"“There shall be no judicial review…” is how the statute in question begins. But that wasn’t good enough for the Ninth Circuit judges — one Clinton and two Obama appointees."
___
If at first you don't succeed, try, try, try, try again.
Once upon a time I was out with my children and their cousin... my niece was misbehaving and I told her to "Stop"... that niece suffered from 'oppositional disorder' and she just kept doing what she was doing and I repeated my command to 'Stop'. My daughter looked at me, then she looked at her cousin and said, "Dawn, when he says it like that he means it, if I were you I'd stop!" My niece look at my daughter... looked at me... and just... stopped. The postscript was that, years later my niece confided in my daughter that "she hated that when I said something, she just did it because... I was the only person in her life... not her parents, not school authorities... nobody but her one uncle... that when they said "Stop!", she stopped!
The SCOTUS needs to make it clear that when they say "Stop!", they mean "Stop!".
I remember seeing a headline in 2015 when Trump won the Indiana primary: "Hoosier Daddy!" Good parenting does not always turn out good kids; but it sure helps.
It seems, not much. John Roberts has said that there are no Clinton judges, Obama judges, Bush judges, etc. But the judges keep proving him wrong. He has flexibility. He could write some guidelines, maybe move cases around and I think he’d be within his lane to refer judges to Congress for impeachment. He won’t do the least of those because he’s weak.
Noem “vacated” the orders of “Mayorkas.” Is this materially different from “terminating”the orders to replace them with the original statutes and the dates therein? Especially insofar as the language difference interferes only with the clause preventing judicial review?
Yes -- the point made by the Court is that the process for "terminating" TPS is set forth in the statute, and requires a certain amount processes to be followed in terms of obtaining information from other Govt agencies about the country covered by TPS. One aspect of the claim being made is that "vacating" TPS is the functional equivalent of "terminating" TPS and Noem did not follow the steps required by the statute. I would expect that they have been doing this while the case is pending so they can act as quickly regardless of the outcome of the case.
But I think they are continuing to press the matter in the courts over the issue of jurisdiction -- they are taking every opportunity to assert executive authority over immigration matters.
So Ship, can Noem simply terminate the TPS status? Her decision was to remove the extension, but it seems the inferior courts would have to support termination. Or am I being naive?
Yes but the process is somewhat involved. I think they have already started the process just in case. There are two separate groups of Venezuelans - the second group's TPS status expired this month so they might have just been waiting for both groups to expire -- that way they don't need to figure out which group a particular illegal alien from Venezuela was in.
It must be wonderful to sit at a lifetime appointment with the virtually unlimited ability to interfere with matters beyond your jurisdiction and no consequences for doing so.
As President Reagan, IIRC, once stated, "there's nothing so permanent as a temporary govt program." Or words to that effect. The TPS designation has a very long history of extensions continuing ad infinitum.
Ten countries (Wiki) have TPS status, while five originate prior to 2020. El Salvador since 2001 earthquake.
"“There shall be no judicial review…” is how the statute in question begins. But that wasn’t good enough for the Ninth Circuit judges — one Clinton and two Obama appointees."
___
If at first you don't succeed, try, try, try, try again.
Once upon a time I was out with my children and their cousin... my niece was misbehaving and I told her to "Stop"... that niece suffered from 'oppositional disorder' and she just kept doing what she was doing and I repeated my command to 'Stop'. My daughter looked at me, then she looked at her cousin and said, "Dawn, when he says it like that he means it, if I were you I'd stop!" My niece look at my daughter... looked at me... and just... stopped. The postscript was that, years later my niece confided in my daughter that "she hated that when I said something, she just did it because... I was the only person in her life... not her parents, not school authorities... nobody but her one uncle... that when they said "Stop!", she stopped!
The SCOTUS needs to make it clear that when they say "Stop!", they mean "Stop!".
I remember seeing a headline in 2015 when Trump won the Indiana primary: "Hoosier Daddy!" Good parenting does not always turn out good kids; but it sure helps.
I assume the Supreme Court justices take umbrage that their orders are being flouted by lower courts.
It seems, not much. John Roberts has said that there are no Clinton judges, Obama judges, Bush judges, etc. But the judges keep proving him wrong. He has flexibility. He could write some guidelines, maybe move cases around and I think he’d be within his lane to refer judges to Congress for impeachment. He won’t do the least of those because he’s weak.
He's such a dope!
Noem “vacated” the orders of “Mayorkas.” Is this materially different from “terminating”the orders to replace them with the original statutes and the dates therein? Especially insofar as the language difference interferes only with the clause preventing judicial review?
Yes -- the point made by the Court is that the process for "terminating" TPS is set forth in the statute, and requires a certain amount processes to be followed in terms of obtaining information from other Govt agencies about the country covered by TPS. One aspect of the claim being made is that "vacating" TPS is the functional equivalent of "terminating" TPS and Noem did not follow the steps required by the statute. I would expect that they have been doing this while the case is pending so they can act as quickly regardless of the outcome of the case.
But I think they are continuing to press the matter in the courts over the issue of jurisdiction -- they are taking every opportunity to assert executive authority over immigration matters.
So Ship, can Noem simply terminate the TPS status? Her decision was to remove the extension, but it seems the inferior courts would have to support termination. Or am I being naive?
Yes but the process is somewhat involved. I think they have already started the process just in case. There are two separate groups of Venezuelans - the second group's TPS status expired this month so they might have just been waiting for both groups to expire -- that way they don't need to figure out which group a particular illegal alien from Venezuela was in.
I hope you’re right.
It must be wonderful to sit at a lifetime appointment with the virtually unlimited ability to interfere with matters beyond your jurisdiction and no consequences for doing so.
Hindering the Government that is all this is.
See that’s just Common Sense. Terminating allows review, vacating doesn’t. And what difference is the effect on implementing policy?
As President Reagan, IIRC, once stated, "there's nothing so permanent as a temporary govt program." Or words to that effect. The TPS designation has a very long history of extensions continuing ad infinitum.
Ten countries (Wiki) have TPS status, while five originate prior to 2020. El Salvador since 2001 earthquake.
Since Trump seems determined to start a war with Venezuela it would be a good idea to return those illegal Venezuelans before the festivities begin.