Judge William Young has had a distinguished career since his appointment by President Ronald Reagan in 1985, including serving as Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. At 85, his career includes notable cases such as the Boston Strangler and the Shoe Bomber. However, his 161-page opinion declaring the Trump Administration in violation of the First Amendment over visa denials is nothing short of bizarre. It starts as a type of letter to an anonymous person who sent the judge a postcard.
Here is how the caption appeared in
Here is a closer image:
The opinion then ends with this conclusion:
With all due respect to Judge Young (who warrants considerable respect after his remarkable career), the captioning and conclusion are improvisational, impulsive, and injudicious. The court injected a political dialogic element in an opinion with sweeping implications for our constitutional system.
I have previously disagreed with some of these measures and agree with some points in this opinion. For those currently in this country, I have long supported free speech protections. That said, I expect that the Administration has the advantage on visa applicants outside of the country. The courts are already working to sort this out and it is likely to result in a split resolution. However, the tenor and odd elements of this opinion take away from these points.
It is an example of yielding to impulse, a problem that I have previously addressed with district court judges after the Trump inauguration. The trend has even reached the Supreme Court on occasion.
Take District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, an Obama appointee who had previously presided over Trump’s election interference case. Chutkan was criticized for failing to recuse herself from that case after she made highly controversial statements about Trump from the bench. In a sentencing hearing of a Jan. 6 rioter in 2022, Chutkan said that the rioters “were there in fealty, in loyalty, to one man — not to the Constitution.” She added then, “[i]t’s a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.” That “one person” was still under investigation at the time and, when Trump was charged, Chutkan refused to let the case go.
Chutkan later decided to use the bench to amplify her own views of the pardons and Jan. 6. She proclaimed that the pardons could not change the “tragic truth” and “cannot whitewash the blood, feces and terror that the mob left in its wake. And it cannot repair the jagged breach in America’s sacred tradition of peacefully transitioning power.”
Chutkan’s colleague Judge Beryl Howell, also an Obama appointee, lashed out at Trump’s actions, writing, “[T]his Court cannot let stand the revisionist myth relayed in this presidential pronouncement.”
Other judges have engaged in extrajudicial commentary from the bench that undermines the integrity of the court system and their own authority.
The bizarre captioning and conclusion in this case is another such example. It only served to undermine the opinion itself and the legal points raised by the court. It may have been cathartic, but it was also tedious and prejudicial. It has a certain chest-pounding element that is neither necessary nor compelling for a court to insert into an opinion.
Judge Young would be wise to issue a corrected opinion without the novel captioning and conclusion . . . and simply send a postcard to this curious penpal.
Let’s play a little game for Hysterical George, the legal beagle, who scratches out the same desperate lines every day, like nails on a chalk board.
1. INA Section 237(a)(4)(C): This provision states that an
aliencitizen is deportable if the Secretary of State has “reasonable ground to believe [their] presence or activities in the United States would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States”.Take a good look, Hysterical George, and tell us if that would fly.
Gee, I guess aliens DON’T have the same rights as citizens. K
You see, its not their “right” to be here. Its their privilege. So their privilege is being violated.
Aliens have every right to parade around to support Hamas. They just dont get the privilege of doing it here.
1. INA Section 237(a)(4)(C): This provision states that an alien is deportable if the Secretary of State has “reasonable ground to believe [their] presence or activities in the United States would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States”.
2. Bouarfa v. Mayorkas (2024)
The Supreme Court ruled that federal courts do not have the authority to review discretionary decisions made by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to revoke an already-approved visa petition.
The Court’s unanimous decision confirmed that visa petition revocations, as a discretionary act by DHS, are insulated from judicial review, even in cases where the initial denial of a petition could be challenged.
End of story
This is just another case of a Federal judge saying he doesnt care what SCOTUS says.
Article 2
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
“I am a democratic socialist.”
– Zorro Madmani
_____________________
“The goal of Socialism is Communism.”
– Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
“[The] Trump Administration [is] in violation of the First Amendment over visa denials….”
– Judge William Young
YES, THE PRESIDENT IS EXERCISING EXECUTIVE POWER
_____________________________________________________________
Understanding that executive power is vested exclusively in a President of the United States,…
The sole determination that courts can make is that the president is legally and constitutionally exercising executive power.
Courts have no power to control or direct the president, and courts have no executive power to exercise.
Congress has the power to impeach and convict the president.
There is no enumerated power to “interpret” anywhere in the Constitution.
OT
“SCOTUS allows Lisa Cook to stay on Fed board into 2026, accepts case for January argument”
– ABC News
_______________
Can anyone explain this? How does the Supreme Court allow the wholly unconstitutional Federal Reserve Act and the Federal Reserve Board to persist? Congress has no enumerated power to regulate banking, and the Fed is under NO branch of government, not the legislative, executive, or judicial branch; it is an extra-constitutional, independent, and separate branch of government with no citable legal basis. How in the world does this stuff happen?
I have not read the SCOTUS decision – but I beleive this is a shadow docket emergency appeal issue.
That is consistent with the fact that they are going to hear the case in January.
The Fed issue is far more complicated than the other firings that SCOTUS has blessed thus far.
The Fed is a bizarre beast – almost certainly unconstitutional – but that will not be the question in front of SCOTUS and SCOTUS is not getting rid of the Fed regardless.
The Fed is a bizarre public private partnership.
As a result of its unconstitutional construction it is not actually clear that it is part of the executive branch.
I expect Trump to win the case when it gets a hearing in 2026 – thought it could easily be resolved before that if DOJ prosecutes Cook for Mortgage Fraud.
I think there is little doubt SCOTUS will grant Trump the authority to fire Cook.
But it is going to want time and a full hearing of everything on the merits because it is likely to craft a very narrow decision allowing Trump to fire her, and the shadow docket where cases are not fully brief and opinions are crafted in hours not months is not how they wanted to handle this.
Further – though I KNOW Trump wants interest rates lowered – and I personally want interest rates lowered – one of my businesses is INCREDIBLY sensitive to interest rates and has tanked since BidenFlation.
I am NOT actually sure that is the correct monetary policy at the moment.
I would rather get rid of the Fed and let the free market set monetary policy – but we do not have that and are not getting there anytime soon.
Regardless, inflation – though lower than it was by far is STILL too high.
For the good of the country over the long run I would rather bring inflation back to 1% and live with a weaker economy until then.
Though I will note the latest economy numbers were 3.8% growth, with projected 3.9% next month.
The postcard begins the date on the top with the day rather than the month. That suggests that the writer was not an American. Uniquely in the world, we begin a date with the month. The reference to “pardons and tanks” is also odd. All Presidents are granted pardon power by the Constitution, and the control of tanks comes naturally with the President’s Constitutional role as Commander-in-Chief. Would not an American know this? So, I suspect that the judge was the victim of a foreign troll, like some of the people who contribute comments here.
That’s the first thing I noticed after having worked overseas. I’ve never known an American to use that format voluntarily. All I can imagine is that the judge was having a very boring day, to reply to an anonymous note of no consequence.
Well, there certainly is consequence now.
He is 85 years of age and may be over his “use by” date. This is more than bizarre. But why fixate of a postcard from some unknown source. And make an invitation to visit him as if they were not kin or bosom buddies. He want off the rails.
Judge Young is no longer and would do well to hang up his robe and share his personal opinions with family and friends instead creating a permanent public record them.
Military date format is DD MMM YY.
To believe that the humble appearance of that postcard, written as if by a five-year-old with a cute little crayon matches the trenchant political sophistication of its leftist message, is pure naivety. My guess is that the postcard was slipped into the file with a knowing wink and a nod by the principals, and intended, from its inception, for internet consumption. Apparently, the good judge thinks we’re as naive as he, or worse, too stupid to know when we’re being manipulated by his friends and him.
Turley calls the postcard rather bizarre, and so do I.
I suspect it’s from someone not here lawfully.. . hoping to avoid detection and deportation.
*In any case, lawful or unlawful, immigrants don’t crack my Top 5 list of problems that are real threats to the unity, cohesion and prosperity of the country.
Perhaps he meant—>
Pardon and thanks.
The card was misdelivered. It should read (writer new to western format, spelling).
Dear Trump,
You have pardons. Pardon Mahmood.
