Customs agents refuse to follow court order and continue enforcement the executive order

[Anonymous]

Yawn. . .

[Anonymous]

The judge's ruling was to grant help to those enroute, about 200 people.

The executive order is valid for all others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Meh. Obama ordered his administration to violate laws and to ignore others.

Obama repeatedly violated his oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution and laws of the United States. So in defending our country as best he can, I can't fault the President for following Obama's example.

Point to one Court decision that Obama disobeyed. When the Court of Appeals stuck down him immigration EO and the Supreme Court failed to intervene, he said he was upset, and then obeyed the damn ruling. He did not order DHS to ignore the Court, like Trump is doing.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/politics/immigration-supreme-court/

You really can't justify this by saying "but Obama" and "but Hillary". They aren't President. And what Trump just did clearly violates the constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meh. Obama ordered his administration to violate laws and to ignore others.

Obama repeatedly violated his oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution and laws of the United States. So in defending our country as best he can, I can't fault the President for following Obama's example.

citation and source? didn't think so.

Pretty sure he droned a US citizen without any due process

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Send in the US Marshals.

+1. This is what happens next. The Marshals are the Judicial systems law enforcement branch. They go in and compel compliance. The Judge should be able to hold ICE agents in contempts. Possibly jail. But this sets up a scenario when Trump (okay Bannon) tries to stop the marshals (FBI? National Guard? I'm guessing FBI since he has Comey in his pocket). And it could get very ugly, very fast, and what happens next is unpredictable. We have three branches of government for a reason. And whether you support Trump or not, this should disturb you greatly. Because Trump just have the Constitution the big middle finger.

Trump should have taken Mr. Kahn's pocket copy of the Constitution and read it. Also, I'm pretty sure Trump does not know the difference between a green card, a student visa, a tourist visa, an H1B visa, a citizen from visa waiver country, and an illegal alien.

Customs and DHS are as well-armed as the US Marshals. The could just as easily arrest the marshals for trying to obstruct DHS's customs operations.

Which is really a constitutional nightmare, when two branches of the federal government end up in a shootout. If Trump gave this order, it's illegal, and we have had our first clear and unambiguous impeachable offense.

If we get to that point, there's no way trump would comply with impeachment procedures. Some of the military would likely be loyal to him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to be held in contempt and arrested.

ICE agents work for Trump. If they don't follow their boss' order, they would be in contempt.

This is clearly within the authority of the executive branch to implement policies for public safety. The constitutionality of the order will be decided by the supreme court.

No, they are in contempt of court. They have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution. That means respecting checks and balances and the ability of the judicial branch to stay implementation of Federal law/EOs pending review of the legality/constitutionality. Trump does not get to unilaterally demand that Federal employees (who do not work for Trump directly) do his bidding no matter what.

It's actually not required by the constitution that the courts have the ultimate say on whether something is constitutional and that the other branches must comply. That idea didn't come around until Mabury v. Madison. It's just as defensible to say that executive branch officers that swore an oath to uphold the constitution have a duty to ignore an incorrect court order.

That's a great point. Let's ignore Marbury vs Madison. And maybe while we are at it, you get to ignore Brown vs Board of Education, while I ignore Citizens United?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meh. Obama ordered his administration to violate laws and to ignore others.

Obama repeatedly violated his oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution and laws of the United States. So in defending our country as best he can, I can't fault the President for following Obama's example.

citation and source? didn't think so.

Pretty sure he droned a US citizen without any due process

Obama did do that. Crickets...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to be held in contempt and arrested.

ICE agents work for Trump. If they don't follow their boss' order, they would be in contempt.

This is clearly within the authority of the executive branch to implement policies for public safety. The constitutionality of the order will be decided by the supreme court.

No, they are in contempt of court. They have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution. That means respecting checks and balances and the ability of the judicial branch to stay implementation of Federal law/EOs pending review of the legality/constitutionality. Trump does not get to unilaterally demand that Federal employees (who do not work for Trump directly) do his bidding no matter what.

It's actually not required by the constitution that the courts have the ultimate say on whether something is constitutional and that the other branches must comply. That idea didn't come around until Mabury v. Madison. It's just as defensible to say that executive branch officers that swore an oath to uphold the constitution have a duty to ignore an incorrect court order.

I it isn't just as defensible because Marburg v Madison is the law of the US. You are advocating an upending of the entire system of laws of our country.

