White House says judicial ruling on border at WAR with rule of law

On Wednesday a federal judge decided that the White House can no longer detain immigrants applying for asylum without a bond hearing:

ABC NEWS – The nationwide injunction issued by Seattle District Judge Marsha Pechman put a hold Attorney General William Barr’s order from April that U.S. authorities would deny bond hearings to some migrants detained for being in the U.S. illegally, even if they had established a “credible fear” claim regarding conditions in their country of origin.

Prior to Barr’s order, an applicant who met that standard could remain in the U.S. and not be detained while the asylum application was pending.

“It is the finding of this Court that it is unconstitutional to deny these class members a bond hearing while they await a final determination of their asylum request,” Pechman wrote in her order. “The court finds that plaintiffs have established a constitutionally-protected interest in their liberty, a right to due process, which includes a hearing before a neutral decision maker to assess the necessity of their detention and a likelihood of success on the merits of that issue.”

The ruling said that the government must grant eligible asylum-seekers a bond hearing within seven days of their initial detention, and that if no hearing is held in that period, the detained migrant must be released.

So basically all the immigrants would have to be set free in the US because I doubt there’s any way possible they could accommodate bond hearings from every migrant seeking asylum.

The White House responded saying this ruling is a war on the rule of law:



The judge who made this ruling is a Clinton appointee, which is ironic, because the law she’s declaring unconstitutional was signed into law by President Clinton.

Daniel Horowitz explains just how radical her ruling really is on this issue:

There are no words in the English language to describe the radical nature of this ruling. Section 235(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which passed the Senate unanimously in 1996, says that those seeking asylum “shall be detained for further consideration of the application of asylum.” Now, in a growing trend among judges in the district courts within the Ninth Circuit, a judge is saying that the law itself violates the Fifth Amendment. Pechman claimed that this administration’s implementation of the 1996 law violates “50 years of statutory and case law supporting the right of persons detained for non-criminal reasons to be released upon posting bond.”

In fact, her application of bond hearings to aliens within the context of immigration proceedings is a violation of settled case law. As the court established in U.S. v. Ju Toy (1905), “The petitioner, although physically within our boundaries, is to be regarded as if he had been stopped at the limit of our jurisdiction, and kept there while his right to enter was under debate.” There is no Fifth Amendment right because one cannot unilaterally assert jurisdiction before being admitted to the country. Jurisdiction for constitutional rights is a legal distinction, not a physical one.

So essentially this judge is trying to force bond hearings when none are required and if that can’t be accommodated, then catch and release.

I’m certain the Trump administration will appeal this ruling, if they haven’t already, because this judicial activism cannot stand.

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

146 thoughts on “White House says judicial ruling on border at WAR with rule of law

  1. The Ninth Circuit’s going to rule in favor of the plaintiffs because their case law pretty much dictates it. This ruling is equally predictable insofar as this judge has to apply ninth circuit precedent.

    It will be very interesting to see how this goes when it gets up to SCOTUS. Contrary to what Horowitz seems to imply, Ju Toy was by no means the last word on this issue. Really, this is the exact type of constitutional challenge that they were didn’t have to resolve in Nielsen v Preap, but which the conservative justices pretty much signaled they’d resolve in favor of immigrants’ rights to not be subject to indefinite detention without a hearing if someone asked them to decide that issue. 7 days seems like a pretty short timeline to impose, but I’ll be surprised if SCOTUS holds that indefinite detention in these circumstances is constitutional given that they’ve already held that potentially removable aliens have a right to be free of indefinite detention. But, of course, I’ve been surprised before.

  2. This is going to keep happening with ever more extreme rulings, until on day the president says, “We’re just gong to ignore this court order.”

    Because it can’t go on forever.

    Nobody really wants to reach that point, because then the other side will use it to justify whatever they want to do when they get power. But the left is already going to do that.

    For all the posturing from the media about the “rule of law,” the left just wants power. They’re not just enemies of the rule of law. They’re enemies of the current Constitutional system, because it keeps them from getting complete control.

