Take Immigration Away from Judges, Legal Expert Says

[rangerrebew]

Take Immigration Away from Judges, Legal Expert Says

    Former magistrate contends federal judiciary has again overstepped its authority with new anti-Trump DACA ruling

    by Brendan Kirby | Updated 25 Apr 2018 at 12:49 PM

    In the wake of the latest blow to President Donald Trump’s authority to end a quasi-amnesty program created by his predecessor, Congress should limit the role of the courts, a former immigration law judge said Wednesday.

    Tuesday’s ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge John Bates, is the third to challenge the Trump administration’s authority to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Bates went further than the previous rulings, however, ordering the administration not only to keep current enrollees but also to start accepting new applicants within 90 days if officials cannot offer a better rationale for rescinding the program.

 

    https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/...l-expert-says/

[thackney]

https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/...l-expert-says/

@rangerrebew

The link does not work.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

How exactly? Make immigration authorities answerable to no one?

[Bigun]

How exactly? Make immigration authorities answerable to no one?

@Weird Tolkienish Figure

U.S. Constitution

Article III

Section 1

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2

1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;10 —between Citizens of different States, —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellateJurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

[endicom]

@rangerrebew

The link does not work.

A @rangerrebew specialty: https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/take-immigration-away-from-judges-legal-expert-says/

[Oceander]

@Weird Tolkienish Figure

U.S. Constitution

Article III

Section 1

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2

1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;10 —between Citizens of different States, —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellateJurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

You do realize that the highlighted language only applies to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, don’t you?

[Bigun]

You do realize that the highlighted language only applies to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, don’t you?

Which, I believe, constitutes the VAST majority of the cases they deal with.

[WingNot]

How exactly? Make immigration authorities answerable to no one?

The dems would do it if the rolls where reversed.