zeke5123a
12hr ago
My concern is that many of these people are the reason their home countries are San Fran on steroids. Moreover, even if the first bunch are not they create linkages to future immigrants that might be.
zeke5123a
1d ago
I mentioned this up thread but Humphrey’s Executor has been pretty extremely narrowed over the years. It isn’t clear to me one needs to overrule it to conclude Trump’s actions were fine.
zeke5123a
1d ago
I’m not sure that is right if USIP is executing executive authority. See the caselaw re CFPB.
zeke5123a
2d ago
I know this is a troll but again the facts are that a fired president tried to keep people out of the building the acting president wanted in. That is, the only bad thing is that a crazy person illegally tried to seize a government building until the police came.
Another way of framing this is that a fired president illegally tried to bar people permitted to enter the building from entering the building and the police intervened to preclude the fired president from illegally barricading the building.
Here is DOGE post: https://x.com/doge/status/1901810390323048756?s=46
zeke5123a
2d ago
Not just here but see also some of the covid measures (I’m thinking of the rent moratorium where the government was far more abusive compared to here)
zeke5123a
2d ago
It really is funny to me. First there is a very real question about who is breaking what norm—namely there is a real core question as to whether the judge had any business doing anything here. He may be the one acting lawlessly.
Second, if the argument is “his policy is right and he is technically legally right but we think the spirit of legal process precludes him from acting in a way” then I don’t think you’ll find many takers.
zeke5123a
2d ago
I think that is a very pale reading of the case.
V-E day already occurred! There was a cease fire and surrender! Men kissed nurses on the streets of NY! The war was over. Nobody but nobody in 1949 was talking about the on going war effort. If you look at the history books, they will tell you the war ended in 1945.
There was a real question of whether the president could years after hostilities ended deport someone under the AEA. After all, the obvious reason for the act was to protect the homeland against a fifth column of sorts and in 1949 no one was concerned about that.
Despite all of that, the court said “we will not review the president’s claim.” That is very deferential.
Indeed Trump’s actions are clearly more within the ambit of what the AEA was worried about (ie foreign actor exerting physical control / damage to the homeland) compared to the post WWII fact pattern of precedent.
Could you point to the technicalities and say Ludecke is not controlling? Sure. But if you take that case seriously, then it is hard to argue the president doesn’t have the power to declare an invasion in this case.
I do agree the class question is trickier.
zeke5123a
2d ago
The argument isn’t that the auto pen per se invalidates the claims. Instead the claim is that Biden didn’t authorize the final batch of pardons and therefore was not an action of the executive.
zeke5123a
2d ago
The classic definition is that government has a monopoly on the use of force. I think it is fair to describe these gangs as having that monopoly in areas they control and trying to extend that into areas of the US.
Is it obvious? No but it isn’t crazy and again not sure justiciable.
zeke5123a
2d ago
Well that is the argument. The judge said “don’t follow through with your the EO” and Trump said “well we already followed through with some.” That is, by its terms the order did not apply to those already removed even if still in custody.
zeke5123a
2d ago
I agree there is a real question on class (I noted it in my post).
I am sympathetic to the Buekle (sp?) approach: when the gang members literally print on themselves who they are the risk of a false positive is extremely low and individual adjudication should not be necessary since shock and awe is needed.
zeke5123a
3d ago
It’s also worth pausing on how difficult it was for J6 defendants to get lawyers yet gang bangers from Venezuela get the ACLU within minutes.
There is something rotten in Denmark
zeke5123a
3d ago
TDS in real life. You are assuming a crime. There is a dispute over whether the Trump admin complied with a questionable order. They are arguing they did by dint of completing the removal prior to the judge issuing the order which therefore would not apply.
zeke5123a
3d ago
That question (ie is the person in the class) seems to be justiciable but potentially waived.
Tbf this isn’t a common law and no one has a strong grounding on it
zeke5123a
3d ago
No the statute isn’t limited to whether congress declared war. Yes in Ludecke there was a war declared and the question was when the war ended. The court took a rather broad view as to who gets to answer that question (ie the executive and not the courts). The logic of Ludecke seemingly would apply for an invasion determined by the Executive.
I agree that the question of whether the aliens are in the particular class is justiciable but arguably ACLU waived that claim when saying the plaintiffs were all aliens from Venezuela.
zeke5123a
3d ago
It was in a state of war with Germany in 1948?
The whole point of that opinion was that state of war is non justiciable. That is, if the president determines there is a state of war then there is a state of war.
I agree factually this is different but if you take that precedent seriously then I’m not sure you get to a different answer.
zeke5123a
5d ago
Isn’t it akin to modern art (I think few people actually enjoy modern art compared to masters of the past): liking something beautiful is blasé and therefore the midwits prefer ugly over beautiful to signal taste?
zeke5123a
5d ago
Well the NFL can do it because it is hard to say they are discriminating against blacks. But let’s say there is another firm where 5% of the workforce population is black. They are much less likely to be comfortable using a test.
zeke5123a
6d ago
It seems the Trump admin is challenging a 40 year old decent decree that prohibited the government from using standardized tests for hiring decisions due to disparate impact.
Depending on hahah the courts say, this may make it easier to use for private employment. If successful, this could be a boon.
But isn’t the problem magnified at the federal level? They too want to push off the decision to spend our money to someone else.
Why not take a chance on fifty laboratories instead of one despite both having a similar failure mode?
More options
Context Copy link