    The right is engaged in a fight to preserve the Constitutional system against the left, which wants to destroy the system completely. You can see it in the way the left took over the educational system, and started indoctrinating children into the belief the US is fundamentally corrupt. They hate the Constitution.

    You can see it in the way the left, once they get in power at a city, starts to dismantle the police and prevent any attempts to enforce the law. To the left, the legal system is just another means to power.

    You can see it in Portland now, where domestic terrorists like Antifa are protected when they attack their foes.

    Trump is exactly right about this ruling being against the rule of law. They’re effectively preventing immigration enforcement from happening at all.

    The problem for the Trump administration is finding where to draw a reasonable line at refusing to accept a court ruling. I would suggest they declare that they will not be bound by a single district court judge unless the ruling is upheld on appeal. It’s an ugly approach, but at least allows them to ignore bad rulings without completely rejecting the role of the courts.

  3. Well, there’s a “quick fix” and a “long fix.”

    The QUICK fix would be for the administration to IGNORE this putz and continue what they’re doing. FORCE this schmuck to SUE the administration, and when it goes to court expose the judicial activist for the sub-80 IQ dotard she is.

    The LONG fix would be to encourage Congress to pass a law REQUIRING that a Federal Judge cite the Federal Statutes and Precedent for his / her decision(s), or face sanctioning / removal, because “activism” is NO EXCUSE for IGNORING Federal Laws and that’s exactly what this loser judge has done.

    After all, the judges swear an oath to uphold our Laws and Constitution, so if a Federal Judge goes rogue we, meaning Congress, MUST have a mechanism in place to challenge them or reverse them.

    I would go BOTH routes, but that’s just me.

  4. take a couple bus load of these illegals and access the judge marsha pechmans home and tell the illegals this is your new home

  5. Since when does a district court get to make a nationwide decision of any kind? I know… I know… rhetorical question. Sorry.

    1. USDC.

      It’s not a state district judge. It’s a federal judge.

      I’m hoping that’s what you meant by “rhetorical question sorry,” and not that you thought Seattle local courts were dictating federal policy.

  6. Why would the Trump Administration even bother with applying for injunctive relief against a ruling that is patently in violation of both a federal statute AND the Constitution itself? This ruling should not be appealed. It should be IGNORED, DEFIED even and this judge should be dared to take any further action. The lawlessness must end somewhere. Giving this ruling even the fig leaf of legitimacy by appealing it via a court action only encourages these #Resistance activists to engage in further lawlessness.

  7. The Administration should ignore this court decision since it is illegal. Courts making rulings that are illegal and which they have no jurisdiction over need to be confronted.

  8. Hopefully it’s all coming to a breaking point. A point and time where the executive says no more. Our three branches of government are coequal branches of government and the Constitution does not designate the Courts as the decider of all things Constitutional.

  9. Meanwhile these rulings make a terrible situation even worse. Congress will not fix it, they benefit from it.

    Brandon Darby (@brandondarby) Tweeted:
    1. Border Patrol said for months they were overwhelmed, needed Congress to help.

    2. Dems said it was a nonexistent/manufactured crisis, ignored them.

    3. IG report was coming so Dems showed up at border and shifted blame to Border Patrol instead of House Dem’s failure to act. https://twitter.com/brandondarby/status/1147186980515667968?s=17

  10. Ok, I admit it. I am stupid. I must be. Because this looks to me like the dam busting. Please somebody explain to me why it’s not.

  11. So give them a bond hearing. You can keep them in detention until the bond hearing happens. Then make sure your immigration judges are setting bails that factor in the likelihood of these folks not showing up for their immigration hearings.

    You know damn well that none of them will be able to post it. Bail bondsmen won’t touch them will a ten foot pole, and if they do then you’ll A) start being able to chase down the collateral from their families that might be in America; and B) have private bounty hunters tracking the illegals down when they try to skip.

    Get creative people. Use this to our advantage.