Thanks,
Mahmoud
*.
The P.S. was also rather touching. I’m surprised good ol’ Bill didn’t sign it
Your friend,
Billy
Conservatives say……a, b, c. Progressives counter with ….x, y, z. It is all predictable, unstimulating, and insulting to our historical intellectual roots.
There was a time, not too long ago, 1980s/90s, era of Pope John Paul II, when societal issues were dissected by serious people, with a philosopher’s mind: Socratic method, Plato’s dialogues, Aristotelian logic. Roman Catholicism has always rejected Evangelical Fundamentalism because it was hollow, absence of dialogue, legalistic, and bore no fruit. Legalism was the way of the Pharisees during the time of Christ.
Our discussions in the public square today have become just that: very legalistic, fundamentalist, shallow, and built on sound bites. Intellectual depth is almost nonexistent. Dialogue is verboten. Logic escapes most discussions. Now comes Pope Leo XIV to answer a reporter’s question in English, on the definition of “pro-life”: vis a vis, abortion, death penalty, inhumane treatment of immigrants in the United State, and he answers concisely and unwaveringly. The evolution of our public square into an “either / or” silo paradigm is an intellectual poverty that shuts down discussions and dumbs down society. Bravo for Pope Leo XIV!
America’s mind is closing.
In English, the Pope was asked for his opinion on the awarding of a prize to Democratic Senator Dick Durbin, who supports legalised abortion, by Cardinal Blase Cupich, Archbishop of Chicago. “I’m not very familiar with the particular case,” Pope Leo XIV said. “I think it is very important to look at the overall work a senator has done during, if I am not mistaken, 40 years of service in the United States Senate.”
The Pope acknowledged the difficulties and tensions but emphasised that “it is important to consider many issues related to the teaching of the Church.” He underlined that saying “I am against abortion” while supporting the death penalty is not truly pro-life, nor is agreeing with the inhumane treatment of immigrants in the United States.
“These are very complex issues. I do not know if anyone has the full truth on them, but I would first of all ask that there be greater mutual respect, and that together — as human beings, in that case as American citizens or citizens of Illinois, as well as Catholics — we say: ‘We need to look closely at all these ethical issues and find the way forward as a Church.’ Church teaching on each of these issues is very clear.”
“Legalism was the way of the Pharisees during the time of Christ.”
Estovir, I know you do not intend to be insulting, but if someone knew little of you, they might think otherwise. It is a stereotype that contributed to misunderstandings Pope John Paul II worked so hard to correct. He helped reverse centuries of hostility and improved the life of the Jew. During his 2000 pilgrimage, John Paul II placed a prayer for forgiveness in the Western Wall. Earlier anchors matter too, including his visit to the Rome synagogue in 1986. In doing so, he also addressed ideas with roots in the writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas, whose theology gave early shape to what later became known as replacement theory.
In truth, the Pharisees preserved the Torah. They interpreted law for daily life, forming the foundation of Rabbinic Judaism. They were thoughtful, adaptive, and spiritually serious.
There were several sects within Judaism, and following the destruction of the Second Temple, most Jews continued within the Pharisaic tradition.
There is nothing wrong with individuals devoted to holiness. Some are rabbis, but many are doctors, lawyers, and engineers. How did holiness continue after the destruction of the Temple? Because the Pharisees taught that holiness could be lived each day, at home, at work, and in community. How else did holiness survive the Temple’s destruction? Rabbinic Judaism emphasized halakha, Jewish law, as a guide for living life to its fullest.
When the word Pharisee is used as an insult, it misapplies the name of those who shaped Jewish religious life as we know it. The “legalism” often mentioned was, in truth, *moral reasoning*, an effort to bring justice and sanctity into daily life. The Gemara is read as a record of argument and compassion.
For completeness, it may be noted that another Jewish sect, the Sadducees, favored a literal interpretation of the Torah. The Essenes lived in ascetic communities, and some (though not I) believe Jesus may have come from among them. Finally, there were the Zealots, who were violently opposed to Rome. If any group might be described as fundamentalist or anti-dialogue, it would be the Zealots, or perhaps the Sadducees, not the Pharisees.
I recognize that Jesuits often pursue truth with great directness and intensity, and I respect that. I also value the Evangelical community, whose strong support for Israel and goodwill toward the Jewish people are deeply appreciated. Dialogue among all of us is how true understanding grows. I offer this in the spirit of learning from one another.
Dear Mr. Meyers,
You said that so much better than I could have said it. 😏
Thanks,
*.
Thank you so much. I am sure you would do just fine. I hope others feel the way you do.
“. . . an ‘either / or’ silo paradigm . . .”
You mean like you just did — which is called reaffirmation in the act of denial (an Aristotelian principle of logic).
First you (seem to) praise Aristotelian logic. Then you condemn either-or, which is essential to his logic.
Very informative.
Professor Turley is neither disagreeing with the judge’s ruling nor claiming that the judge is wrong. However, he is also not defending Trump.
It seems more unusual for Turley to focus on the judge’s use of what could be called a “framing device” rather than on the case itself. The reactions from most commenters suggest that he has successfully distracted less critical minds from the real issue—the attacks on free speech by the president.
. . . the real issue . . .
Professor Turley chose to write about an issue, which happens to be different than what you want to talk about. In case you didn’t read the above article, I’ll save you the time: the issue Professor Turley wrote about is the phenomenon where judges become unhinged and go off on political rants, which is definitely unjudicial, as is the use of “framing devices” that make the judge look like he has Trump derangement. That is a valid issue for a legal blog. It is also quite “real.”
This is georgie’s third or fourth rendition of the issue. He’s playing spaghetti on the wall.
Oldmanfromkansas, thank you so much for proving my point. Turley made it about the judge to distract YOU from the fact that he does not disagree with the judge. He doesn’t say he’s wrong.
There you go again X bot. There’s a giant hole in your thinking but I do agree threat.
X – you may not understand why, but the topic chosen by the professor – which I summarized above – is a valid one for a legal blog.
I didn’t prove your point. Your point is silly. Your point is childish. You reveal an immature attitude that if the professor doesn’t write about the issue you want to talk about, if he doesn’t somehow bash Trump, he must have some nefarious ulterior motive to distract people. If that was his aim, why wouldn’t he just not write about this case? Why wouldn’t he just write about cases which Trump wins, of which there are many?
You probably also have no clue how absurd you sound to the adults in the room.
Your childish, repetitive rants get old. Bu thats the point, isnt it, troll?
Or do you really believe that Turley wakes up in the morning, and thinks, “what shall i distract them with today”? Lets write a column about Trump that will distract them from Trump.
You dont, do you, George? Nah, you just think thats a clever way of saying that you dont like Turley’s blog and feel some really weird, overwhelming need to make it known, as though anyone cares.
Tell us again the definition of perjury, George.
Still heavily engaged in mind reading I see.
You do a pi$$ poor job of accurately reporting what Turley said – why would anyone beleive you know what he thinks ?
But typical for a left wing nut – YOU always think you know what others think.
And you don’t.
John Say, no mind reading is necessary; simple observation is all it takes.
“You do a poor job of accurately reporting what Turley said…”
Actually, Turley did a poor job of characterizing the purpose of the judge’s opinion’s unusual format. He seemed to focus more on the judge and question his mental acuity due to his age, instead of addressing the real issue: Trump’s use of threats of deportation and visa revocation to silence speech he dislikes. This is an unconstitutional use of government power. Professor Turley has always been willing to defend free speech, regardless of how obscure or vague the attacks may be. However, in this case, he appears to be avoiding the topic because of who is making the attacks.
What stood out, and what many, including you, did not mention, is that Professor Turley did not disagree with the ruling itself. By concentrating on the unusual formatting of the opinion rather than the overall point it made, he led those with critical thinking deficiencies to believe the judge was not competent.
The postcard is similar to Comey’s sea shell number divination. Postcards and seashells…
Meanwhile the big faux fight over the budget. Spending TRILLIONS should get all non-reelected. The reason Musk said adios with a black eye? Bankruptcy as the monkey clowns perform.
I just want to know what Frederica Wilson thinks and feels.
The postcard is foreign script with foreign date notation. Curved script may indicate lack of familiarity with left to right , horizontal script and second language English illiteracy certainly.
FBI should be examing it.
*. The 9 and J in the date say Farsi.
*. AND no one is removing Mr. Kahlil’s freedom to speak, write, worship or assemble…
It’s a change of LOCATION…
So tired of these people I’m going on vacation. I’ll send a postcard and pics of seashells. Bleck
It’s just a change of location. No one has taken their freedom of speech or clanging pots and pans, tents, flag burnings and so much more.
X under Biden SCOTUS ruled that revoking a Visa is entirely within the discretionary power of DHS and not reviewable by the courts.
I would note that YOU keep saying this is about free speech.
Those who got their visa’s revoked – engaged in protected free speech AND particpated in violent rioting, extortion and other crimes.
Even for citizens The First Amendment does not protect you from the consequences of other criminal actions that occured before or after you were speaking.
John Say,
You stated, that “under the Biden administration, the Supreme Court ruled that the revocation of a visa is entirely within the discretionary power of DHS and is not reviewable by the courts.”
The question before the court was about the discretionary power, however. This ruling does not apply to the cases I mentioned because the secretary of state ADDED the cause to his reasonsing. The claim that Ozturk and Khalil’s activities posed a threat to U.S. policies. Because the Secretary invoked that reason it became reviewable by the courts.
Judge Young’s ruling showed why and it’s one of the reasons why Professor Turley didn’t go in depth about his opinion and chose to focus on the weird format.
“You claimed that those who had their visas revoked engaged in protected free speech as well as violent rioting, extortion, and other crimes.”
In reality, none of the individuals whose visas were revoked were involved in violent rioting or extortion.
Rumeyza Ozturk co-wrote an opinion piece critical of Israel.
Mahmoud Khalil did not engage in violence or extortion. Negotiating a peaceful resolution with the school administration is not extortion. In both instances, the government was unable to prove that they committed any crimes or posed a threat to national security. That is why their arrests were found to be unlawful. They were targeted for their political speech.
John Say, you do know that Khalil was not a visa holder, right? He was legal permanent resident. Which makes his case reviewable by the courts.
The case being decided by the Judge Young is about Khalil’s unlawful arrest and detainment and the government’s attempt to deport him.
The government failed to prove he engaged in violent protests and, as you claim, engaged in extortion. The government targeted Khalil for his political speech activities.
WOW george, you are a special kind of STUPID!
OT
“SCOTUS allows Lisa Cook to stay on Fed board into 2026, accepts case for January argument”
– ABC News
_______________
Can anyone explain this? How does the Supreme Court allow the wholly unconstitutional Federal Reserve Act and the Federal Reserve Board to persist? Congress has no enumerated power to regulate banking, and the Fed is under NO branch of government, not the legislative, executive, or judicial branch; it is an extra-constitutional, independent, and separate branch of government with no citable legal basis. How in the world does this stuff happen?
“How does the Supreme Court allow the wholly unconstitutional Federal Reserve Act and the Federal Reserve Board to persist?”
Do you really think that SCOTUS was asked to rule on the Constitutionality of the Federal Reserve in this case?
Aninny, are you new—OT?
Whatever happened to this Obama-era argument (from his DHS):
“The Department of State has broad authority under Section 221(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to revoke visas.”
Key aspects of that Section include “*discretionary* authority” granted to the State Department, and no judicial review.
To be granted a visa means that you are a visitor to America — a *guest* of this country. Act like you appreciate that privilege. Or be shown the door.
It is no accident that the commenters here who have no concept of being JT’s guest, are the same ones condemning the visa revocations.
Problem is revoking visas for exercing a constitutional right afforded to everyone who resides and lives within our borders. The constitution does not say, “except those on visas”. Right?
. . . and lives within our borders.
So, illegal aliens too? They “live within” America’s borders.
If you’re going to make such a sweeping assertion, please clarify whether it’s your personal opinion, or if not, what it’s based on. That way we can look into it further to see if you’re accurately representing the authority you’re relying on.
Is there support of known, designated terrorists? Terrorists are extremely dangerous as are serial killers. Have you seen the gaping hole in NYC where Twin Towers once was?
National security isn’t within the judiciary. We’ve lost New York. Want more?
“Problem is revoking visas for exercing a constitutional right afforded to everyone who resides and lives within our borders. ”
George/X – you’re about the only one we’re likely to encounter this year who will claim that trafficking human beings – like one of your Confederate Democrat slave traders – is a Constitutional right. I can see why human trafficking appeals to your Confederate mind set, of course.
He may well have exercised some actual constitutional rights i.e. praying to Allah that Hamas would succeed in finishing off Hitler’s Final Solution.
But really… the only problem is your silly claim that human trafficking is a Constitutional right. Or for that matter… beating your wife is exercising yet another Constitutional right.
The Constitution doesnt say a lot of things, you idiot. Including who it applies to. By your logic it applies to anyone on the planet. And aliens in space.
But our laws do say And our courts do say.
Both of these give BROAD discretionary power to the executive branch on matters of immigration, much of it FREE FROM judicial review.
If you need the citations for these WELL KNOWN truths, please let me know.
Do you understand what UNREVIEWABLE means ? I am unfamiliar with the Obama era opinion – but SCOTUS in 2024 while Biden was president found that Visa revocations are UNREEIABLE.
As to your first amentment claim – AGAIN engaging in first amendment protected speech does not extend that protection to further ACTS that do not enjoy first amendment protection.
And that is ignoring the issue of how much first amendment protection a citizen of another country has in the US on a temporary visa ?
John Say,
Khalil’s case has nothing to do with his visa. It has to do with the deportation order. Deportation proceedings and the reason behind them ARE reviewable by the courts. The visa issue is irrelevant.
The issue with your argument is that the government failed to prove that both Ozturk and Khalil engaged in any acts that fall outside of First Amendment protection.
Ozturk co-wrote an op-ed, and that’s all she did.
Khalil did not engage in any violence or extort anyone. Organizing a protest is not a crime, nor is negotiating peacefully with the school administration on behalf of students. That does not constitute extortion.
The unreviewability of visa revocations is not absolute; even the Supreme Court has acknowledged this. But the case is not about his visa revocation. It’s the deportation.
The case you are referencing, which you claim makes visa revocations unreviewable, is irrelevant.
Khalil was challenging his deportation. Not his visa revocation. His argument, which is indeed reviewable is the government’s use of the threat of deportation to silence his point of view. His political speech which he does have regardless of his status as a non-citizen.
There seems to be some disagreement about this case, and the First Amendment. Do visitors to our country have the same rights to free speech that we supposedly do? Some say yes, some say no. As for me, I ask, “Who does the Grail serve?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BW5L5fviP4M&list=RDBW5L5fviP4M&start_radio=1
This website may provide guidance:
https://www.monsalvat.no/concommon.htm
YES, THE PRESIDENT IS EXERCISING EXECUTIVE POWER
______________________________________________________________
Understanding that executive power is vested exclusively in a President of the United States,…
The sole determination that courts can make is that the president is legally and constitutionally exercising executive power.
Courts have no power to control or direct the president, and courts have no executive power to exercise.
Congress has the power to impeach and convict the president.
There is no enumerated power to “interpret” anywhere in the Constitution.
Perhaps, and with all due respect for his remarkable career, Judge Young’s best days on the bench are behind him and he is now in need of a well deserved but long overdue retirement.
….and perhaps, over time, the judge has metamorphosed into a leftist.
Not only that, there should be a mandatory age limit.
Or, as the MSM likes to say, he has “grown in office”.
“Not only that, there should be a mandatory age limit.”
Because Justice Clarence Thomas is feeble minded and needs to be replaced with some sharp as a tack youngster like the latest: Justice Jackson?
I was born from a cross fire hurricane
I was razed by a toothless bearded hag
But it’s all in the light now…
What fitting lyrics for Comey and Hillary. I love the smell of indictments in the morning. Hey, anyone seen the reported Grand master of conspirator Barrrry-O
Great job Pam, Kash, Dan, Tulsi! Keep it coming, you are winning and America thanks you!
Take it away Floyd!
