Category Archives: Courts

Arrogance of a Progressive-Democratic Party Politician

Posted on by
Reply

Congressman Adam Smith (D, WA) is the only Party politician, so far, to claim to know of and to identify illegal orders issued by President Donald Trump (R).

Yeah, I think the order to blow up those boats in the Caribbean without any, you know, actual probable cause, national security justification, or any declaration of war or armed conflict by the US Congress, I think it is illegal. That’s a legitimate opinion to hold, and it’s a legitimate opinion to express.

With that, he gives the game away.

It is a legitimate opinion to hold, and it is an opinion legitimately expressed by most American citizens. Military members must get over a much higher bar in order to express their opinions of an order’s legality with a view to disobeying it or encouraging their fellows to disobey it.

The order must be adjudicated illegal, and the military member must be prepared to suffer the consequences of disobedience or of fomenting disobedience should a court determine the order legal. On the other hand, all of us citizens, all of our politicians, can yap away at will without consequence.

Smith’s opinion that an order is illegal does not make it so. That he does not recognize that in the context of the Six’ video those politicians are potentially seeking to foment disorder explicitly in the military ranks—which would be seditious—not in the political ranks, is demonstrative of Smith’s self-important arrogance.

Regarding Illegal Aliens Applying for Asylum

Posted on by
Reply

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case involving the Trump administration’s limitation on illegal aliens’ ability to apply for asylum. The case, Noem v Al Otro Lado, centers on the meaning of “arrival in the United States” within the meaning of federal immigration law: does an alien “arrive” on meeting with immigration officers when the meeting occurs on the Mexican side with no actual entry into the US.

This should be an open-and-shut case. Here’s what 8 US Code § 1158 – Asylum, paragraph (a)(1) says on the matter:

Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.

That’s clear. Present in the United States and brought to the United States means inside—being within the borders of—the United States. Nothing more, nothing less. In particular, this statute makes clear that “on the Mexican side” plainly is not inside the United States (to say nothing of the affront to Mexican sovereignty if “on the Mexican side” were taken to mean inside the US.

Section 1225(b) only specifies the process for granting or denying asylum, but this is what its paragraph (a)(1) says that’s relevant to Otro Lado:

An alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.

This is, in its essence, a repeat of the Asylum paragraph above. In the United States explicitly excludes being still on the Mexican side of the border. An alien, illegal or otherwise, must be on the US side of the border—within the US—before he can apply for asylum

Full stop.

The obvious alternative, though, should the Court rule wrongly on this, is to withdraw all US immigration officers from the Mexican side of the border.

Maybe Take the Hint

Posted on by
Reply

Regarding the Georgia case against President Donald Trump (R) from when he’d lost his reelection campaign in 2020 and a slate of alternate Electors was created and offered to the US Senate: Fani Willis brought a criminal case against Trump and others over that alternate slate, never minding that doing so is entirely illegal, if only rarely done. As a result of Willis’ own nefarious behaviors, she was thrown off the case by Georgia courts. Now we have the State’s Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council (the body charged with finding a successor to Willis) Executive Director Peter Skandalakis assigning himself to the case.

His selfie appointment is because of ACE’s

The filing of this appointment reflects my inability to secure another conflict prosecutor to assume responsibility for this case. Several prosecutors were contacted and, while all were respectful and professional, each declined the appointment[.].

Maybe Skandalakis should take the hint. It’s a bogus beef, and he would do well to drop it with prejudice.

“Career-Defining”

Posted on by
Reply

The headline lays it out:

Chief Justice Roberts Faces Career-Defining Decision on Trump

The WSJ‘s news writer centered his headline claim on the current Supreme Court case that concerns the authority a President has (or has not) to unilaterally adjust or apply de novo tariffs. This is certainly a major case with serious implications and outcomes. Career-defining, though? Calling it that is nothing but journalistic arrogance. This guy is not the definer of “career-defining;” he’s just one man with an opinion.

Career-defining certainly would be a momentous move with long-lasting effects.

Here’s another momentous move by Roberts, one from a few years ago, and that still is reverberating. That ruling, in which Chief Justice John Roberts rewrote the Affordable Care Act to include a tax aspect that Congress had explicitly considered and just as explicitly rejected, was every bit as momentous as anything the Roberts Court might decide regarding Trump’s tariffs. Career-defining? At least as much as the tariff case. That’s my one-man opinion.

A Couple of Election Law Thoughts

Posted on by
Reply

I have some, on occasion, and this is one of those occasions. The Supreme Court is considering taking up a case regarding whether a State may (not can) count absentee ballots received after voting day. The particular case involves Louisiana’s law that allows such ballots to be counted if received within five days after voting day; the 5th Circuit court said nope, absentee ballots must be received by voting day to be countable.

Those defending the law appealed to the Supremes, making this argument among others:

Adopting that ruling would require scrapping election laws in about 30 states, lawyers for Mississippi told the court.
“The decision below thus invites nationwide litigation against laws in most States—risking chaos in the next federal elections, particularly given the tendency of election law claims to spur last-minute lawsuits,” they said.

That a Supreme Court ruling upholding the appellate court (the only correct ruling IMNSHO) would invalidate election laws broadly is wholly irrelevant. All that matters here is what our Constitution requires and what statutes that are themselves within the bounds of our Constitution say. The convenience of government is distinctly unimportant.

The second beef, that concern about last-minute lawsuits filed just before an election, is legitimate, but it’s easily handled. States can enact laws (so can the Federal government under its Article I, Section 4 authority) that bar courts hearing lawsuits occurring within [six months] of an election from issuing injunctions or temporary restraining orders that alter the status quo and that bar court rulings that are handed down within those same [six months] from having effect until after the next occurring election.