    1. @atomicsentinel They have to be given a hearing within seven days or be released. Catch and release used to be a twenty day ordeal and this judge just sliced that down by 2/3. Catch and release on steroids.

      1. So then get more efficient. Hire more judges, start getting them to be “always seated” (eg. 24-hour courtrooms, with a day swing and grave judge), line these f*ckers up and process them. Shit, do them ten at a time if you have to.

        Start thinking outside the box here people.

    2. So give them a bond hearing. You can keep them in detention until the bond hearing happens.

      Obviously you missed this part: “The ruling said that the government must grant eligible asylum-seekers a bond hearing within seven days of their initial detention….”

      And the bond has to be considered “reasonable.” You know there’s no way a judge is going to set a bail they cannot pay. You’re also assuming these are all poor people. Quite a number of them have paid hundreds or thousands of dollars to get passage with coyotes.

      1. So do it within seven days.

        And “reasonable” is based on a couple factors, one in particular being the likelihood of these guys to skip and not show up for hearings. You can jack it way up when that’s a legitimate possibility – which it is, in every single one of these cases.

      2. I thought the migrants get to pay the coyotes later with their indentured servitude wages.

        1. @michelle-lee I think in many cases the coyotes kidnap some and force them to work or demand ransom payments from family members, even after they paid. Also some of these people are working for the cartels as mules and gang members whom they’re smuggling in.

          Remember also there are a number of people coming from other countries through the boarder, including Asians and Middle East and Africa who do have money.

      3. Exactly. Illegals group together and buy houses, cars, all kinds of things, with cash. See it all the time. They’d easily come up with the cash to bond someone out. It’d be another black market to add to all the others they’ve created.

  12. Is it indefinite detention if you can voluntarily leave for the purpose of exiting the country?

    The way I look at it is that they chose to cut in line and got intercepted and put into a longer line, but they’re still in a line that they could leave at anytime. Unless of course they somehow can’t leave to go back where they came from in which case that needs to change.

    Let them voluntarily leave detention so long as it’s to leave our borders and go back where they came from.

  13. So according to that US v Ju Toy case the constitution does NOT apply to non-citizens outside of US jurisdiction. This woman isn’t a judge she’s an arbitrary arbiter.

      1. Well if activist judges made rulings usurping the power of elected officials it doesnt matter if the leftists are happy or not.

        Judges have their place and they are overstepping.

        1. That doesn’t mean we ignore them. It means we reign them in. Otherwise rule of law means nothing, and we just do whatever we want regardless of what a judge says.

          (Sheesh, and people are always accusing me of advocating anarchy.)

          1. You reign them in by ignoring their attempt usurp power from the other branches.

            Thank them for their unconstitutional edict, ignore them, and move on. This isn’t hard.

  14. Wow.,so with the same issues, the Same Presidential Executive Order signed by Clinton or Obama is just hunky dory ,but President Trump using or enforcing those same Executive Orders its illegal..The Justice Dept.Should look into this Judicial Activism and set an example with one of these Judges and lets see what happens.

      1. The framers didn’t make a sharp enough distinction between people and citizens. But they could not have foreseen our country being overrun with foreigners claiming superior rights.

        1. @michelle-lee Agreed. They did a great job, but they couldn’t foresee everything.

        2. @michelle-lee And they didn’t have the social welfare programs to draw people. You had to make your own way or die.

  15. Another example of citizens having less rights than these people. Freaking astounding how some of these judges reach their “conclusions”.

      1. @slantry….That’s the point they are NOT citizens, they are illegal alien lawbreakers.

        1. Yes. In that case, the likely outcome of the constitutionally-required bail hearing will be a denial of bail.

          I assume when you say “break the nation’s laws” you mean “are accused of breaking the nation’s laws.” Obviously anyone’s right to a bail hearing ends if they’ve been convicted of a crime and lawfully sentenced, although habeas remains available.

