Cases normally take a leisurely path to the Supreme Court, going through a district court, a three-judge court of appeals panel, and a request for the full court of appeals to decide the case before the Supreme Court is even asked to look at it. This long process generally brings a well-developed case to the high court after much debate and decision has already clarified and narrowed the question to be decided.
But not always. In cases from federal courts, the Supreme Court has an authority it rarely exercises to take the case out of the court of appeals before decision. In U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security v. Regents of the Univ. of California, No. 17-1003, the Solicitor General has asked the high court to do just that. Even more, the SG has asked the court to accelerate the decision of whether to take the case, slicing a month off the usual schedule.
Today the high court granted the acceleration request in part. The requested deadline for California to respond was yesterday, but the court gave them until Groundhog Day.
The case involves the DACA program, in which President Obama suspended enforcement of immigration law for a defined class of immigrants, even though he admitted he did not have authority to do so.
But not always. In cases from federal courts, the Supreme Court has an authority it rarely exercises to take the case out of the court of appeals before decision. In U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security v. Regents of the Univ. of California, No. 17-1003, the Solicitor General has asked the high court to do just that. Even more, the SG has asked the court to accelerate the decision of whether to take the case, slicing a month off the usual schedule.
Today the high court granted the acceleration request in part. The requested deadline for California to respond was yesterday, but the court gave them until Groundhog Day.
The case involves the DACA program, in which President Obama suspended enforcement of immigration law for a defined class of immigrants, even though he admitted he did not have authority to do so.
A federal district court in Texas issued a preliminary injunction against the program, the Fifth Circuit affirmed, Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 146, 170-186 (2015), and the 8-Justice Supreme Court split down the middle, affirming the judgment without setting a Supreme Court precedent. See United States v. Texas, 136 S. Ct. 2271, 2272 (2016) (per curiam).
DHS decided to switch rather than fight any further and wind down the policy. (There had, of course, been a change of administrations in the interim.) A different federal court in California issued a contrary decision, holding that the termination of the program is illegal. This is the decision the government now wants reviewed:
DHS decided to switch rather than fight any further and wind down the policy. (There had, of course, been a change of administrations in the interim.) A different federal court in California issued a contrary decision, holding that the termination of the program is illegal. This is the decision the government now wants reviewed:
This Court's immediate review is warranted. The district court has entered a nationwide injunction that requires DHS to keep in place a policy of non-enforcement that no one contends is required by federal law and that DHS has determined is, in fact, unlawful and should be discontinued. The district court's unprecedented order requires the government to sanction indefinitely an ongoing violation of federal law being committed by nearly 700,000 aliens--and, indeed, to confer on them affirmative benefits (including work authorization)--pursuant to the DACA policy. That policy is materially indistinguishable from the DAPA and expanded DACA policies that the Fifth Circuit held were contrary to federal immigration law in a decision that four Justices of this Court voted to affirm. Without this Court's immediate intervention, the court's injunction will persist at least for months while an appeal is resolved and, if the court of appeals does not reverse the injunction, it could continue for more than a year given the Court's calendar.The issue is, of course, under active consideration in Congress. If the status of the "dreamers" is fixed by statute, then this will be one more case for the mootness bin.
The problem is that illegal immigration--due to bogus cases like Plyler v. Doe and other court decisions that give illegals rights to government largesse is that there is no way to preserve the status quo.
Now the idea is that parents of children born here or even parents of children brought here have some sort of claim to be here--taxpayers be damned.
There is a real consent of the governed issue here. Our society is being changed (whether for good or ill) in a lawless manner--that courts put their imprimatur on it undercuts the rule of law.
~ ¡ Now this is one awesome judge ! ~
Ingham County (Michigan) Circuit Court Judge Rosemarie Aquilina.
According to Matt Mencarini of The Lansing State Journal, Nassar wrote in the
letter that he wasn't sure he could "mentally" handle four days of victim-impact
statements during his sentencing.
Aquilina said about Nassar’s letter, “This isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. There’s no truth in here. It’s delusional.”
“…taxpayer dollars will be spent on your mental health!.”
"You spent thousands of hours perpetrating sexual assault on minors," Aquilina said to Nassar. "Spending five or six days listening to them is significantly minor considering the thousands of hours of pleasure you had at their hands,
ruining their lives,".
“I didn’t orchestrate this, you did, by your actions and your plea of guilty.”
"…and the next judge he sees -- now that he's seen the federal judge, me, soon Judge (Janice) Cunningham -- will be God."
Kyle Stephens confronted Nassar in court on Tuesday, describing in horrific detail his abuse … penetrating her, masturbating in front of her, and rubbing his genitals on
her feet. Stephens said when her parents confronted Nassar about the abuse,
Nassar convinced her parents that she was lying.
Stephens said that she experienced anxiety and eating disorders and occasionally had suicidal thoughts as a result …
As of Tuesday, 149 victims or victims' families had spoken, and a total of 158 are expected, prosecutors said.
On Dec. 7, a federal judge sentenced him to 60 years in prison on three child pornography charges.
http://www.businessinsider.com/larry-nassar-court-victim-statements-2018-1; http://www.businessinsider.com/larry-nassar-scolded-letter-victim-testimony-2018-1?op=1 https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/23/us/prison-sentence-larry-nassar/index.html https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/local/2018/01/18/judge-aquilina-larry-nassar-sentencing/1043698001/
Please keep your comments on topic.