Judge rules illegals have right to ‘say goodbye’ to family

[row_33]

10 minutes ago, simool said:

 

I get what you are trying to say here but where in the constitution is this mentioned? It's not. The federal courts most important power is that of judicial review, the authority to interpret the Constitution. At the point these judges go off the reservation and interpret the law in a way that appears to be legislating, Congress should act. Since Congress has been impotent for years, the President should act.

 

If the president or another member of the executive branch chooses to ignore a ruling, there is very little that the federal courts can do about it. It seems to be lost to history that Federal Courts have limited power to implement the decisions they make. This is no different than when Andrew Jackson ignored the Supreme Court, who had ruled against removing the Cherokee from their land. Jackson disagreed with the Supreme Court and he removed them anyway. The Supreme Court was powerless to enforce its decision.

 

Obviously we really screwed over the Indians, so this is not a great example but it illuminates that Andrew Jackson was probably our last President that had a set. In my opinion ignoring these instances of judicial activism is no different than the federal government ignoring immigration laws. You reap what you sow.

 

Jackson, Lincoln, Teddy R, FDR, Reagan, Trump all had sets.
 

[simool]

3 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

Jackson, Lincoln, Teddy R, FDR, Reagan, Trump all had sets.
 

 

FDR!!? There are so many things wrong with what FDR did I don't know where to start.  I can give you the other ones, but they never gut checked the Federal courts. Trump has a set, but he is a buffoon.

[row_33]

12 minutes ago, simool said:

 

FDR!!? There are so many things wrong with what FDR did I don't know where to start.  I can give you the other ones, but they never gut checked the Federal courts. Trump has a set, but he is a buffoon.

 

He had polio, so I guess physically FDR was weakened.  Otherwise he was a great president, included by me in that list of other greats with no hesitation...

 

 

[B-Man]

[simool]

51 minutes ago, row_33 said:

He had polio, so I guess physically FDR was weakened.  Otherwise he was a great president, included by me in that list of other greats with no hesitation...

 

You sound just like my old man. I understand FDR has popular opinion. But if WWII had not come along, FDR would have been remembered as one of the worst presidents.  I cannot think of another president who attacked the constitution more vigorously.  Ironically, if not for the Supreme Court striking down a good portion of his New Deal legislation we would more than likely be closer to fascism than a republic (or a democracy if that floats your boat). While Thomas Dewey is largely forgettable barring a large headline in a black and white photo of Truman, I give him major props for championing the 22nd amendment.

[row_33]

10 minutes ago, simool said:

 

You sound just like my old man. I understand FDR has popular opinion. But if WWII had not come along, FDR would have been remembered as one of the worst presidents.  I cannot think of another president who attacked the constitution more vigorously.  Ironically, if not for the Supreme Court striking down a good portion of his New Deal legislation we would more than likely be closer to fascism than a republic (or a democracy if that floats your boat). While Thomas Dewey is largely forgettable barring a large headline in a black and white photo of Truman, I give him major props for championing the 22nd amendment.

 

World War 2 is a pretty big IF to try to wash out of history, you know that, right?

 

 

 

 

 

 

not even Tibs would try to pretend World War 2 didn't happen

 

 

[sherpa]

This is nonsense.

Illegals are here in the active commission of a crime that they had full knowledge of.

In no other ongoing crime is there an excuse by the perpetrator that the victim allowed them to become "part of the fabric."

Not being prosecuted for a crime is not an implied allowance that it was ever acceptable.

 

Judges like this frighten me, but Jefferson expressed concern about this overstepping a couple centuries ago.

 

The first time one of these "protected goodbyes" goes awry, there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Edited January 30, 2018 by sherpa

[simool]

Just now, row_33 said:

World War 2 is a pretty big IF to try to wash out of history, you know that, right?

 

not even Tibs would try to pretend World War 2 didn't happen

 

Selective reader?  Where did I try and wash it out of history? or pretend it did not happen?

 

Quite the contrary, I acknowledge it and then I say it saved FDR's ass.  If it hadn't, the Depression would have been far more severe.  Which is remarkable because it was pretty friggin severe anyway.

[B-Man]

FTA:

 

On Monday Judge Forrest ordered the release from custody Ravidath Ragbir, an alien who ICE had detained and was preparing to deport. Judge Forrest twice notes that the government was in complete conformity with statutory law: “The Court in fact agrees with the Government that the statutory scheme—when one picks the path through the thicket in the corn maze—allows them to do what was done here.” And: “The Court agrees that the statutory scheme governing petitioner’s status is properly read to allow for his removal without further right of contest.”

 

This should be the end of the matter then, shouldn’t it?

 

{snip}

 

By the way, who is Ragbir? The Washington Post yesterday filled in some of the blanks:

Ragbir is the director of the immigrant advocacy group New Sanctuary Coalition in New York, a collection of 150 faith-based organizations. He became a lawful U.S. resident in 1994. In 2000, he was convicted of wire fraud and conspiracy for accepting fraudulent loan applications while working at a mortgage lender. [Yet Judge Forrest says Ragbir has lived in the country “without incident.”]

 

After serving a prison sentence, he was ordered deported based on his conviction. He spent about two years in detention but was released under supervision in 2008 while his case moved through immigration courts. Over the following decade, he became a prominent voice in New York’s immigrant community, testifying before the city council and once meeting with President Barack Obama’s transition team to discuss immigration policy, according to his attorneys.

 

 

 

In other words, Ragbir has been slated for deportation for nearly 10 years. Seems like that was plenty of time to arrange to say goodbye and get his affairs in order.

 

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/01/the-right-to-say-goodbye.php

[simool]

Quote

There is, and ought to be in this great country, the freedom to say goodbye. That is, the freedom to hug one’s spouse and children, the freedom to organize the myriad of human affairs that collect over time. It ought to be—and it has never before been—that those who have lived without incident in this country for years are subject to treatment we associate with regimes we revile as unjust [you mean like the Obama Administration arresting and jailing an obscure video producer after Benghazi??], regimes where those who have lived long in a country may be taken without notice from streets, home and work. And sent away.

 

This is becoming ridiculous. Congress should absolutely be impeaching these morons.  Granted a Federal judge has only been impeached like 7 times, they would only need to do it once to get everyones attention. Barring that, the President should order him deported immediately.  FU Judge Slappy.

[Koko78]

3 hours ago, simool said:

 

This is becoming ridiculous. Congress should absolutely be impeaching these morons.  Granted a Federal judge has only been impeached like 7 times, they would only need to do it once to get everyones attention.

 

Well, at least they finally got Nixon...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._United_States

[simool]

4 hours ago, Koko78 said:

 

Well, at least they finally got Nixon...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._United_States

 

I had forgotten about that.  Interesting reading.  Thanks for posting that link.

 

Quote

 

Article I. Sec. 3 of the Constitution gave the Senate the "sole power to try all impeachments." .... there was a textually demonstrable commitment to give broad discretion to the Senate in impeachments. .... the judicial branch is "checked" by impeachments so judicial involvement in impeachments might violate the doctrine of separation of powers. The Court further ruled that involving the judiciary would prevent finality without clear remedy and bias post-impeachment criminal or civil prosecutions, which the Constitution explicitly allows.