US Marshalls told not to follow court orders but to heed US Attorney General

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a press release from some lawyers, saying that CBP was refusing service of the court orders, and so were the US Marshals.

https://mobile.twitter.com/rotophonic/status/826535098623225857

Yup, this very dangerous movement is already under way. Even more reason for Democrats to resist the new SC nomination and keep the current make-up as long as possible. It also explains why Trump is pushing the GOP Senate wants to remove Nuclear Option as quickly as possible.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2017/01/30/hidden-danger-of-trump-immigration-orders-dismissal-of-court-orders/#2b023832cf4f

http://www.salon.com/2017/01/31/trumps-muslim-ban-could-provoke-a-constitutional-crisis-will-the-executive-branch-ignore-the-courts/

p

This is extremely dangerous. No SC hearings until the tax returns are released and the executive branch heeds the judicial. We can't go on as if this is business as usual.

Here's an article on "judicial reform" by tossing out Marbury. This seems to be bubbling up in conservative legal circles:
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/12/6th-circuit-transgenderism-is-settled-law

omg

They expect Gorsuch to spearhead gutting Chevron deference. Conservative judicial activism on the march.

More info here:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2017/01/26/bureaucrats-may-be-the-losers-if-gorsuch-wins-a-seat-on-supreme-court/#430bd60f460f

Would vacating Chevron have any effect in relation to MvM? Right now we appear to have a crisis where the executive branch in wantonly ignoring the judicial rulings. That seems much larger in scope than Chevron.

They're different. Getting rid of Chevron effectively gives MORE power to the judicial branch, because the courts could overrule the Executive (ie agency interpretations of the law.) Getting rid of Marbury is a complete nuclear option destroying the balance of power by gutting the courts.

Stop.

Chevron simply stands for the proposition that courts should defer to agencies when faced with ambiguous legislation. In other words, when Congress rights crap laws, courts should let agencies use their expertise to figure it out when writing regulations.

Scalia said no (as does Gorsuch). They say that it is Congress's job to write unambiguous laws. Agencies should not be empowered to second guess congress or to rewrite legislation. Instead, it should be sent back to Congress so they can do the job right.

What are you even trying to say? The executive's job is to execute the law. It's not possible for Congress to write laws with such a ministerial level of detail that the executive can carry them out without further interpretation of the law, in most cases. That's the whole reason we have agencies. There is ALWAYS going to be the need for the executive to interpret the law in order to execute it.

Are you trying to say that every law that does not give literal, ministerial directions to the President is going to be vacated by the Courts? I don't think so. What you're saying is that the courts are going to tell the agencies what the law means, in their opinion. That indeed gives a lot more power to the courts. (They already do a lot of this anyway by an overly expansive definition of "arbitrary and capricious" so I'm not sure how much will change in practice.)

That's not what Chevron says. Go read it. Then have someone explain it to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a press release from some lawyers, saying that CBP was refusing service of the court orders, and so were the US Marshals.

https://mobile.twitter.com/rotophonic/status/826535098623225857

Yup, this very dangerous movement is already under way. Even more reason for Democrats to resist the new SC nomination and keep the current make-up as long as possible. It also explains why Trump is pushing the GOP Senate wants to remove Nuclear Option as quickly as possible.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2017/01/30/hidden-danger-of-trump-immigration-orders-dismissal-of-court-orders/#2b023832cf4f

http://www.salon.com/2017/01/31/trumps-muslim-ban-could-provoke-a-constitutional-crisis-will-the-executive-branch-ignore-the-courts/

p

This is extremely dangerous. No SC hearings until the tax returns are released and the executive branch heeds the judicial. We can't go on as if this is business as usual.

Here's an article on "judicial reform" by tossing out Marbury. This seems to be bubbling up in conservative legal circles:
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/12/6th-circuit-transgenderism-is-settled-law

omg

They expect Gorsuch to spearhead gutting Chevron deference. Conservative judicial activism on the march.

More info here:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2017/01/26/bureaucrats-may-be-the-losers-if-gorsuch-wins-a-seat-on-supreme-court/#430bd60f460f

Would vacating Chevron have any effect in relation to MvM? Right now we appear to have a crisis where the executive branch in wantonly ignoring the judicial rulings. That seems much larger in scope than Chevron.

They're different. Getting rid of Chevron effectively gives MORE power to the judicial branch, because the courts could overrule the Executive (ie agency interpretations of the law.) Getting rid of Marbury is a complete nuclear option destroying the balance of power by gutting the courts.

Stop.

Chevron simply stands for the proposition that courts should defer to agencies when faced with ambiguous legislation. In other words, when Congress rights crap laws, courts should let agencies use their expertise to figure it out when writing regulations.

Scalia said no (as does Gorsuch). They say that it is Congress's job to write unambiguous laws. Agencies should not be empowered to second guess congress or to rewrite legislation. Instead, it should be sent back to Congress so they can do the job right.

What are you even trying to say? The executive's job is to execute the law. It's not possible for Congress to write laws with such a ministerial level of detail that the executive can carry them out without further interpretation of the law, in most cases. That's the whole reason we have agencies. There is ALWAYS going to be the need for the executive to interpret the law in order to execute it.

Are you trying to say that every law that does not give literal, ministerial directions to the President is going to be vacated by the Courts? I don't think so. What you're saying is that the courts are going to tell the agencies what the law means, in their opinion. That indeed gives a lot more power to the courts. (They already do a lot of this anyway by an overly expansive definition of "arbitrary and capricious" so I'm not sure how much will change in practice.)

... but don't listen to me, read what Gorush himself said in his criticism of Chevron: "Chevron and Brand X permit executive bureaucracies to swallow huge amounts of core judicial and legislative power and concentrate federal power ... Chevron seems no less than a judge-made doctrine for the abdication of the judicial duty."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DHS is launching an internal investigation into the rollout of the travel ban and the problems described in this thread.

https://theintercept.com/2017/02/01/homeland-security-inspector-general-opens-investigation-of-muslim-ban-rollout-orders-document-preservation/

They'll find it was initially flawed, but the superlative efforts of its employees saved the day and everything was fixed in minutes.

Then they'll give themselves medals and bonuses for extraordinary effort under threatening conditions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a press release from some lawyers, saying that CBP was refusing service of the court orders, and so were the US Marshals.

https://mobile.twitter.com/rotophonic/status/826535098623225857

Yup, this very dangerous movement is already under way. Even more reason for Democrats to resist the new SC nomination and keep the current make-up as long as possible. It also explains why Trump is pushing the GOP Senate wants to remove Nuclear Option as quickly as possible.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2017/01/30/hidden-danger-of-trump-immigration-orders-dismissal-of-court-orders/#2b023832cf4f

http://www.salon.com/2017/01/31/trumps-muslim-ban-could-provoke-a-constitutional-crisis-will-the-executive-branch-ignore-the-courts/

p

This is extremely dangerous. No SC hearings until the tax returns are released and the executive branch heeds the judicial. We can't go on as if this is business as usual.

Here's an article on "judicial reform" by tossing out Marbury. This seems to be bubbling up in conservative legal circles:
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/12/6th-circuit-transgenderism-is-settled-law

omg

They expect Gorsuch to spearhead gutting Chevron deference. Conservative judicial activism on the march.

More info here:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2017/01/26/bureaucrats-may-be-the-losers-if-gorsuch-wins-a-seat-on-supreme-court/#430bd60f460f

Would vacating Chevron have any effect in relation to MvM? Right now we appear to have a crisis where the executive branch in wantonly ignoring the judicial rulings. That seems much larger in scope than Chevron.

They're different. Getting rid of Chevron effectively gives MORE power to the judicial branch, because the courts could overrule the Executive (ie agency interpretations of the law.) Getting rid of Marbury is a complete nuclear option destroying the balance of power by gutting the courts.

Stop.

Chevron simply stands for the proposition that courts should defer to agencies when faced with ambiguous legislation. In other words, when Congress rights crap laws, courts should let agencies use their expertise to figure it out when writing regulations.

Scalia said no (as does Gorsuch). They say that it is Congress's job to write unambiguous laws. Agencies should not be empowered to second guess congress or to rewrite legislation. Instead, it should be sent back to Congress so they can do the job right.

What are you even trying to say? The executive's job is to execute the law. It's not possible for Congress to write laws with such a ministerial level of detail that the executive can carry them out without further interpretation of the law, in most cases. That's the whole reason we have agencies. There is ALWAYS going to be the need for the executive to interpret the law in order to execute it.

Are you trying to say that every law that does not give literal, ministerial directions to the President is going to be vacated by the Courts? I don't think so. What you're saying is that the courts are going to tell the agencies what the law means, in their opinion. That indeed gives a lot more power to the courts. (They already do a lot of this anyway by an overly expansive definition of "arbitrary and capricious" so I'm not sure how much will change in practice.)

That's not what Chevron says. Go read it. Then have someone explain it to you.

Oh, please, spare me your gunner hystrionics. The implication of reviewing Chevron is obviously to give power back to the judiciary and take it away from the executive (and legislature). That is, in fact, exactly what Gorsuch says, in great clarity, in his concurrence in Guitierrez-Brizuela:

"Transferring the job of saying what the law is from the judiciary to the executive unsurprisingly invites the very sort of due process (fair notice) and equal protection concerns the framers knew would arise if the political branches intruded on judicial functions."



What else can it mean?

[Anonymous]

I think the MvM and Chevron debate is fascinating, though I'm not a lawyer so can't really meaningfully participate. I would suggest, though, starting a new thread since there are still ongoing developments on the original topic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DHS is launching an internal investigation into the rollout of the travel ban and the problems described in this thread.

https://theintercept.com/2017/02/01/homeland-security-inspector-general-opens-investigation-of-muslim-ban-rollout-orders-document-preservation/

They'll find it was initially flawed, but the superlative efforts of its employees saved the day and everything was fixed in minutes.

Then they'll give themselves medals and bonuses for extraordinary effort under threatening conditions.

IG is independent of the agencies, and most tend to be fairly critical of them. I don't know much about the DHS IG.

