and received agreement to participate in the safety and well-being call
from approximately 86 percent of sponsors. From these calls, ORR learned that 6,075 UAC
remained with their sponsors. Twenty-eight UAC had run away, five had been removed from
the United States, and 52 had relocated to live with a non-sponsor. ORR was unable to
determine with certainty the whereabouts of 1,475 UAC. Based on the calls, ORR referred 792
cases, which were in need of further assistance, to the National Call Center for additional
information and services.


Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 28035
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

#547

Post by Addie » Fri May 25, 2018 2:33 pm

The worst that can happen keeps happening. :(


¡Sterngard! come home.

User avatar
Lani
Posts: 4041
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:01 pm
Location: Some island in the Pacific

Re: SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

#548

Post by Lani » Mon May 28, 2018 3:24 am

Good thread explaining the 1475 children that aren't really missing.


Insert signature here: ____________________________________________________

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 10609
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

#549

Post by Kendra » Thu Jun 07, 2018 7:39 pm

At least 60 undocumented women were separated from their children and brought to a detention center in SeaTac, an official with the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project said today.
Alison Grande is talking with the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project and also reaching out to ICE officials to investigate for a report tonight on KIRO 7 News at 7 p.m.
Off Topic
Poot trivia: this is the detention center where cRyan, Ammon and Schuyler B were held at. When their fellow poots came out to protest on the corner, I happily did a couple of fly bys and waved the middle finger.



User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 5173
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:37 am

Re: SCOTUS>Trump Era Immigration Cases Re: Executive Orders

#550

Post by Slim Cognito » Fri Jun 08, 2018 8:40 am

(This isn't SCOTUS but it was the thread that seemed closest. Feel free to move if a better thread is available.)

I saw this on twitter this morning. There aren't enough specifics here to do a search. Does anyone have more information?

And may I say "Fuck Trump and Sessions."
Chris Hayes

Verified account

@chrislhayes
Following Following @chrislhayes
More
Yesterday DOJ was sending around an opinion in which they managed to deport a woman who was kidnapped by rebels along with her husband, forced to watch as they made her husband dig his own grave and then murder him. They then made her their servant.

6:58 PM - 7 Jun 2018
4,612 Retweets 4,891 Likes Andrew Ⓥ🧘‍♂️🔬🗽🌊Two Cats SmithJDSarahMax HobermanhelloutofdodgeKindra CoatesJanBabycodylou13
223 replies 4,612 retweets 4,891 likes


Chris Hayes


13h13 hours ago

An immigration judge found that she had an asylum claim and could stay in the US, country but Sessions' DOJ said she was guilty of material support for terrorism because HER FORCED LABOR FOR THE REBELS THAT KIDNAPPED HER AND MURDERED HER HUSBAND COUNTED AS MATERIAL SUPPORT.


Chris Hayes

Verified account

@chrislhayes

So now they can deport her. Back to a country where said rebels now run the government.


ImageImageImage x4

Post Reply

Return to “Courts, Law, and Legal Issues”