          1. @slantry When caught during the commission of a crime, the “accused” committed the crime without doubt. Being caught illegally crossing our border to illegally enter our country is a crime, by law. While I do believe in “innocent until proven guilty”, I don’t like when a criminal caught in the act of a crime gets away with it due to an attorney adept at shadow walking, grifter talking, and legal spinning to confuse a jury. What I hate most is the over use of the term “alleged”. A body on the ground with one or more bullets in it, especially with witnesses to the murder, is NOT an “alleged ” murder!

  16. These district judges need to be cut out of the process when the issue affects the American public at large. That’s just my opinion, but I’m sick of these activist judges that refuse to hold up the rule of law.

  17. This is going to keep happening with ever more extreme rulings, until on day the president says, “We’re just gong to ignore this court order.”

    Because it can’t go on forever.

    Nobody really wants to reach that point, because then the other side will use it to justify whatever they want to do when they get power. But the left is already going to do that.

    For all the posturing from the media about the “rule of law,” the left just wants power. They’re not just enemies of the rule of law. They’re enemies of the current Constitutional system, because it keeps them from getting complete control.

    The right is engaged in a fight to preserve the Constitutional system against the left, which wants to destroy the system completely. You can see it in the way the left took over the educational system, and started indoctrinating children into the belief the US is fundamentally corrupt. They hate the Constitution.

    You can see it in the way the left, once they get in power at a city, starts to dismantle the police and prevent any attempts to enforce the law. To the left, the legal system is just another means to power.

    You can see it in Portland now, where domestic terrorists like Antifa are protected when they attack their foes.

    Trump is exactly right about this ruling being against the rule of law. They’re effectively preventing immigration enforcement from happening at all.

    The problem for the Trump administration is finding where to draw a reasonable line at refusing to accept a court ruling. I would suggest they declare that they will not be bound by a single district court judge unless the ruling is upheld on appeal. It’s an ugly approach, but at least allows them to ignore bad rulings without completely rejecting the role of the courts.

  18. Well, there’s a “quick fix” and a “long fix.”

    The QUICK fix would be for the administration to IGNORE this putz and continue what they’re doing. FORCE this schmuck to SUE the administration, and when it goes to court expose the judicial activist for the sub-80 IQ dotard she is.

    The LONG fix would be to encourage Congress to pass a law REQUIRING that a Federal Judge cite the Federal Statutes and Precedent for his / her decision(s), or face sanctioning / removal, because “activism” is NO EXCUSE for IGNORING Federal Laws and that’s exactly what this loser judge has done.

    After all, the judges swear an oath to uphold our Laws and Constitution, so if a Federal Judge goes rogue we, meaning Congress, MUST have a mechanism in place to challenge them or reverse them.

    I would go BOTH routes, but that’s just me.

  19. Why would the Trump Administration even bother with applying for injunctive relief against a ruling that is patently in violation of both a federal statute AND the Constitution itself? This ruling should not be appealed. It should be IGNORED, DEFIED even and this judge should be dared to take any further action. The lawlessness must end somewhere. Giving this ruling even the fig leaf of legitimacy by appealing it via a court action only encourages these #Resistance activists to engage in further lawlessness.

  20. Since when does a district court get to make a nationwide decision of any kind? I know… I know… rhetorical question. Sorry.

    1. USDC.

      It’s not a state district judge. It’s a federal judge.

      I’m hoping that’s what you meant by “rhetorical question sorry,” and not that you thought Seattle local courts were dictating federal policy.

  21. The Administration should ignore this court decision since it is illegal. Courts making rulings that are illegal and which they have no jurisdiction over need to be confronted.

  22. take a couple bus load of these illegals and access the judge marsha pechmans home and tell the illegals this is your new home

  23. Ok, I admit it. I am stupid. I must be. Because this looks to me like the dam busting. Please somebody explain to me why it’s not.

  24. Meanwhile these rulings make a terrible situation even worse. Congress will not fix it, they benefit from it.

    Brandon Darby (@brandondarby) Tweeted:
    1. Border Patrol said for months they were overwhelmed, needed Congress to help.

