Constitutional crisis: the Executive branch defying the Judicial branch

Cmalone

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
517
Reaction score
40
I wanted to start a separate thread for this because I think/fear it's going to be an ongoing problem that isn't just Muslim ban related. (Which seems to be what Cory Booker is saying too.) I guess I'll kick it off with this account of Senator Cory Booker's not-so-face-to-face confrontation with Customs and Border Patrol:

As the night wore on, it became increasingly clear that CBP was defying Brinkema’s ruling. Lawyers concluded that that meant someone was in contempt of court. The judge could theoretically send in federal law enforcement officers to force CBP to let the lawyers meet with the detainees. But sending in the U.S. Marshals—who are part of the Department of Justice—to take on Customs and Border Patrol—which is part of the Department of Homeland Securitywould have been a bureaucratic clash of the titans. And, like everything else that night, it would have been unprecedented. It didn’t happen.

Though detainees were slowly being released, lawyers were disturbed that they couldn’t meet with them. What if CBP tried to coerce detainees into signing paperwork that could jeopardize their legal status? Release wasn’t enough. A federal agency was defying a federal judge, and no one was quite sure what to do.

Then at around 11:45 pm, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker showed up.

He had come to get the travelers out of detention, “or at least access to an attorney,” he told The Daily Beast.

Then he disappeared down a hallway blocked off by police, back to where the CBP officials had quarantined themselves.

Booker stayed back there for about half an hour, and then he pushed through the crowd of roaring protesters and—flanked by glowering policemenaddressed the crowd. After a few opening words, he held up a copy of Brinkema’s order.

“I am now of the belief that though this was issued by the judicial branch, that it was violated tonight,” he said. “And so one of the things I will be doing is fighting to make sure that the executive branch abides by the law as it was issued in this state and around the nation. This will be an ongoing battle.”

The crowd cheered.

“We see tonight what I believe is a clear violation of the Constitution,” he continued. “And so clearly tonight we have to commit ourselves to the longer fight. Clearly tonight, we have to commit ourselves to the cause of our country. Clearly tonight, we have to be determined to show this world what America is all about.”

Asked by The Daily Beast what CBP officers had told him about why they wouldn’t let detainees see their lawyers.

“They told me nothing, and it was unacceptable,” he said. “I believe it’s a Constitutional crisis, where the executive branch is not abiding by the law.”

A source familiar with Booker’s exchange with CBP officials told The Daily Beast that officials with the agency refused to see him face to face. Instead, Booker wrote questions on a piece of paper which he handed to police officers, and those officers gave the paper—along with a copy of Brinkema’s ruling—to CBP officials. Those CBP officials then wrote out their answers to the senator’s questions, according to the source. The source described it as a half-written, half-spoken game of telephone.

An executive agency defying the ruling of a federal judge, and a U.S. senator trying—unsuccessfully—to make that agency comply.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-his-first-constitutional-crisis-unfolds.html

Incredible! I had read earlier that Senator Booker showed up because CBP was fighting the order, but I didn't realize the extent. The most shocking to me was that CBP were so defiant in refusing to speak to him that they literally exchanged handwritten notes like petulant children to avoid him and complying with the order. I wonder who the U.S. Marshals would've sided with if they actually had been called in.
 

Alpha Echo

I should be writing.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
9,615
Reaction score
1,852
Location
East Coast
This is what threw my husband into a major depression yesterday. These people were denied what is a basic right in our nation - a right to an attorney.

When you take that right away, we're no better than some of the third world nations that assume guilt immediately.

So, not only did CBP defy the Federal Court Ruling. That's bad enough! But they went beyond that and denied these people access to attorneys. It wouldn't have mattered if they had actually done something wrong - you cannot deny the right to an attorney. Not even to one person. The second you do, the US loses something that made it great. Made it different from some other nations. Something that keeps us humane.

Furthermore - you can't tell me that the head of CBP at Dulles was the one who made the decision. My guess is, the order came from someone even higher.
 

Twick

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
3,291
Reaction score
715
Location
Canada
Remember, the CBP union looooooves them some Trump. So, it's a tossup whether they were told to defy U.S. law, or decided they could do it on their own. My guess is that they got marching orders, but decided to go above and beyond them by harassing and rejecting those legally allowed into the country.
 

