Congress, Judges, the Media, and Everyone Else Needs to Read this Bipartisan Report Before Opining on the Border
By Andrew R. Arthur on August 23, 2019
In my last post, I wrote about the final rule that will finally, after almost 22 years, implement and replace the settlement agreement in Flores v. Reno, and (if appropriately funded by Congress) end the humanitarian disaster at the Southwest border. In that post, I cited extensively the "Final Emergency Interim Report" from the Bipartisan CBP Families and Children Care Panel. Before anyone, in Congress or the media, offers his or her "opinion" about that final rule, they must (not "should", not "can", not "hey, it would be a good idea if you") read that report. Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers should slather it all over their briefs, and any judge who opines over the legality of that rule should respond to the findings therein in any decision. Private attorneys who file lawsuits in connection with that regulation should be forced to respond to those findings.
I’ve been a judge, and I know that judges keep busy dockets (although most Article III judges do not keep one as busy as mine or any other immigration judge, as any immigration judge would tell you with respect to their own respective dockets, plus they have dedicated clerks). I’ve been a DOJ attorney, and know that they must sift through voluminous records in making their case. I am a pundit, and know that in the Internet age, I am bombarded with reports and figures.
https://cis.org/Arthur/Congress-Judges-Media-and-Everyone-Else-Needs-Read-Bipartisan-Report-Opining-Border