    2. Dems said it was a nonexistent/manufactured crisis, ignored them.

    3. IG report was coming so Dems showed up at border and shifted blame to Border Patrol instead of House Dem’s failure to act. https://twitter.com/brandondarby/status/1147186980515667968?s=17

  25. So give them a bond hearing. You can keep them in detention until the bond hearing happens. Then make sure your immigration judges are setting bails that factor in the likelihood of these folks not showing up for their immigration hearings.

    You know damn well that none of them will be able to post it. Bail bondsmen won’t touch them will a ten foot pole, and if they do then you’ll A) start being able to chase down the collateral from their families that might be in America; and B) have private bounty hunters tracking the illegals down when they try to skip.

    Get creative people. Use this to our advantage.

    1. So give them a bond hearing. You can keep them in detention until the bond hearing happens.

      Obviously you missed this part: “The ruling said that the government must grant eligible asylum-seekers a bond hearing within seven days of their initial detention….”

      And the bond has to be considered “reasonable.” You know there’s no way a judge is going to set a bail they cannot pay. You’re also assuming these are all poor people. Quite a number of them have paid hundreds or thousands of dollars to get passage with coyotes.

      1. I thought the migrants get to pay the coyotes later with their indentured servitude wages.

        1. @michelle-lee I think in many cases the coyotes kidnap some and force them to work or demand ransom payments from family members, even after they paid. Also some of these people are working for the cartels as mules and gang members whom they’re smuggling in.

          Remember also there are a number of people coming from other countries through the boarder, including Asians and Middle East and Africa who do have money.

      2. So do it within seven days.

        And “reasonable” is based on a couple factors, one in particular being the likelihood of these guys to skip and not show up for hearings. You can jack it way up when that’s a legitimate possibility – which it is, in every single one of these cases.

        1. @atomicsentinel It’s very easy for you to claim these things sitting behind a computer screen. This puts the limit below the time it takes to get it done. The judges keep moving the goal posts every time Trump tries to do something. If he meets this judge’s requirement they will come up with another way to stop Trump. IMO that’s all this is about.

          1. So what is it you want to do, kong?

            Trump and the Republicans had their shot, and chose not to take it. So what now?

              1. Yes, it does.

                We know the game. Like you said, every time the orange idiot does something, they’ll come up with another way to stop him. (One might call that effective government, wish we had more of it in 2008-2016, but since we’re not getting what we want we’re all pissed off about it.) Move, countermove. Move, countermove. So, if you know the score – what next?

                1. @atomicsentinel It most certainly does not have anything to do with the conversation on this thread. There are a million things that should have been done in the past and by other administrations, but the issue here is with yet another road block of activist judges. We don’t have to talk about the other million problems when talking about one specific problem.

                2. but the issue here is with yet another road block of activist judges

                  Yes.

                  So, what do we do about that? We know it’s going to happen, over and over and over – so, now what?

                3. It sounds like you just want to quit & give up because the “orange idiot” is bad AT.

                  What’s your solution to stop these activist judges maintaining a humanitarian crisis at the border because of politics?

                4. What’s your solution to stop these activist judges maintaining a humanitarian crisis at the border because of politics?

                  Well, the way I see it, we have two choices:

                  Impose a dictatorship to try and stop the jenga tower from collapsing, or just let it collapse. Not really pleased with either, are you?

                  I’d say that rejecting the binary choice crap is an option, start voting principle instead of fear, but we all know damn well that I’m going to be running up to die on that hill alone.

                5. @atomicsentinel I don’t know how to deal with activist judges. If there was a solution I’m sure they would have tried it already.

                6. kong1967

                  Get Project Veritas on the case. They’re good at expoing these hypocrites

                7. But what does it really accomplish at the end of the day?

                  It’s not telling us anything we don’t already know, and it’s not telling everyone else anything they’re going to pay attention to or care about.

                8. We could murder them. That’s an option.

                  Probably not a very good one.