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
This is what threw my husband into a major depression yesterday. These people were denied what is a basic right in our nation - a right to an attorney.

When you take that right away, we're no better than some of the third world nations that assume guilt immediately.

So, not only did CBP defy the Federal Court Ruling. That's bad enough! But they went beyond that and denied these people access to attorneys. It wouldn't have mattered if they had actually done something wrong - you cannot deny the right to an attorney. Not even to one person. The second you do, the US loses something that made it great. Made it different from some other nations. Something that keeps us humane.

Furthermore - you can't tell me that the head of CBP at Dulles was the one who made the decision. My guess is, the order came from someone even higher.

I don't know whether customs detainees normally have access to attorneys, actually. I wouldn't presume that was the case. Certainly if they're going to be involved in any kind of court hearing, but just being questioned by customs, same as being questioned by cops, doesn't mean you get a lawyer.

The order certainly specified the people being detained should, as there was a legally questionable (read: bullshit) order informing these interactions, that people were filing on, but in a general sense, I don't think being questioned by customs is lawyer-worthy, though I'm not sure what level would be, immigration-wise. Interesting question.
 

cethklein

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 26, 2007
Messages
3,453
Reaction score
452
Location
USA
Remember, the CBP union looooooves them some Trump. So, it's a tossup whether they were told to defy U.S. law, or decided they could do it on their own. My guess is that they got marching orders, but decided to go above and beyond them by harassing and rejecting those legally allowed into the country.

Which of course doesn't bother trump at all. A little harassment is good for the soul of these people. Yes they're loyal to Trump but having had family members who worked for CBP, I can tell you they're also a very independent group. They will be ok so long as those marching orders are in line with what they want but once they start feeling like they're being dictated to, things will get interesting.
 

buz

edits all posts at least four times
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
5,147
Reaction score
2,040
Now the Senate GOP has changed rules to force Price and Mnuchin through approval in committee without any Dems present.

I don't know if this is necessarily unconstitutional, but it's definitely against the spirit of our system of government; one more brick torn out of the wall keeping authoritarianism at bay. At this point, I don't know how many bricks are left, or if it will take much force at all to dislodge them.

I kept hearing after the election that things would be fine because of checks and balances, and because our government system is strong, etc. I kept asking who would check this, who would stop this, what made it strong specifically. No one ever had a specific answer. "It will be fine because it will be." "It's strong because it is." Or there was no answer at all.

It's very hard not to feel ... despairy.
 

Lyv

I meant to do that.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 5, 2007
Messages
4,958
Reaction score
1,934
Location
Outside Boston
Yes, when people talked about checks and balances, all I could think of was GOP obstructionism, gerrymandering, and voter suppression. Despairy here, too.
 

buz

edits all posts at least four times
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
5,147
Reaction score
2,040
The committee's phone number, by the way: 202-224-4515

In case they give any shits at all.

Though I don't hold out much hope.
 

Cmalone

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
517
Reaction score
40
Now the Senate GOP has changed rules to force Price and Mnuchin through approval in committee without any Dems present.

I don't know if this is necessarily unconstitutional, but it's definitely against the spirit of our system of government; one more brick torn out of the wall keeping authoritarianism at bay. At this point, I don't know how many bricks are left, or if it will take much force at all to dislodge them.

I kept hearing after the election that things would be fine because of checks and balances, and because our government system is strong, etc. I kept asking who would check this, who would stop this, what made it strong specifically. No one ever had a specific answer. "It will be fine because it will be." "It's strong because it is." Or there was no answer at all.

It's very hard not to feel ... despairy.

What rule allows them to do this? Why haven't Dems used it when faced when Republican obstruction?
 

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
No rule. Orrin Hatch's blood type being hypocrisy?
 

Cmalone

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
517
Reaction score
40
I guess we now know who U.S. Marshals serve: in-coming Jeff Sessions.

Federal law also requires the U.S. Marshals Service to “execute all lawful writs, process, and orders issued under the authority of the United States,” and “command all necessary assistance to execute its duties.”

That means the U.S. marshals are required to serve the court orders blocking the deportations. And, in turn, CBP is required to comply with the court order and cease deportations.