The Court gets to interpret what is and is not Constitutional. They did in Marbury vs Madison. You may not like how that plays out in this case, but I bet PP loved it when it stayed Obama's immigration EO and he had to admit defeat. Didn't you? You don't get to pick and choose what Court rulings you will follow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meh. Obama ordered his administration to violate laws and to ignore others.

Obama repeatedly violated his oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution and laws of the United States. So in defending our country as best he can, I can't fault the President for following Obama's example.

citation and source? didn't think so.

Pretty sure he droned a US citizen without any due process

Pretty sure? Well get very sure before you spout off. Come back with a cite showing that he did this and the Courts said it was illegal. Because the DOJ signed off on al-Awlaki, and the Courts did not stop it.

And also, obama isn't president. Ever heard of 2 wrongs not making a right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meh. Obama ordered his administration to violate laws and to ignore others.

Obama repeatedly violated his oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution and laws of the United States. So in defending our country as best he can, I can't fault the President for following Obama's example.

citation and source? didn't think so.

Pretty sure he droned a US citizen without any due process

Obama did do that. Crickets...

He did target a US citizen with a drone strike. There was due process and a classified DOJ memo was later released. The courts did not intervene. I personally think this is awful. But it was not illegal. But glad you think some terrorist lives matter.

Now, back to the actual president ...

[Anonymous]

What happens is the following:

The ACLU goes back before the judge whose order is being apparently ignored. They will seek an order finding CBP and DHS in contempt.

If the judge finds merit to this argument, she (or he) may issue and order to show cause why the top officers of whatever section of CBP, the acting head of CBP and the head of DHS should not be held in contempt.

The DOJ lawyers (probably present on DCUM) will hem and haw and talk about national security, executive action, separation of powers and a whole bunch of BS. They will say that these folks cannot be bothered with something as trite as this hearing.

The judge will listen and grant them 10 days to show cause.

On day 9 something else will happen.

Or, these guys will flout the order and the judge will compel personal appearances so that he/she may question those folk. If no cause is shown, she/he may order their detention until such time as the order is complied with.

The dedicated DOJ will then ask for a stay until such time as the matter can be appealed. It will be granted.

In the end, though, nothing will happen. Judges are really reluctant to jail administration officials. That's too bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What happens is the following:

The ACLU goes back before the judge whose order is being apparently ignored. They will seek an order finding CBP and DHS in contempt.

If the judge finds merit to this argument, she (or he) may issue and order to show cause why the top officers of whatever section of CBP, the acting head of CBP and the head of DHS should not be held in contempt.

The DOJ lawyers (probably present on DCUM) will hem and haw and talk about national security, executive action, separation of powers and a whole bunch of BS. They will say that these folks cannot be bothered with something as trite as this hearing.

The judge will listen and grant them 10 days to show cause.

On day 9 something else will happen.

Or, these guys will flout the order and the judge will compel personal appearances so that he/she may question those folk. If no cause is shown, she/he may order their detention until such time as the order is complied with.

The dedicated DOJ will then ask for a stay until such time as the matter can be appealed. It will be granted.

In the end, though, nothing will happen. Judges are really reluctant to jail administration officials. That's too bad.

So we are back to what Andrew Jackson said about how John Marshall was going to enforce his decision!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What happens is the following:

The ACLU goes back before the judge whose order is being apparently ignored. They will seek an order finding CBP and DHS in contempt.

If the judge finds merit to this argument, she (or he) may issue and order to show cause why the top officers of whatever section of CBP, the acting head of CBP and the head of DHS should not be held in contempt.

The DOJ lawyers (probably present on DCUM) will hem and haw and talk about national security, executive action, separation of powers and a whole bunch of BS. They will say that these folks cannot be bothered with something as trite as this hearing.

The judge will listen and grant them 10 days to show cause.

On day 9 something else will happen.

Or, these guys will flout the order and the judge will compel personal appearances so that he/she may question those folk. If no cause is shown, she/he may order their detention until such time as the order is complied with.

The dedicated DOJ will then ask for a stay until such time as the matter can be appealed. It will be granted.

In the end, though, nothing will happen. Judges are really reluctant to jail administration officials. That's too bad.

I don't know. The flagrant and dangerous disregard going on here has the potential to really piss the Judge off.

[Anonymous]

There was just a statement from a"senior official" ststing they aren't going to comply with court orders. I'm speechless. Check Kelly O'Donnells twitter feed.

[Anonymous]

People need to re-route to Boston, they will let them in there because of stay in MA is broader.