Stephen Miller Freaks Out After Judge Saves Haitians' Protected Status
By: Malcolm Ferguson (The New Republic)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The White House adviser is attacking the Constitution's system of checks and balances.
White House adviser and deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller is once again attacking the judicial branch after it ruined his plans to deport thousands of Haitian immigrants.
On Monday evening, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., temporarily blocked the Trump administration's efforts to terminate Haitians' temporary protected status, which was supposed to end on Tuesday night.
"An unelected judge has just ruled that elections, laws and borders don't exist," said Miller—perhaps the most powerful unelected individual in the country—in reaction to the judge's ruling.
Miller was quickly rebuked.
"Nope. A judge who was nominated and confirmed according to the constitutional process just issued a ruling interpreting the law, holding that the administration was lawless," writer David French replied. "If you disagree with the ruling, you can appeal. That's how the law works."
This isn't the first time basic judicial oversight has caused Miller to throw a tantrum. Last April, as judges ruled against President Trump for suspending due process to deport people, Miller complained about the "rogue, radical left judiciary." And when judges blocked Trump from sending the National Guard to Portland, Oregon, Miller went online and called the ruling "one of the most egregious and thunderous violations of constitutional order we have ever seen."
The shock, awe, and indignation Miller displays every time the judicial system does the whole "checks and balances" thing it's known for only further affirms how little he cares about that process in the first place. He makes these statements because he knows there's nothing he can really do to remove judges who simply won't look away from Trump's constitutional violations.
Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that are known plagiarists, repeat comments, or continue to disrupt/deflect the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed. Any use of the phrase "Trump Derangement Syndrome" or the TDS acronym in a comment will be deleted. Any use of the term "Brandon", "Traitor Joe", or any variations thereof, when referring to President Biden, will be deleted. Right wing trolls can expect to have their irrelevant questions and comments deleted. Posting debunked lies will be subject to deletion. Use of the terms "leftist" or "lefty" will also be subject to deletion. ©
Tags
Who is online
90 visitors
Trump got 49% of the popular vote . Isn't that enough to make him our god?
Yet you think district court judges are...
why do we have judges if Trump should be allowed to override them all?
Why is it that presidents can give temporary protection with an expiration date, extend those dates at will, but a succeeding president can’t fulfill those expiration dates?
This judge is nothing more than an activist, much like many others are out there
It all depends on how one arrives at the decision.
If an analogy helps, you can’t just declare a man guilty and execute him. You have to present evidence, which he has a right to contest. There is a trial for a finding of facts. You can’t decide the outcome in advance. That appears to be the case here.
For multiple cases, each must be judged on its own merits. You can’t just say all black people (or all Haitians) are guilty (or lose their status). In fact, it’s generally unconstitutional to discriminate against someone based on nationality or race. You can’t just be sick of Haitians and send them all home, which also appears to have been the situation here.
So the judge is not saying we can never send the Haitians back under any circumstances - just that the law and the Constitution need to be followed during the process.
Additionally, this year, the United States took the official position that people should not travel to Haiti because it’s too dangerous there. So, it doesn’t make much sense to say that it’s ok for Haitians to return there.
That may seem true, but I'm pretty sure the original allowance for these people to come here temporarily did not include restrictions on how and under what circumstances....individually, the mandate expires
The due process they received was the allowance to stay here with the understanding it was temporary and they would eventually be returned.
It’s kind of baffling to me that people keep using this argument, or that other people accept it as valid. I mean, do you want federal judges campaigning like politicians? Taking money? Making speeches? Winning their positions because they’re popular, and not because they are qualified experts on the law? Because that’s the alternative.
Um...no. My airwaves are already busy with political ads.
I'm no constitutional lawyer but isn't there something in the constitution about appointing judges who have authority to make rulings regarding the law?
In France, judges are not elected. Ever. They govern themselves, with some positions being elected (by other judges), and some appointed (by other judges).
The idea that John Doe is capable of choosing the best judges is stupid.
Some states do elect judges.
Yeah, we do that here. (Actually, we have gubernatorial appointments and voting, but I digress).
It honestly is weird to me. Because I have worked in our courts, I know judges and what they are like in a courtroom - at least the county judges - but I expect that about 99% of voters don’t have a clue about them.
Fortunately, campaigning is extremely limited.
And will be reversed once the adults step in, per usual.
Miller is a snowflake. A racist snowflake.
Does he think he's the reincarnation of Joseph Goebbels? He's as weak looking as the Master of Propaganda. He's definitely not of Aryan stock.
(A) Designations
There is no judicial review of any determination of the Attorney General with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation, of a foreign state under this subsection.
Whoops!
What are you quoting?
Per ChatGPT:
I confess I’m not following the case. So, for starters, it appears DHS Secretary Noem is doing this, not the Attorney General. Not sure how that works.
Also, any determination still has to be done according to procedures and standards set forth in the rest of the act, and the Constitution.
So the judge seems to feel that the outcome was predetermined (which probably violates the act and definitely violates the Fifth Amendment).
The judge also seems to think it was racist, which would violate the Fourteenth Amendment.
No judicial review means no judicial review.
No it doesn’t.