Yes, age may be a factor, but so is TDS. It is astonishing how desperately these ‘agents of change’ cling to a status quo that benefits them personally. This is all beyond absurd. Glad it’s happening though: finally the mask are off for all to see, our government and the people involved has been a grift for far too long. There is no question that in spite of the ‘red scare’, communism is what the globalists, whoever they are or what their declared affiliations may be, are trying to impose on the entire freaking planet. This is Feudalism 2.0. We do not have to accept it.
Dear Prof Turley,
I’m unclear what the postcard has to with anything, or why you disagree with the Judge?
Afaict, this is a speech 1a case.
“This case -– perhaps the most important ever to fall within
the jurisdiction of this district court –- squarely presents the
issue whether non-citizens lawfully present here in United
States actually have the same free speech rights as the rest of
us. The Court answers this Constitutional question
unequivocally “yes, they do.” “No law” means “no law.””
We hold this truth to be self-evident. In fact, I would argue that even non-citizens unlawfully present here hold that same inalienable right.
In any case, the War is within .. . and I thought I would post this here, and let you people see if I’m as big a son of a ditch as you people think I am.
*at ease .. .
DG
Has anyone suppressed his 1st? NOPE
Dusty. .. ain’t got all day.
A cursory review suggests the judge is saying Trump’s State dept. cannot issue ‘visa denials’ based solely on speech?
*if that is a correct interpretation of the case, I wholeheartedly agree.
That has all ready been talked about. The judge is very old and wrong. Just like Biden.
The video you posted does not play
Trump is no spring chicken.
While age is no guarantee wisdom, this judge correctly ruled that Trump’s State dept. cannot issue visa denials based solely on speech. .. that’s a violation of the constitution, fwiw.
The video has link to YouTube to watch it .. . evidently the owner disabled it on other websites. Sry.
*warning. it’s a short take on President Trump’s, and Sec. of War, recent address to an exclusive captured audience of top Admirals and Generals.
So if an immigrant has to declare through testimony or oath their allegiance to the United States above all others to gain citizenship, then would not their own speech in support of anti-American values be sufficient to kick their azzes out?
Can’t have it both ways.
That is a bad example. If an immigrant is granted citizenship – there is no doubt at all they have the right to say anything that any other citizen can say.
Citizenship is incredibly hard to revoke. Generally you have to prove that the person told a material lie to gain the citizenship.
As an example they said they were not a Nazi when they came to the US and were later proven to have been a Nazi.
There are about half a dozen citizenship revokations in the country a year.
You don’t strike us as having a greater grasp of your mental faculties than Trump. Or perhaps more to the point: mental faculties equal to those of this judge. Which leads one to wonder why you felt such a desperate need to use that non sequitur comment on Trump as your lead in.
I’m impressed that you somehow or other believe your Ouija Board has given you such special powers that you can divine the legal reasoning that is unstated in that order. Imagine being a first year law student with an assignment to write and turn in a simple ruling and turning that in, expecting get a passing mark.
And, FWIW, when an appellate court throws that ruling out on it’s ear – is your Ouija Board going to inspire you to say they’re also violating the Constitution as you claim Trump’s State Department is?
I do not know with regard to this judge – but the question is not age.
Milton Friedman and Ronald Coase were as sharp as ever into their mid 90’s.
John
Ronald Regan had Alzheimer’s horribly the last several years of his life.
Did Ilhan Omar tell a material lie?
That is not the actual case before him.
But lets presume it is.
If an Illegal Alien is in the US and appears on TV deriding the administration,
does his free speech mean that he now CANT be deported ?
That is NOT how rights work.
I also find it odd that the very people ranting endlessly about Russian election interference – which was also nothing more than free speech being excercised badly by Putin from outside the US’s jurisdiction, are now ranting that illegal aliens not only can say what ever they want – but if they do so,
they can no longer be deported ?
Trump has for legal immigrants, permanent residents, and students. He’s using the threat of deportation, visa revocations, and investigations to silence the their speech he does not like.
That is the whole point of the case and the judge is Trump out for using immigration law to silence those he does not like.
Professor Turley is failing to address the issue. Instead, he chose to focus on the judge’s odd opinion format as something more meaninful. Turley does not want to be seen as critical of Trump as harshly as he has been of Democrats or Biden. Because he knows he will face fierce backlash and lose a favorable “position” he enjoys within the MAGA-verse. That is pretty sad and it exposes Turley’s hypocrisy on the matter of free speech.
“FAKE ASYLUM” “immigration” is a colossal FRAUD that is being perpetrated to invade America and replace the population of actual Americans.
Americans have been duped as fools and need to wake the —- up!
Global communist, direct, and mortal enemies of America are about 30% successful to date.
Actual Americans and America need ASYLUM from unassimilable parasitic foreign invaders.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“We the People of the United States,…SECURE the Blessings of Liberty TO OURSELVES and OUR POSTERITY,….”
– Preamble, 1789
____________________
“[We gave you] a [restricted-vote] republic, if you can keep it.”
– Ben Franklin, 1787
_______________________
You couldn’t.
They are guests in our country, should they decide to voice their divisive opinions about social issues that are incendiary and against our national interests they can be summarily dismissed to leave. Why is this so hard for people like you to understand? Non citizens do not enjoy the same rights and privileges that US citizens enjoy under our constitution, if that were the case that would be the same as an open border open society scenario. Should an American citizen go to any country and insert themselves into their political system voicing anti government sentiments, they would be immediately deported and/or jailed. Go to Mexico and start some anti government activities and see what happens.
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas (2024)
The Supreme Court ruled that federal courts do not have the authority to review discretionary decisions made by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to revoke an already-approved visa petition.
The Court’s unanimous decision confirmed that visa petition revocations, as a discretionary act by DHS, are insulated from judicial review, even in cases where the initial denial of a petition could be challenged.
George,
Tell me what it is about this that you dont understand.
X – Trump does not want to silence them.
He wants them GONE.
They are free to scream “Death to America, and Death to the Jews” in Syria.
You are trying to make this about rights – but there is No right for non-citizens to be in the US.
Visa’s are a privildge not a right. The US does not have to grant them and SCOTUS in 2024 said that Mayorkas DHS could revoke them and the courts had no power to review that decision.
With respect to rights – inarguably a non-citizen has the right to remain silent, the right to a jury trial – many of the rights the constitution grant us.
But inarguably he does NOT have others. They can not vote, They can not hold federal office.
So whether you or this judge likes it or not, it is an absolute established fact that non-citizens do NOT have exactly the same rights as citizens.
Do they have free speech rights ?
I am not even sure that is a legitimate question in the cases the Judge is dealing with.
He like you is making the assumption that these people were deported for speech.
I have not heard of a single example of anyone getting their Visa revoked that did not have conduct BEYOND speech.
Revoking a Visa sends someone HOME. It does NOT send them to jail.
It does NOT take away from them anything they had an actual right to.
Trump is threatening to revoke Visa’s for CONDUCT – rioting, extortion, blackmail.
I would note AGAIN Visa’s are discretionary – they can be revoked for conduct that is not criminal.
But most of these people were arrested – maybe only for disorderly conduct, But still arrested.
The Point of the Case X is that the US should not be giving student visa’s to people who come from $hithole country and Hate the US.
You are perfectly free to hate the US.
But do not come here if you do.
Trump is working hard to get rid of people that never should have been allowed in the country.
Again – there is no RIGHT to a visa.
Do you think that a Syrian who SAYS that they want to come here to diddle 8yr olds should be given a Visa ?
The US is not obligated to take in people who hate the country.
And Yes we can refuse to grant a Visa based on someones speech.
If you can reject a VISA based on what someone says – you can revoke it.
National security vis-a-vis foreigners is a whole different ballgame. Just stating in generalized terms that 1A applies to everyone equally is unconvincing. First, it’s not clear that everything in the Bill of Rights applies equally to foreigners here by permission and people who have a right to be here based on citizenship or permanent residency. Second, no rights are absolute, as they all must be balanced against competing interests such as the needs of the people for effective law enforcement and national security. For example, some speech – such as perjury, terroristic threats, or fraud- can be prosecuted criminally, and other speech can be subjected to reasonable time, place, and manner regulations.
NotSoOld: Agree with both you and S. Meyer here. Judge Young is of course bound to rule based on the arguments presented to him, which were unfortunately grounded in the First Amendment.
However, as you note, SCOTUS does allow viewpoint discrimination in certain applications usually with strict scrutiny analysis.
IMHO, 18 U.S. Code and INA provisions (brought up by the Defendants) should have been more balanced against 1A arguments (the focus of Plaintiffs).
For me, the pivotal question should have been, “Do presence or activities in the U.S. compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest and would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences consistent with INA 237(a)(4)(C)?” In other words, ‘presence or activity’ considerations should be able to include speech, forum, intent and effect considerations.
Lin – thanks for adding these details.
SCOTUS does allow viewpoint discrimination in certain applications usually with strict scrutiny analysis.
That’s a good way of “precising up” the issue. It’s not that the Constitution disallows certain things, it’s just that it makes certain things disfavored and only permissible by the government when strict judicial scrutiny is satisfied.
For example: we’ve all heard that the Equal Protection Clause prohibits racial discrimination, meaning the government may not, legislatively or in execution, classify people by race. Generally that’s true, but it is not totally precise. In reality, the Equal Protection Clause triggers strict scrutiny toward racial classifications. I believe it was Justice Scalia who said that if there was a race riot in a prison, the prison authorities would would be permitted to segregate the inmates by race until the danger passed.
Lin, there is a reason the strict scrutiny test was given short shrift. Your recitation of the court’s First Amendment strict scrutiny test completely omits the second requirement other than “compelling government interest” – i.e., that the law be “narrowly tailored” to achieve the compelling government interest.
Giving the Secretary of State absolute discretion to determine whether immigrant speech implicates an adverse foreign policy consequence is, by definition, not narrowly tailored. This is true, even when one takes at face value the stated policy of targeting antisemitic harassment and violence. Giving Rubio sole discretion to determine that a Tuft student’s op-ed, asking her school to divest from Israel: (see the harmless, if misguided, op-ed: https://www.tuftsdaily.com/article/2024/03/4ftk27sm6jkj), without conditions/guidance on how to make that determination is decidedly not “narrowly tailored.” In no way does a single student’s op-ed about university divestment affect foreign policy in such a manner as to justify this viewpoint discrimination.
For more on how this judge does, in fact, discuss this issue, see FN 40 of the opinion on p125 and 126.
Also, I would advise reviewing Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz., 576 U.S. 155, 168, 171 (2015) if you do not remember from Con Law the second prong of the strict scrutiny test.
I accept your point. But it is you who errs.
I did not included it because you have erroneously assumed and concluded that I was siding with the SOS/INA as prevailing. Go back and read what I said.
Indeed, all I said was that strict scrutiny analysis requires a development of arguments “balancing” First Amendment considerations with INA/SOS determinations. I do believe that “narrowly tailored” encompasses this, to include a consideration of less intrusive alternatives–something YOU left out. thanks anyway.
You wrote: “For me, the pivotal question should have been, “Do presence or activities in the U.S. compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest and would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences consistent with INA 237(a)(4)(C)?” In other words, ‘presence or activity’ considerations should be able to include speech, forum, intent and effect considerations.”
You literally referenced INA 237(a)(4)(C) which states that “An alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable.”
As you hopefully know, courts have routinely found “reasonableness” not to be narrowly tailored enough to pass strict scrutiny. So, the same analysis applies as with sole discretion.
The “pivotal question” cannot address whether immigrant speech/conduct compromises a compelling US foreign policy interest without also addressing whether the law is narrowly tailored. Allowing Rubio to state “reasonable” grounds to determine that a student op-ed about the school’s divestment from Israel has “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences” is madness.
And by the way – the least restrictive means test is the same thing as the narrowly tailored test. Narrowly tailored laws use the least restrictive means to achieve their purpose. INA 237(a)(4)(C), giving the SOS the ability to enact reasonable measures to deport aliens and the Trump’s admin’s policy of deporting immigrants who saying anything that is pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel, is clearly not the least restrictive means.
Lin, put more succinctly, allowing reasonableness to pass strict scrutiny is to completely blur the lines between strict scrutiny and the rational basis test.
You sound like George. Backed into a corner, you change the game/issue. You have completely and ridiculously altered what I said, more correctly, what I did not say. Check.
How did I alter what you said?
1) The law that you quoted imposes a reasonableness standard on the Secretary of State’s discretion. Correct?
2) The means provided by the law – “reasonableness” is a rational basis level of scrutiny, which is, by definition, a less stringent standard than the strict scrutiny test? Correct?
3) Ergo, any viewpoint based discrimination that uses that laws explicit means of restriction cannot be considered narrowly tailored to achieve its purpose.
What did I “alter”? Did you not reference INA 237(a)(4)(C)? Did you not selectively cite only one prong of the strict scrutiny test for viewpoint-based discrimination?
this is how you altered what she said, georgie. This is what you said, “As you hopefully know, courts have routinely found ‘reasonableness’ not to be narrowly tailored enough to pass strict scrutiny. So, the same analysis applies as with sole discretion.”
the only reason why strict scrutiny is required is because of first amendment issues. Otherwise it would have been a reasonableness standard. Do you get it clown?
THIS IS A FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUE?
Strict scrutiny is therefore required. How is that in any way controversial?
Lin acknowledged that it was a 1st Amendment issue. Nothing was altered
naw, don’t think so, pal. I’m sorry here, but I believe your construction of “narrowly tailored” is quite, er, incomplete.
First, you state, “The least restrictive means test is the same thing as the narrowly tailored test.”
Don’t think so, pal. That’s a semantics game.
Considerations for whether something is narrowly-tailored INCLUDE:
-the language and wording of the provision
-is there a suspect classification?
-what is the scope of parties affected?
-is it overly-broad or underinclusive?
-is this the least intrusive/restrictive means to guarantee/protect/or serve the compelling state interest?
All of these elements/components are considered in a final disposition of whether it is “narrowly-tailored.”
It is not a semantics game. When the restriction is NOT content-neutral, as you acknowledged pretty clearly above, the only way a narrowly tailored restriction can pass muster is if it is the least intrusive/restrictive means of serving the government’s interest.
Here is McCullen v. Coakley (2014), which explains this pretty directly for a restriction it deemed content-neutral.
“Even though the Act is content neutral, it still must be “narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest.” Ward, 491 U. S., at 796 (internal quotation marks omitted). The tailoring requirement does not simply guard against an impermissible desire to censor. The government may attempt to suppress speech not only because it disagrees with the message being expressed, but also for mere convenience. Where certain speech is associated with particular problems, silencing the speech is sometimes the path of least resistance. But by demand ing a close fit between ends and means, the tailoring requirement prevents the government from too readily “sacrific[ing] speech for efficiency.” Riley v. National Federation of Blind of N. C., Inc., 487 U. S. 781, 795 (1988).
For a content-neutral time, place, or manner regulation to be narrowly tailored, it must not “burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government’s legitimate interests.” Ward, 491 U. S., at 799. Such a regulation, unlike a content-based restriction of speech, “need not be the least restrictive or least intrusive means of” serving the government’s interests. Id., at 798. But the government still “may not regulate expression in such a manner that a substantial portion of the burden on speech does not serve to advance its goals.” Id., at 799.”
Lin, Anonymous is correct. It’s not a semantics game. You’re a lawyer for crying out loud. You should know the distinctions Anonymous was making. He was even citing specific laws. YOU got cornered. You accused him of playing semantics to avoid acknowledging a valid point.
Listen, clown (pretending to be separate from anonymous), this is what you just said,
“When the restriction is NOT content-neutral, as you acknowledged pretty clearly above, the only way a narrowly tailored restriction can pass muster is if it is the least intrusive/restrictive means of serving the government’s interest.”
that is NOT what you previously said. which was , ““The least restrictive means test is the same thing as the narrowly tailored test.” NO, IT IS NOT AS SHE EXPLAINED. IT IS ONE FACTOR OR COMPONENT IN AN ANALYSIS, AND USUALLY THE LAST ONE.
SHOW US ONE SINGLE CASE WHERE SCOTUS SAYS THAT A LEAST RESTRICTIVE TEST IS THE ONLY AND COMPLETE FACTOR IN A NARROWLY-TAILORED DETERMINATION. AND RILEY CASE SAYS NO. SUCH. THING.
Lin’s list is a general strict scrutiny list. It is not specific to the 1st Amendment strict scrutiny analysis. She borrows concepts from race-based discrimination cases like suspect classifications, which are irrelevant here, unless she is trying to say that deporting Arab immigrants is a race-based issue (which I guarantee is not the leap she wants to make).
For THIS CONTEXT – i.e., viewpoint discrimination – to be narrowly tailored, the law must be the least restrictive means.
More importantly, it is abundantly clear that a reasonableness inquiry is NOT the least restrictive means. Lin, of course, failed to address that substantive point above because arguing that reasonableness = strict scrutiny would blur the line between rational basis test and strict scrutiny.
clown, Lin is correct. Here, take a look at this, particularly p.5-7 https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/freedom-speech-permissible-tailoring-and-transcending-strict-scrutiny
“Most cases striking down speech restrictions, however, rely
primarily on the narrow tailoring prong, which, according to the
Court, contains four components.”
Did you read the article you posted?
On page 7: “These three components [which are different from Lin’s by the way] are closely related, and all of them could be subsumed within the “least restrictive alternative” inquiry. If the law doesn’t actually advance the interest, then not having the
law at all would be a less restrictive but equally effective alternative. Likewise, if the law is overinclusive, then a narrower law that exempted speech which doesn’t implicate the interest would be less restrictive and equally effective. When the Court says, as it sometimes does, that a law must be “‘necessary to serve a compelling state interest,”‘ it seems to be referring to these three components.”
To the anonymous clown below @ 5:08, you seemed to have missed that it was SCOTUS who spelled out the four components, while you quote a leftist law professor who PROPOSES that three of them might be overlapping or combined. That’s about as hilarious as you completely ignoring your own false comment that narrow tailoring and least restrictive are “the same thing.” clown
Anonymous – it is Narrowly tailored – because it only applies to non-citizen Visaholders.
People who do not have a right to be here that is being violated.
When the First amendment says the right to free speech should not be infringed – what does not mean ?
It means you can not be punished for speech by taking away from you something that is yours by right, such as your money or your liberty.
What is being taken from Visa holders is NOT their by right.
You can lose your job over free speech – as many on the left are learning right now.
You can lose it even if you are a citizen.
You can lose your GOVERNMENT job over speech.
No one is being censured – they are being sent home – where they can rant about the great Satan all they want.
A visa is absolutely a right bestowed upon an individual by the government.
By your insane logic, the government could take away an individual’s SNAP benefits based on disfavored speech? Or access to Medicaid?
Government entitlements, licenses, benefits, etc. are all rights created by the government.
Rosenberger v. University of Virginia held that the public institution could not deny funding to a student religious publication that it provided to other student publications because of the religious content of the publication. The university funding was an entitlement/right that the government provided, just like a visa is a right the government provides to illegal aliens.
OldmanfromKansas,
“First, it’s not clear that everything in the Bill of Rights applies equally to foreigners here by permission and people who have a right to be here based on citizenship or permanent residency.”
It’s clear as a bell for those who understand how the Constitution is framed. You are right that not everything within the Bill of Rights applies to foreigners, BUT those that we claim are “universal truths that we hold to be self-evident” are.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,…”
Meaning even immigration law cannot supersede the government’s prohibition on the abridgment of speech.
Permission has nothing to do with anything. The moment they are here permission or not they have certain rights and that means free from government punishing them or seeking retribution for their speech, especially political speech. Nothing in the Constitution exempts foreigners from exercising and having 1st amendment rights. As long as they are within our borders they are subject to the jurisdiction of our supreme law like everyone else.
Some don’t want some to have the same rights as they enjoy simply because they are not citizens. Trump and company will treat foreigners as if they were not worthy of our most important protections from government infringement. Our constitution makes no such distinction when it comes to free speech protections.
X – You’re making lots of assertions about how the law applies. If I say I won’t take your word for it, will you supply some legal authority to back up what you’re saying? Or is all of this just your own personal opinion? Please clarify where you are coming from on this.
The text of the First Amendment is worded as a general limitation on government power, not a form of special protection for a particular group of people, such as US citizens or permanent residents. The Supreme Court held as much in a 1945 case Bridges v. Wixon, where they ruled that “Freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country.”
A standard response to this view is the idea that, even if non-citizens have a right to free speech, they don’t have a constitutional right to stay in the US. Thus, deporting them for their speech doesn’t violate the Constitution. But, in virtually every other context, it is clear that depriving people of a right as punishment for their speech violates the First Amendment, even if the right they lose does not itself have constitutional status. For example, there is no constitutional right to get Social Security benefits. But a law that barred critics of the President from getting those benefits would obviously violate the First Amendment. The same logic applies in the immigration context.
While you are loosely correct,
The right to free speech can not be used to secure a right that you do not have or only have conditionally.
If you are receiving social security benefits that you are NOT entitled to and you criticize the president that does not grant you the right to those social security benefits forever – even thought you are not entitled to them because you can allege that you were only caught because you excercised our first amendment rights.
Next, while I favor the strongest possible protection of all rights under all circumstances for all people, and a far broader understanding of what is and is not a right than SCOTUS currently accepts.
There is no right that is absolute.
An enormous amount of time is wasted on this blog because left wing nuts are constantly argument that free speech as an example is absolute one day, and the next they are arguing that no all kinds of speech can be punished by government.
The US has a long history of strengthening the protections for free speech such that nearly all speech enjoys near absolute protection.
But we do not have can not have and never will have absolute protection of free speech.
I would further note that to the extent you read the conclusions of he court case you cite as absolute – then that reading is just as wrong as the claim the first amendment is absolute.
Just as with the first amendment itself – we strive for the highest protections for rights that will work. But it is FALSE that each person physically present in the US has the same rights.
If you are convicted of a crime – you lose several rights immediately – some of them permanently, others for a time. These include fundimental rights like rights to liberty or property or 2nd amendment rights.
Even without conviction for a crime – we have allowed protection from abuse orders (other states may use different names) to restrict your right to free speech, travel, association, firearms, and the use of your property. Not only is conviction of a crime not necescary but your rights can be taken atleast temporarily in a ex parte hearing – you do not even get to be heard.
My point is that the claim that rights are SOLELY a limitation on govenrment power and must be blind to the status of the person allegedly holding those rights is move of a guide than a principle.
There are circumstances where the protection of a right DOES vary based on the status of the person allegedly holding that right.
Another example is that the constitution says that “the people” of the several states have the right to vote for their federal representative. That has NEVER been read to mean anything other than citizens (with respect to Federal elections). And federal law restricting voting to citizens is constitutional.
You make a decent argument. But the fact you have to make it suggests it hasn’t yet been decided. Also, your social security example is not entirely persuasive. The entitlement to such benefits is for people who have a right to live and work here. The example only works if the people holding visas are here as of right, not by permission.
Oldfromkansas, anonymous provided it in his discussion with Lin. Also look up Vullo vs NRA.
OMFK
It is actually CLEAR that rights – natural rights as well as civil rights are not absolute, and not the same for all.
The protection of our rights is the SOLE function of government – so those rights are incredibly important,
and contra the left, the US has the worlds strongest protections of individual rights.
But that protection is NOT absolute.
If you commit a crime – you can lose your freedom, if you commit an extremely violent crime, you can lose your right.
If you come to the US illegally – you MAY have complete first amendment protection – but that first amendment protection does NOT create a right to be in the US.
You do not become immune from deportation just because you have exercised your first amendment rights.
You can not use one right that you MAY have to manufacture a right that you do not have.
If you are not in the US legally – you have no right to be here – even if you have complete first amendment rights, and your right to speak can not create a non-existent right to be here.
If you are here legally – but not a citizen, you have a CONDITIONAL right to be here. It is NOT the same as the right of citizens. You can not use whatever first amendment rights you have to turn your conditional right to be here into an unconditional one.
The answer to the question of whether a person who is not a citizen can be deported for excercising first amendment rights is NOT obviously settled by the first amendment itself.
John Say – just saw this. I believe I may have summarized these points in my comment at 3:55.
The courts have REPEATEDLY said that those present in the US have the same rights as citizens IN THE CONTEXT of criminal rights.
At the same time – Non-citizens can not vote in federal elections.
There is also ZERO doubt that citizens and non-citizens do NOT have identical rights.