But that doesn’t seem to be happening. According to the statement issued by Vayeghan’s attorneys, the marshal’s office “has so far failed to serve process and instead represents that it has been instructed by its Office of the General Counsel to await instruction from the U.S. Attorney’s office.”

This is bad. This is very, very bad.

The attorney general is part of the executive branch. The U.S. marshals are a part of the judiciary. It’s not up to the attorney general to instruct the U.S. marshals to serve the court orders on the CBP. The U.S. marshals are federally required to do so.

So here we see another fine example of the Trump administration’s willingness to flout the rule of law. Surely, they are waiting for Sen. Jeff Sessions to be confirmed as U.S. attorney general so he can begin to use the U.S. Department of Justice—which, again, is part of the executive branch—to strong-arm the judicial branch. If the marshals are already ignoring traditional checks and balances, especially considering Monday night’s dismissal of Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, it is clear that the Trump administration believes it can fully insulate itself from judicial review. And it is not entirely clear how we can stop it.
 
Last edited:

cethklein

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 26, 2007
Messages
3,453
Reaction score
452
Location
USA
Strongarm all he wants, the courts will fight this. Sessions won't be the god-king he and Trump think he will be.
 

buz

edits all posts at least four times
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
5,147
Reaction score
2,040
Strongarm all he wants, the courts will fight this. Sessions won't be the god-king he and Trump think he will be.

Who will enforce the courts' decisions?
 

Cmalone

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
517
Reaction score
40
Strongarm all he wants, the courts will fight this. Sessions won't be the god-king he and Trump think he will be.

The problem is the courts are useless if their rulings won't be enforced and their own enforcers are siding with the people who don't want their orders enforced.
 

kaitie

With great power comes
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 10, 2009
Messages
11,062
Reaction score
2,668
Who will enforce the courts' decisions?

This is what has had me depressed. We're supposed to have checks and balances, and you need all 3 pieces to be functioning for it to work. Right now congress are being toadies. Honestly, they should have been standing up and saying, "Dude, judicial branch just said stay--you stay." Instead it seems like they're just looking the other way.

Will it matter if the supreme court itself rules against Trump if Trump's response is just, "Fuck them," and congress isn't willing to stop him?

I was actually feeling pretty hopeful until yesterday that the good guys would come out on top of all this, but I'm honestly feeling really down about everything at the moment.

The man has blatantly violated the constitution on more than one occasion now, and how have the republicans responded?
 

Cmalone

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
517
Reaction score
40
The man has blatantly violated the constitution on more than one occasion now, and how have the republicans responded?

Exactly the way progressives have taught them to. Republicans defy everyone and are rewarded by being kept in office because their base votes and progressives get apathetic or protest vote and fail to mobilize. Congressional Republicans then learn their tactics work and press the envelope further and still, they are rewarded by being voted back in.
 

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
This is still going on, despite very specific orders now, out of two courts, in addition to the others -- the original stay was extended btw -- that say valid visa holders are to be allowed in, specifically in to Boston. The administration is apparently simply ignoring this, and trying a workaround, though it's a bit hard to ferret out what's coming from where, though people are trying.

According to this Slate article, one way they're subverting the court order is by calling the airlines (like Qatar Airlines) and telling them they've just summarily cancelled all visas, thus there are no valid visa holders, thus no one can land and be cleared, thus no one can be put on a plane. That doesn't seem to be legal (just calling airlines alone to cancel visas en masse without any paperwork or anything). No matter, apparently.

The administration has instructed airlines that it has “revoked immigrant and non-immigrant visas for travelers to the United States from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.” The Boston order applies in part to “holders of valid immigrant and non-immigrant visas.”

The government says that since it revoked those visas—without having publicized it to anyone except the airlines—they are no longer valid, so the court order doesn’t apply to the people to whom it applies. This reading is tendentious at best and outright malevolent at worst. As Ahilan Arulanantham, legal director at the ACLU of Southern California, put it to me in a phone call: “If you were dealing with an administration that was adopting a fair reading of the law, that [Boston order] would have been sufficient.