                  We could force them out of position. That’s also an option.

                  Probably not a very good one.

                  We could ignore them and say hell with rule of law. That’s an option.

                  Probably not a very good one.

                  I know, I’m only coming up with really bad options. I guess it’s just too late for any of the good options, if we want to remain principled in the way we do things.

                9. @atomicsentinel AG Barr said that the lower courts have overstepped their legal bounds. If they are overstepping their authority then IMO they should be ignored until it goes further up the ladder. There has to be a way to deal with judges that issue orders they don’t have the authority to issue. There’s no reason why they should be able to stop an administration by running out the clock with repeated interference.

                10. So, just out of curiosity, is that the precedent we want set when Kamala wins in 2020 and appoints a leftist AG to ignore all the Trump-appointed judges?

                11. @atomicsentinel I’m not suggesting anyone take my advice. It’s just my personal opinion, and as I said there has to be a right way to deal with them. I wish they’d find it.

                12. Ignoring them is not throwing out the law, in fact it is embracing it. Allowing lawless judgements to stand is what would be saying to hell with the rule of law.

                13. You don’t get to decide which judgments are lawless.

                  Seriously, ask anyone in the Group Therapy Club about all the bullshit laws/decisions they support because “it’s the law.”

                  Now, that being said, I ignore bad laws all the time. On a similar principle even. When I no longer have any reason to respect their authority, I say to hell with their authority. But I do recognize that what I am doing is legally prohibited. I just don’t give a damn.

                  But I’m also an individual. With freedom. For the State to start taking that tack is a whole ugly can we don’t want opened. Ever.

                14. No likely that would undermine the power structure these Republicrats have worked so hard to build to undermine our liberty. The best thing to do is to ignore unconstitutional orders.

      3. Exactly. Illegals group together and buy houses, cars, all kinds of things, with cash. See it all the time. They’d easily come up with the cash to bond someone out. It’d be another black market to add to all the others they’ve created.

          1. Sure, but they have almost endless cash. Bond is nothing to these folks. They have all this cash by not paying taxes, splitting bills ten ways due to having fifteen people living in one household. On and on.

            1. They do not have endless cash. If they did, they’d be living in castles in El Salvador. They’re coming here for the free candy because life is so shitty in the third world, remember? Amnesty because poverty, that’s their reasoning isn’t it?

              We always say to fight corporations where it hurts them most – the pocketbook. Apply the same tactics here. Make it financially ruinous to enter America illegally.

          2. @atomicsentinel Starve them out? You know they spend anywhere from $8k to $12k to get up here right? They’d just borrow more money.

            1. Good! That’s a good thing! Make the road to America illegally cost-ineffective. “You want to sneak into America? Great. It’s going to bankrupt you. Borrow from the cartels, I dare you.”

              1. @atomicsentinel

                Borrow from the cartels, I dare you.

                Where do you think they get the $10k to get up here in the first place?

                1. Exactly. And what happens when all that money is going to America, and they become insecure liabilities with nothing left?

                2. @atomicsentinel That money isn’t coming to the United States. The illegals basically work in the U.S. to pay back the cartels (for those that borrowed) and to send money back to their families in Mexico.

                3. So keep them in cages. Deny them the ability to earn money. Strip what they have in bail forfeiture.

                4. @atomicsentinel I think we SHOULD keep them in cages until they get their hearings. Bring back Ellis Island. If they don’t like it they don’t have to come. They’d have to decide if it was worth it before they hooked up with the local coyote.

          3. Once again, running your pie hole about things you have no clue about. I explained to you how they get endless cash, HERE. That’s in the USA.

            1. Yes, indeed I’ve seen all these illegals living in palaces with unlimited bank accounts.

              1. Did you copyright your brand of misunderstanding? You should. It’s very unique. I explained to you how they have this money, you cant grasp it. You’re thinking through a First World view. Reading comprehension, AT. Itll help, I promise.