@dg
You do this almost everyday. Surely you know by now you are pretty much just addressing us, the community, and not the Professor. Were you ever presenting anything salient, it would be fine, but you are a clown, DG, at least at present. You could do better; will you? because believe it or not, most of us enjoy the conversation.
You are so right James. But DG never learns
Get this. The dems are going for it
______________________
Democrats See No Need to Capitulate, Nor Republicans to Cut a Deal. Let the layoffs begin.
@James
I am indeed addressing Prof Turley. Admittedly, I assume Turley has the blog to solicit opinion. .. whether he reads it or not is beyond my control.
That you people get the benefit of my wisdom and experience is like icing on the cake.
*hire the over-qualified ~
dg – I highly doubt that Prof. Turley reads the comments section of this blog
If you want to address him directly his email is on his GW web page.
This blog is NOT how to communicate with him, and it is NOT him soliciting input.
dgsnowden
I am probably a stronger 1st amendment supporter than Turley.
But the issue of constitutional rights and citizenship is quite complex.
The fundimental purpose of government is to “secure those inalienable rights”.
That is from the declaration of independence.
The deals with guides for the functioning of government – it is the blue print for constructing governemnt.
Aside from meaningless throw away lines about the general welfare the constitution does not address WHY we have government. The Declaration addresses that.
So when the declaration promises that people have the right to create the govenrment of their choosing, alter or abolish it if that government does not deliver the protection of those inalienable rights – what does that mean ? and Who are the people whose rights are being protected by govenrment, and who have the power to alter or abolish that government ?
Whether you like it or not the FUNCTION of govenrment is the protection of the rights of CITIZENS.
Literally – that MUST be the case. A government that does not protect the rights of citizens is literally what the declaration of independence sought to alter or abolish.
But as powerful as the US government is – we have neither the ability, the power, or the authority to protect the rights of everyone in the world.
The above is important because it is the foundation for the critical question – both regarding the first amendment and the rest of the constitution of
WHO ARE “THE PEOPLE” ?
It should be obvious – they are NOT everyone in the world.
It also should be obvious – they must be all citizens.
Your entire argument PRESUMES that who “THE PEOPLE” are with respect to the constitution and the first amendment is anyone physically present in the US.
That is obviously wrong.
First the US can and does protect SOME rights of US citizens when they are NOT physically in the US,
and separately the US can NOT infringe on some rights of US citizens just because they are NOT in the US.
Next, the rights of “THE PEOPLE” that the US govnement is obligated to protect, clearly do NOT mean everyone in the world.
YOU have chosen to decide that THE PEOPLE means those physically present in the sovereign territories of the US.
But that is a CHOICE YOU made – it is not part of the text of the constitution.
Over the course of the past 250 years the courts have tried to work out who “THE PEOPLE” are.
That resolution has NOT been the same for each issue.
The constitution says that congressmen and presidents are elected by “the people of the several states”
If “THE PEOPLE” means as you claim – anyone physically present in the US is able to vote in a federal election.
One election day – the constitution actually says that federal elections take place on a DAY – not over a weak or month, canadians and mexicans could flood accross the border to vote, people from other countries could fly in to vote. Anyone physically present in the US could vote.
I doubt that even you believe that in the context of federal elections “the people” means those physically present.
My point is that who “the people” is is clearly NOT those physically present – atleast not in all contexts.
You are free to argue that the entirety of the first amendment secures a collection of rights for everyone physically present in the US.
But you are WRONG to conclude that is OBVIOUSLY the only possible understanding of the first amendment.
I would separately note that while the left seems to think that “hate speech” is not protected by the first amendment – and they are WRONG, it is however true that the first amendment does not protect all speech.
It is also true that even the most fundimental of rights – such as life and liberty CAN be taken away by the government – otherwise we could not arrest anyone, send them to prison or execute them for capital offenses.
There is no right that is truly absolute.
We have heard massive discussions of “due process” by the left recently – nice that they have suddenly discovered due process.
But what is “due process” ? Due Process is what govenrment is obligated to do to infringe on one of your rights. If all rights were absolute – no due process would ever be needed – because government could not infringe on any right.
Any time you hear the term “due process” it means the process required for government to infringe on a specific right.
If you park illegally government issues you a parking ticket which is notice that you can pay the ticket or Govenrment is going to confiscate some of your money.
You can fight the parking ticket – but you do not get a right to a jury trial, and you do NOT get the right to proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
You are entitled to SOME due process with respect to a parking ticket – but not even a tiny fraction of the due process you are entitled to if govenrment is seeking to take your right to life as in a capital murder case.
My point is the due process is the requirements imposed on govenrment when it seeks to infringe on a right.
And the extent of due process required varies with the right being infringed on.
Next – in the US when you are convicted of a crime – you lose some rights immediately and for the duration of the punishment for that crime. Further we have found that you lose SOME even after that punishment has ended – possibly even forever. Many states prohibit convicted felons from voting after their release – for a few years or even forever. In some instances convicted felons, or those convicted of crimes involving firearms lose their 2nd amendment rights – for a time, or even forever.
The current supreme court has elevated the 2nd amendment almost to the level of strict scrutiny that is required for the first. But it still allows government to take away your right to firearms often with little or no due process – if you are accused of violence by a spouse, or if you are diagnosed with a mental disorder – without any of the due process required to take away other rights.
My point is that NO RIGHT is absolute. Any right you have can be taken way under some circumstances.
Due process is the requirements imposed on govenrment to infringe on a right,
and the amount of due process varies depending on both the right in question, your status, and the circumstances.
Even if you conclude that the first amendment vests the right to free speech in every person physically present in the US, that does not mean the Govenrment can not infringe on that right.
It just means that the government must meet the due process requirements for that particular right with respect to the person and circumstances.
ICE is currently arresting people, detaining them and then removing them from the US.
How is that constitutional ? If those physically present in the US have all the same rights as citizens – why can’t they remain (and vote) ?
Even if you decide that anyone physically present in the US has the same or nearly the same rights as citizens,
The due process required to infringe on that right may be significantly less than that of citizens.
Your claim is that anyone within the US has the same first amendment rights – regardless of citizenship, or legal permission to be in the US.
Even if that is true – which is NOT as you claim absolutely clear. That does not make that right absolute,
nor does it mean that right has the same protection for citizens, legal residents and people hear illegally.
Those in the US as citizens has a near absolute right to be in the US and nearly absolute free speech rights.
Those legally in the US have SOME of the rights of citizens and some of the protections of those rights that citizens have.
Those not legally in the US have far less of the rights of citizens and far less protection.
Finally – lets test your claim that everyone present in the US has the same free speech rights as citizens.
A person in the US illegall who is staying staying off the govenrments radar to avoid being deported.
remains at risk of being deported most any time.
But in YOUR scheme if they go to a protest, if they speak out about ANYTHING, they can no longer be deported – because that would violate their free speech rights ?
>”But in YOUR scheme if they go to a protest, if they speak out about ANYTHING, they can no longer be deported – because that would violate their free speech rights ?”
No. They can be deported. .. just not for attending a ‘protest’. About anything.
Lets suppose someone is lawfully here (a guest) from Gaza and protests Trump’s 20 pt. Club Med Riviera Peace Board Plan for Gaza. Is that grounds for deportation? Of course not. .. that would be a perversion of both the letter and spirit of the constitution.
Legitimate deportation orders should never be about what Trump and Rubio, in particular, consider offensive language at any given moment.
*that way lies madness.
Jonathan:
The Rise of Barfare
Since 2020, Democratic officials and progressive groups established specifically to target conservatives have lodged bar complaints against dozens of Trump-allied attorneys such as Clark. While supporters of these efforts say they are trying to hold officeholders and advocates accountable for actions that betrayed the canons of ethical legal practice, conservative opponents say the push to punish their political foes via bar complaints, often brought in politically partisan jurisdictions, threatens not only the ability of presidents to receive counsel but the American legal system itself.
“The most politicized situations are the ones where the bar should be the most reticent,” to consider punishing attorneys over their work, James Burnham, former DOGE general counsel, said during a recent panel discussion on alleged bar weaponization hosted by the right-leaning Federalist Society. “That’s when lawyers are supposed to be the most creative and the most aggressive. But it’s not the kind of situation where we want lawyers to be afraid to even engage in advocacy in the first place.”