The linked article, however, says that the IG could face getting replaced for being critical of the agency. This would not surprise me, but it would be one more deeply disturbing thing whose gravity not enough people will appreciate.

[Anonymous]

UPDATED


This is the article just posted by the journalist who had the original lengthy thread on twitter:

https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/charlotte-silver/are-us-marshals-refusing-enforce-court-orders-against-trumps-muslim-ban

[Anonymous]

A new broader injunction was just issued. It's unclear how much of an effect it will have, since other court orders have been disregarded.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-federal-order-travel-ban-20170201-story,amp.html?client=ms-android-verizon

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a press release from some lawyers, saying that CBP was refusing service of the court orders, and so were the US Marshals.

https://mobile.twitter.com/rotophonic/status/826535098623225857

Yup, this very dangerous movement is already under way. Even more reason for Democrats to resist the new SC nomination and keep the current make-up as long as possible. It also explains why Trump is pushing the GOP Senate wants to remove Nuclear Option as quickly as possible.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2017/01/30/hidden-danger-of-trump-immigration-orders-dismissal-of-court-orders/#2b023832cf4f

http://www.salon.com/2017/01/31/trumps-muslim-ban-could-provoke-a-constitutional-crisis-will-the-executive-branch-ignore-the-courts/

p

This is extremely dangerous. No SC hearings until the tax returns are released and the executive branch heeds the judicial. We can't go on as if this is business as usual.

Here's an article on "judicial reform" by tossing out Marbury. This seems to be bubbling up in conservative legal circles:
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/12/6th-circuit-transgenderism-is-settled-law

omg

They expect Gorsuch to spearhead gutting Chevron deference. Conservative judicial activism on the march.

More info here:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2017/01/26/bureaucrats-may-be-the-losers-if-gorsuch-wins-a-seat-on-supreme-court/#430bd60f460f

Would vacating Chevron have any effect in relation to MvM? Right now we appear to have a crisis where the executive branch in wantonly ignoring the judicial rulings. That seems much larger in scope than Chevron.

They're different. Getting rid of Chevron effectively gives MORE power to the judicial branch, because the courts could overrule the Executive (ie agency interpretations of the law.) Getting rid of Marbury is a complete nuclear option destroying the balance of power by gutting the courts.

Stop.

Chevron simply stands for the proposition that courts should defer to agencies when faced with ambiguous legislation. In other words, when Congress rights crap laws, courts should let agencies use their expertise to figure it out when writing regulations.

Scalia said no (as does Gorsuch). They say that it is Congress's job to write unambiguous laws. Agencies should not be empowered to second guess congress or to rewrite legislation. Instead, it should be sent back to Congress so they can do the job right.

What are you even trying to say? The executive's job is to execute the law. It's not possible for Congress to write laws with such a ministerial level of detail that the executive can carry them out without further interpretation of the law, in most cases. That's the whole reason we have agencies. There is ALWAYS going to be the need for the executive to interpret the law in order to execute it.

Are you trying to say that every law that does not give literal, ministerial directions to the President is going to be vacated by the Courts? I don't think so. What you're saying is that the courts are going to tell the agencies what the law means, in their opinion. That indeed gives a lot more power to the courts. (They already do a lot of this anyway by an overly expansive definition of "arbitrary and capricious" so I'm not sure how much will change in practice.)

+1. Just read the first five pages of the thread, and this is the most spot-on comment.
Congress to write. Executive to administer. Courts to judge when ambiguous. Going back to the OP, these guys need to be following courts stat. Otherwise, they'll be sued. So fast.

Now, that's what trump wants. Or bannon. Whatever. They're testing out the waters, obviously. Let's make sure the test gives them the answer we want them to see. Executive is not all powerful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A new broader injunction was just issued. It's unclear how much of an effect it will have, since other court orders have been disregarded.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-federal-order-travel-ban-20170201-story,amp.html?client=ms-android-verizon

air carriers need to be added as defendants if they are refusing to issue tickets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a press release from some lawyers, saying that CBP was refusing service of the court orders, and so were the US Marshals.

https://mobile.twitter.com/rotophonic/status/826535098623225857

Yup, this very dangerous movement is already under way. Even more reason for Democrats to resist the new SC nomination and keep the current make-up as long as possible. It also explains why Trump is pushing the GOP Senate wants to remove Nuclear Option as quickly as possible.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2017/01/30/hidden-danger-of-trump-immigration-orders-dismissal-of-court-orders/#2b023832cf4f

http://www.salon.com/2017/01/31/trumps-muslim-ban-could-provoke-a-constitutional-crisis-will-the-executive-branch-ignore-the-courts/

p

This is extremely dangerous. No SC hearings until the tax returns are released and the executive branch heeds the judicial. We can't go on as if this is business as usual.

Here's an article on "judicial reform" by tossing out Marbury. This seems to be bubbling up in conservative legal circles:
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/12/6th-circuit-transgenderism-is-settled-law

omg

They expect Gorsuch to spearhead gutting Chevron deference. Conservative judicial activism on the march.

Nice prediction here. It took 7 years, but they didn't take the eye off the ball. The Chevron conversation in this thread is amusing in hindsight.