Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those CBP agents better lawyer up; can you say Bivens Actions?

The low-level guys will be certified as acting within the scope of their authority assuming they are following orders. It's the higher-ups who may be in trouble but only if they are willfully defying a judge's order. Given the confusion that's not a given.

Depends on how long this goes on. It's looking more like disobedience and contempt and less like confusion.

https://www.washingtonian.com/2017/01/29/customs-and-border-protection-still-not-allowing-lawyers-to-see-detainees/

But it's Sunday. If there's no clarification and action on Monday, then we'll see.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes it's the law based on court precedent but it isn't dictated by the constitution. So saying that the executive officers "won't follow the constitution" is not accurate. Just pointing that out.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you are not a lawyer...

I'm guess your right. Pp read head something on FoxNews and decided to play one on DCUM.

PP-- leaving the lawyers to, you know, lawyers.

Anonymous wrote:Those CBP agents better lawyer up; can you say Bivens Actions?

The low-level guys will be certified as acting within the scope of their authority assuming they are following orders. It's the higher-ups who may be in trouble but only if they are willfully defying a judge's order. Given the confusion that's not a given.

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.

Yes it's the law based on court precedent but it isn't dictated by the constitution. So saying that the executive officers "won't follow the constitution" is not accurate. Just pointing that out.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you are not a lawyer...

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.

It's admittedly been a few years since I looked into this, but to the best of my knowledge Marbury v. Madison is still good law.

Anonymous wrote:Those CBP agents better lawyer up; can you say Bivens Actions?

CBP guys don't know about laws. They need a good boss to tell them what's what. Too bad he was fired day before yesterday.

Those CBP agents better lawyer up; can you say Bivens Actions?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sen. Schumer said he just talked to Gen. Kelly and CBP will comply. Let's hope so.

Secretary Kelly, please. I'm a little twitchy about the prospect of military power over civilian government at the moment.

Kelly is a much better leader than Bannon. Be thankful that he's in charge.

http://www.wbur.org/news/2017/01/29/boston-ruling-trump-executive-order

^^^^

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

And yet DHS issued a statement saying they will comply with the Court orders.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/ny-immigration-order-stay/

F--k you Cheeto. Constitution 1. Bannon 0

All that the stay requires is that they are not deported pending a hearing to take place in February. They don't have to be allowed to enter the country. They may be held at the airport or at a detention center.

Nope. Looks like the Boston order says that anyone being held anywhere in the US under any visa, green card or refugee status cannot be detained. Not at ISD. Not at JFK. Not anywhere. And requires international airlines to inform passenegers with any visa or refugee or green card status what they can be re-routed and enter the country through Logan for the next seven days. At which point a hearing will be held to give Bannon the bitch slap he so richly deserves.

Anonymous wrote:Sen. Schumer said he just talked to Gen. Kelly and CBP will comply. Let's hope so.

Secretary Kelly, please. I'm a little twitchy about the prospect of military power over civilian government at the moment.

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.

Yes it's the law based on court precedent but it isn't dictated by the constitution. So saying that the executive officers "won't follow the constitution" is not accurate. Just pointing that out.

Please tell me that you are not calling into question the entire concept of Judicial review and arguing that, "Strictly speaking, anything that isn't directly written into the constitution has no bearing of our understanding of constitutionality." Marbury vs. Madison established that Judicial review is how we determine if things are constitutional. If you want to start a new country with a new set of laws and legal precedents, go somewehre else.

Sen. Schumer said he just talked to Gen. Kelly and CBP will comply. Let's hope so.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

And yet DHS issued a statement saying they will comply with the Court orders.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/ny-immigration-order-stay/

F--k you Cheeto. Constitution 1. Bannon 0

All that the stay requires is that they are not deported pending a hearing to take place in February. They don't have to be allowed to enter the country. They may be held at the airport or at a detention center.

Anonymous wrote: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.

And yet DHS issued a statement saying they will comply with the Court orders.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/ny-immigration-order-stay/

F--k you Cheeto. Constitution 1. Bannon 0