                1. Yep. Every time I see a Ferrari or a Lambo on the street, I think about how great it must be to be an illegal alien.

    2. @atomicsentinel They have to be given a hearing within seven days or be released. Catch and release used to be a twenty day ordeal and this judge just sliced that down by 2/3. Catch and release on steroids.

      1. So then get more efficient. Hire more judges, start getting them to be “always seated” (eg. 24-hour courtrooms, with a day swing and grave judge), line these f*ckers up and process them. Shit, do them ten at a time if you have to.

        Start thinking outside the box here people.

        1. I wish it was that simple, AT. I like where your head is at, however. The things you just mentioned take money. Money that Democrats won’t give if they even sniff the ideas you just laid forth. Plus, who knows what the next federal judge will come up with.

  26. Is it indefinite detention if you can voluntarily leave for the purpose of exiting the country?

    The way I look at it is that they chose to cut in line and got intercepted and put into a longer line, but they’re still in a line that they could leave at anytime. Unless of course they somehow can’t leave to go back where they came from in which case that needs to change.

    Let them voluntarily leave detention so long as it’s to leave our borders and go back where they came from.

  27. So according to that US v Ju Toy case the constitution does NOT apply to non-citizens outside of US jurisdiction. This woman isn’t a judge she’s an arbitrary arbiter.

  28. The Ninth Circuit’s going to rule in favor of the plaintiffs because their case law pretty much dictates it. This ruling is equally predictable insofar as this judge has to apply ninth circuit precedent.

    It will be very interesting to see how this goes when it gets up to SCOTUS. Contrary to what Horowitz seems to imply, Ju Toy was by no means the last word on this issue. Really, this is the exact type of constitutional challenge that they were didn’t have to resolve in Nielsen v Preap, but which the conservative justices pretty much signaled they’d resolve in favor of immigrants’ rights to not be subject to indefinite detention without a hearing if someone asked them to decide that issue. 7 days seems like a pretty short timeline to impose, but I’ll be surprised if SCOTUS holds that indefinite detention in these circumstances is constitutional given that they’ve already held that potentially removable aliens have a right to be free of indefinite detention. But, of course, I’ve been surprised before.

  29. Hopefully it’s all coming to a breaking point. A point and time where the executive says no more. Our three branches of government are coequal branches of government and the Constitution does not designate the Courts as the decider of all things Constitutional.

  30. Another example of citizens having less rights than these people. Freaking astounding how some of these judges reach their “conclusions”.

    1. Citizens absolutely have a right not to be held in confinement without a bail hearing.

        1. Yes. In that case, the likely outcome of the constitutionally-required bail hearing will be a denial of bail.

          I assume when you say “break the nation’s laws” you mean “are accused of breaking the nation’s laws.” Obviously anyone’s right to a bail hearing ends if they’ve been convicted of a crime and lawfully sentenced, although habeas remains available.

          1. @slantry When caught during the commission of a crime, the “accused” committed the crime without doubt. Being caught illegally crossing our border to illegally enter our country is a crime, by law. While I do believe in “innocent until proven guilty”, I don’t like when a criminal caught in the act of a crime gets away with it due to an attorney adept at shadow walking, grifter talking, and legal spinning to confuse a jury. What I hate most is the over use of the term “alleged”. A body on the ground with one or more bullets in it, especially with witnesses to the murder, is NOT an “alleged ” murder!

            1. When caught during the commission of a crime, the “accused” committed the crime without doubt.

              True, but irrelevant. The due process standard is innocent until proven guilty. They can have your confession, photos of you committing the crime, and enough forensics to fill a file cabinet – but until you’re found guilty, you’re still only accused.

              due to an attorney adept at shadow walking, grifter talking, and legal spinning to confuse a jury.

              That’s not what happens. The attorney is instead adept at showing why the cops f*cked things up.

              Just like with the census – the issue is almost always that someone trying to assert authority screwed up. If the cops do their job correctly, keeping in mind Constitutional Rights, Rules of Evidence, and so forth, then even the best attorney in the world won’t be able to spin it away from a jury.

              1. “That’s not what happens. The attorney is instead adept at showing why the cops f*cked things up.”

                Sometimes. Most of the time the lawyers are just really, really good liars.

                1. Dude, you get that the practice of law is mostly procedural, right? It ain’t like in the moving picture shows where some city slicker with his hair greased back wiles the jury into hypnosis.

                  There’s discovery. There’s admissions. There’s disclosures. There’s witness examination. There’s experts. There’s motions in limine. There’s all kinds of crap that follows very specific rules in evidence and civil/criminal procedure and so forth. You can’t just walk in wearing a seersucker suit and start weaving a tale. Nor do you walk in with the smoking gun or the one-armed man and declare success.

                  It’s a long boring procedural walkabout that is specifically designed to avoid the problem of “really really good liars.”

                2. I will! After all, I’m talking to a man who worked at a law firm in his late teens. A veritable authority on the profession.

                3. Hehe, I decided that one was low-hanging fruit so I wasn’t going to go there – but lol nonetheless.

                4. Sheesh, you’re so freaking dense. I worked for a law firm in my late teens. All those things happen and they’re really really good liars. Mother f-er, do we have to write a effing term paper for your a$$ every damn time, or what? It’s a effing comment section, loon. Very few of us have the damn time or patience to spell it out word for word for your weird a$$. How many men have you made jump in front of a train?

                5. Mother f-er, do we have to write a effing term paper for your a$$ every damn time, or what?

                  That might be helpful. I’d read it if you did.

                  How many men have you made jump in front of a train?

                  Eleven. This year.

                  I’m a little behind.

      1. @slantry….That’s the point they are NOT citizens, they are illegal alien lawbreakers.

      1. Well if activist judges made rulings usurping the power of elected officials it doesnt matter if the leftists are happy or not.

        Judges have their place and they are overstepping.

        1. That doesn’t mean we ignore them. It means we reign them in. Otherwise rule of law means nothing, and we just do whatever we want regardless of what a judge says.

          (Sheesh, and people are always accusing me of advocating anarchy.)

          1. You reign them in by ignoring their attempt usurp power from the other branches.

            Thank them for their unconstitutional edict, ignore them, and move on. This isn’t hard.

              1. They play a role by providing an opinion on the merits of the case before them in regards to constitutionality. They are not the sole or final arbitor of constitutionality, the people are. Whether in our current body politic we have acquiescenced this authority to them for the time being and all waited with baited breathe every summer to find out the direction of our country from nine black oligharhs is beside the point. The system was not and is not designed for them to have this authority, and until they are ignored and put in their constitutional box they will keep usurping power.

  31. Wow.,so with the same issues, the Same Presidential Executive Order signed by Clinton or Obama is just hunky dory ,but President Trump using or enforcing those same Executive Orders its illegal..The Justice Dept.Should look into this Judicial Activism and set an example with one of these Judges and lets see what happens.

      1. The framers didn’t make a sharp enough distinction between people and citizens. But they could not have foreseen our country being overrun with foreigners claiming superior rights.

        1. @michelle-lee Agreed. They did a great job, but they couldn’t foresee everything.

        2. @michelle-lee And they didn’t have the social welfare programs to draw people. You had to make your own way or die.

  32. These district judges need to be cut out of the process when the issue affects the American public at large. That’s just my opinion, but I’m sick of these activist judges that refuse to hold up the rule of law.

  33. Good! Someone needs to push back against the lawless judges who think they know better than the rule of law and the Constitution of this great land.

  34. Yet these illegal aliens did not stop at the first country they came to as they were “fleeing for their safety”, therefore they should be sent back to the first country they entered and apply for asylum there.

  35. Good! Someone needs to push back against the lawless judges who think they know better than the rule of law and the Constitution of this great land.

  36. Yet these illegal aliens did not stop at the first country they came to as they were “fleeing for their safety”, therefore they should be sent back to the first country they entered and apply for asylum there.

Comments are closed.