But what we found between Saturday night, and then Sunday, and then Monday, and [Tuesday], and [Wednesday]—based on what I’m hearing—is that the government has tried to subvert the order by exploiting these barely existent ambiguities.”
 

ElaineA

All about that action, boss.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Messages
8,582
Reaction score
8,525
Location
The Seattle suburbs
Website
www.reneedominick.com
Luftansa announced yesterday that they would not hold up American visa-holders before boarding anymore. I hope more airlines comply with the court order.
 

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
It's all so murky, as CBP is apparently simply refusing to speak to anyone, and it's hard to know who's being turned away, held, etc., or even what's possible. Can they just cancel visas by fiat like that? If they are, whether they can or not, what would that mean?

There's still a 24-hour cabal of lawyers and translators at JFK, and I'm sure other airports, but the fuck is actually happening is so unclear.
 

cmhbob

Did...did I do that?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
5,779
Reaction score
4,989
Location
Green Country
Website
www.bobmuellerwriter.com
On that same military forum I've mentioned, some members were glad the executive didn't "roll over for some judge" (yes, exact quote.)

Several of us pointed out things like Marbury vs Madison, that restraining orders require people to "roll over for some judge" all the time, and that members of that board who were cops arrest people for not "rolling over for some judge" on a regular basis. Crickets in response. it's interesting to see the lines being drawn there.

I did see a pointer to 8 USC 1182:

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

But the denial of access to an attorney is wrong on so many levels.
 

Cmalone

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
517
Reaction score
40
A contempt order was filed in Virginia:

In addition to Trump and CBP, the Department of Homeland Security, DHS chief John Kelly, acting CBP Commissioner Kevin K. McAleenan, Dulles CBP head Wayne Biondi and eight unnamed CBP agents are defendants in the new lawsuit. Their “conduct and refusal to account for their actions last weekend suggests disobedience” to the court’s order, Virginia charged in its brief.

The case originated on Friday, when Virginia civil rights attorneys sued on behalf of green card holders who were detained at Dulles soon after Trump’s executive order was signed. Brinkema issued her temporary restraining order Saturday. Virginia intervened in the case on Tuesday, arguing that CBP and the other defendants may have violated the rights of legal state residents by deporting them and forcing them to sign papers giving up their rights to live in the country, and it filed the contempt motion late Wednesday. A hearing on the contempt issue, which could prove to be a significant showdown between a Democratic-controlled state and the Republican-led federal government, is scheduled for Friday morning.

“There’s no indication that the court is going to actually hold the president in contempt,” said Ben Feuer, chairman of the California Appellate Law Group and a former clerk on the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. “The people who are really at the center of this, who this is actually directed at, are the agents at Dulles airport involved in this.... Here’s what’s at stake: How’s the court going to force these officers or punish them?... You could conceive of a situation where the court orders the U.S. marshals to confront these officials and arrest them, the president fires the marshals and hires new officials who will not obey the court order, and then you likely have a constitutional crisis.”

I'm trying to find anything on the outcome of the hearing that they said was scheduled for this morning, but I haven't seen any news reports yet.

Edit:

From Mother Jones:

A federal judge in Seattle on Friday granted a nationwide temporary restraining order blocking U.S. President Donald Trump's recent action barring nationals from seven countries from entering the United States.

The judge's order represents a major challenge to the Trump administration, which is expected to immediately appeal. The judge declined to stay the order, suggesting that travel restrictions could be lifted immediately.

Also on Friday in Virginia, a federal judge ordered the White House to provide a list of all people stopped from entering the United States by the travel ban.
 
Last edited:

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
On that same military forum I've mentioned, some members were glad the executive didn't "roll over for some judge" (yes, exact quote.)

Several of us pointed out things like Marbury vs Madison, that restraining orders require people to "roll over for some judge" all the time, and that members of that board who were cops arrest people for not "rolling over for some judge" on a regular basis. Crickets in response. it's interesting to see the lines being drawn there.

I did see a pointer to 8 USC 1182:


But the denial of access to an attorney is wrong on so many levels.

There's no particular reason, save the judicial orders, they should have access to attorneys, really.

Brilliant people there -- have they ever read the Immigration Act of ... whatever, '65? Because that makes Trump's EO illegal on its face.