Just as we said he would, he lost -- at trial. and now on appeal. Chucklehead.
I note the 7th Circuit's opinion for the very severe language used -- language unseen in several decades (since Nixon was in that office, at least). Three able federal appellate judges, both republicans and democrats, have penned a 47 page opinion that characterizes Mr. Trump's administration as evincing "a disturbing disregard for the separation of powers. . ." Not a good look, here 45:
. . . .In considering on appeal the likelihood of success on the merits, it is necessary to focus narrowly on the dispositive question and to avoid the invitation of the parties to weigh in on broader policy considerations. For instance, the Attorney General repeatedly characterizes the issue as whether localities can be allowed to thwart federal law enforcement.
That is a red herring. First, nothing in this case involves any affirmative interference with federal law enforcement at all, nor is there any interference whatsoever with federal immigration authorities. The only conduct at issue here is the refusal of the local law enforcement to aid in civil immigration enforcement through informing the federal authorities when persons are in their custody and providing access to those persons at the local law enforcement facility. Some localities might choose to cooperate with federal immigration efforts, and others may see such cooperation as impeding the community relationships necessary to identify and solve crimes.
The choice as to how to devote law enforcement resources -- including whether or not to use such resources to aid in federal immigration efforts—would traditionally be one left to state and local authorities. . . .
In fact, throughout the briefs in this case, the Attorney General is incredulous that localities receiving federal funds can complain about conditions attached to the distribution of those funds. But that repeated mantra evinces a disturbing disregard for the separation of powers. The power of the purse does not belong to the Executive Branch. It rests in the Legislative Branch. . . .
As the Supreme Court has repeatedly held, “’Congress. . . does not alter the fundamental details of a regulatory scheme in vague terms or ancillary provisions -- it does not, one might say, hide elephants in mouseholes.’” Gonzales, 546 U.S. at 267, quoting Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., 531 U.S. 457, 468 (2001). . . .
Indeed. 45 is -- as I said he would be, repeatedly -- a loser, again. Sleep well, all you of good will, and good cheer. . . .
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment