We need a general tweet of the day thread

From the About Time files. Hey illegals should get due process. Well, they did. The Article II Immigration Courts said get the hell out. You are here illegally and we deny your asylum claim. The Article III courts have to defer to the factual findings and then can only over rule if the law has not been applied correctly. The dem District Court judges are not finding they are not illegal aliens and then trying to retry the asylum finding. No bueno.

Ace of Spades HQ

ace.mu.nu ace.mu.nu

Trump Wins Major, Major 9-0 Win at Supreme Court: Lowly Lawless District Court Justices​

—Disinformation Expert Ace​

Immigration judges are actually part of the Executive. There's a big distinction between Article III courts and judges -- those organized under the Judiciary branch -- and other courts (including military courts, tax courts, and immigration courts, among others) established by the Executive.

It should also be noted that Congress decides what cases may be heard by Article III courts -- and also, what cases will be heard by administrative/executive courts.

Since Trump assumed office for his second term, lawless lowly leftwing district court justices have declared that they, not the immigration courts created by Congress, will have ultimate power to decide when the government is allowed to deport criminal illegal aliens who have been under final order of deportation, sometimes for decades. The lawless lowly leftwing district court justices have routinely presumed to overrule those courts and contrive reasons while foreign criminals must be allowed to remain perpetually in the US.

It is true that these cases can be appealed to Article III courts -- but the lowly leftwing district court judges have been giving zero deference to the factual determinations of these courts, instead of doing what courts usually do, which is giving a lot of deference to factual determinations and only correcting on matters of erroneous legal interpretations.



The Supreme Court just ruled 9-0 that these lawless rogue judges must give high deference to the factual rulings of the courts actually created to hear these cases.

Appeals are not about fact-finding. Fact-finding happens in the originating court. Appeals are for review of legal rulings, not factual determinations.

Appeals courts can set aside factual determinations but only by a high "clear and convincing standard" -- they have to find that the lower court clearly, convincingly got the facts wrong. Anything less than that the appeals court has to accept their findings of fact.

But these lawless leftwing judges have been routinely treating every appeal of a deportation order as a complete factual do-over, with the lawless leftwing district court judge now determining the "facts" as he'd like them to be.

The Supreme Court just said: "No."

This case is such a slam-dunk they let The Retard write the opinion. (The Black Retard, not the Wise Latina Retard. The one who by her own admission "just doesn't understand" nearly everything said to her.)

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored the Supreme Court's unanimous ruling Wednesday ordering federal appeals courts to defer to immigration judges when reviewing asylum decisions, bolstering the executive branch's authority in immigration cases and handing the Trump administration a win as it pushes an aggressive deportation agenda.
Jackson, a Biden appointee and one of three liberal justices on the high court, wrote that immigration laws require federal courts to use a "substantial-evidence standard" when reviewing immigration judges' decisions about whether an asylum seeker could face "persecution" if deported.

Jackson emphasized the high bar courts must meet before overturning an immigration judge's findings, potentially making it more difficult for migrants to challenge their deportations as the Trump administration cracks down on illegal immigration.

"The agency's determination... is generally 'conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary,'" Jackson wrote.


Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, migrants can claim asylum when crossing the border without documentation. But immigration judges, who are employees of the Department of Justice, eventually vet those claims and determine whether to grant migrants asylum, which would allow them to stay in the country, or order their deportation.

The migrant can appeal the decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which is also housed within the executive branch, and can then appeal that decision to the federal circuit courts and the Supreme Court.

The decision in this case, Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, affirmed that the judicial branch must largely defer to the executive branch's findings about whether the migrant would suffer persecution if deported, rather than start from scratch and conduct its own review.

"Another WIN for common sense!" the conservative think tank America First Policy Institute wrote on X. "The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that immigration agencies not individual judges determine asylum claims based on alleged persecution. A clear reminder: America's laws should be enforced as written."
Click to expand...
 
I have issues with Massie but these people are American businessmen according to his defenders. Not terrorists

Fair and balanced RaceBannon

He's just another politician with his hand out. Film at 11
 
Colonization anyone? Translation: “Barcelona City Council advises against dancing or playing music in schools during Ramadan.” Buck can tell us how this is a good thing and how Somalia could never happen to Minnesota.

1772753539593.webp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top