I came across this just now on Zero Hedge. Weaponization of the “Bar” by Democrat Project 65.
In July 2022, in response to a complaint lodged by the then-Democrat-led Senate, the D.C. Board on Professional Responsibility charged Clark with violating the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct. It accused him of engaging “in conduct involving dishonesty” by drafting the letter the board alleged contained false statements, and for “attempt[ing] to engage in conduct that would seriously interfere with the administration of justice.”
The allegations against Clark rested in part on the argument that because his superiors disagreed with his views on potential election fraud in Georgia, Clark’s assertions in the letter were fraudulent.
Unprecedented Case
In his defense, Clark invoked a slew of privileges, and raised myriad procedural and substantive arguments – including that the local D.C. disciplinary board lacked jurisdiction over Clark’s conduct as a federal lawyer providing counsel to the president; that Clark enjoyed immunity from liability while rendering advice to the president; and that the purported false statements were merely proposed Justice Department positions for consideration by superiors – positions largely consistent, as his lawyers noted, with those raised by several U.S. Supreme Court justices and nearly 20 state attorneys general.
Clark’s lawyers argued during his trial that “[N]o one has ever been charged by the D.C. Bar with attempted dishonesty in a draft letter that recommended a change in policy or position where that document was not approved and never even left the office.”
His lawyers made the point that sanctioning him for such conduct would lead to a limitless array of disciplinary actions against attorneys over private or internal deliberations on behalf of clients should they hold contrarian views.
Government “lawyers will be afraid to give their candid opinions for fear of losing their careers. Likewise, lawyers will not join government for the same reason,” Harry MacDougald, one of Clark’s lawyers, told RealClearInvestigations.
On July 31, 2025, despite acknowledging “that there are no factually comparable prior disciplinary cases,” a majority of the board recommended that Clark be disbarred. While rejecting Clark’s arguments, including that he was protected as a government lawyer giving advice, the nine-member board said that the charges against him “focus on the truthfulness of the factual assertions” in the letter that he authored.
Although Clark’s superiors had testified that Clark had “sincere personal concerns” regarding the integrity of the election, the board said, “they also agreed that the Justice Department had not identified potentially outcome-determinative issues in Georgia or other states.”
Therefore, his continued efforts to press officials to send the letter “constituted an attempt to make intentionally false statements about the results of the Justice Department’s investigation,” the board said.
The tribunal added that Clark “should be disbarred as a consequence and to send a message to the rest of the Bar and to the public that this behavior will not be tolerated.”
The disbarment decision is pending before the D.C. Court of Appeals, which has final say over such decisions in the nation’s capital.
[more at this link]
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/lawfare-barfare-another-way-target-trump-allies
(PS: Prof Turley, I was just addressing you by first name above, as a jibe at the pretentious Lord Haw Haw shill here.)
When I first saw this. I thought it was a joke. But it is N Korea
________________________
Kim Jong Un orders North Koreans to check women for ‘bourgeois’ breast implants… and warns those with ‘un-socialist’ work done could be sent to a labour camp
If the bar is an independent private group that wields absolutely no government power, then it can make determinatiosn regarding membership however it pleases.
But in the US the bar has the power to decide if you are allowed to practce law – that is a GOVERNMENT function, it is therefore a government actor or agent and everything it does is subject to the same constraints as apply to government.
Barfare, is lawfare is unconstitutional.
Contrary to X/George’s criticism of Professor Turley, I can understand why the good professor is refraining, at this point, from tackling the 160-page offering from Judge Young, which is heavily nuanced with previous and often competing court decisions of record, (discussion of which would render Turley’s post necessarily and parsimoniously 500-800 pages worth).
Therefore, skipping to the obvious:
CliffsNotes on Professor Turley’s post today, -summarized in just one sentence from Turley:
“It has a certain chest-pounding element that is neither necessary nor compelling for a court to insert into an opinion.”
Amen. Bravo Professor Turley.
LinsNotes expounding on Judge Young’s chest-pounding:
(1) The entire extraneous section, “V. Justice in the Trump Era,” pp. 148 et seq., appears to reek of political and ideological bias which has no place in his ruling. Perhaps Judge Young thinks that the word “Opinion” warrants such indulgent latitude?
(a) he expounds and builds (over several pages) on his wife’s personal opinion of Trump? (pp.150, et seq.)
(b) he quotes argument from Obama’s DOJ (losing party ) in Texas v. U.S., which SCOTUS, per curiam, affirmed lower court’s blocking of Obama’s DAPA plan regarding “undocumented” parents residing in the U.S. illegally)? (p.143)
(c) he quotes from AP’s argument in Associate Press v. Budowich, (pending before SCOTUS, -but which the D.C. appellate court has already determined that the AP was “unlikely to succeed on the merits”)? (p.157)
(d) As Estovir pointed out @11:12, Judge Young has already apologized to SCOTUS for ignoring its decision in another/previous matter.
-Not the kind of legacy/final thoughts one would like on his record.
Lin, making excuses for Professor Turley’s failure to address the merits of the case are we?
The professor is smart enough to keep his analyses short and sweet. No need for a 500-800 page response a la John Say.
It should not be difficult for the professor to pose the question brought by the case, Is Trump’s use of threats and punishment to silence dissent or criticism constitutional?
Musing over the Judge’s odd opinion makes for a good distraction from the red meat of the issue.
We both know Turley is a staunch defender of free speech and he often misses no chance to criticize attacks on free speech, particularly when Democrats or foreign governments are involved. Yet, when Republicans or President Trump engage in unambiguous attacks on free speech in the name of “security” and “safety” the Professor is quiet as a mouse.
The Rumeyza Ozturk case should have been a clear contender for Turley’s forceful defense of free speech. It mirrors the same actions foreign governments engaged in and Turley readily criticizes. As long as Trump is in office or Republicans are involved the Professor whips out his kid gloves and velvety mild criticisms without naming names and identifying the culprits. It’s obviously intended to avoid offending the mob that has been proven to turn on you like a rabid dog.
The professor should be raising the question of whether legal immigrants, permanent resident aliens, or even tourists on temporary visas have free speech rights and are protected from government retribution and punishment for stating things it doesn’t like. Obviously, the 1st amendment does not exempt foreigners or anyone within its jurisdiction which is our borders.
What does that say about us when we criticize foreign governments like the UK, which Turley, often criticizes when they censor U.S. citizens on social media on their shores? Clearly, he believes they should uphold the same ideal as our 1st amendment, but there WE are the legal immigrants, green card holders, and tourists. If that is the case, why is he so silent when our own government is doing exactly what he’s opposed to with foreign governments?
George Svelaz, why do you confuse tantrums with arguments and silence with surrender? Do you think Turley owes you a lecture every time your feelings outrun the law? You are engaged in terminal egoism.
Foreign nationals don’t get citizen-level First Amendment rights. The Ozturk case fell under 8 U.S.C. §1201(i) — lawful revocation, not your bedtime story of oppression. You call his restraint cowardice because you are ignorant of what scholarship is; your drivel is not scholarship. It’s foolishness.
S. Meyer,
“Foreign nationals don’t get citizen-level First Amendment rights.”
According to what? Where does it say foreign nationals within our borders get less free speech than citizens?
The 1st amendment applies to everyone within our borders. How does the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause not apply to them. Because it applies to “all persons” not “citizens only”.
The Ozturk case was not a lawful revocation. It’s been found to be unlawful. The Trump administration could not prove what she did that merited a revocation of her visa. What crime did she commit? Do you know?
I noticed when you’re asked to be specific you deflect and hurl insults because you cannot defend your position.
“According to what? “
8 U.S.C. §1201(i)
“Where does it say “
8 U.S.C. §1201(i) +
“What crime did she commit? Do you know?”
These questions have already been answered. I oblige you only because of your extreme disability: ignorance. The law has a provision that deals with secrecy. I already told you the known reasons.
I do not deflect. You were provided with the statutes. If you wish to say they are unconstitutional, you can. The absence of complete disclosure is not wrongdoing.
S. Meyer, the statute you mentioned is unrelated to the First Amendment. As I suspected, you seem not to understand the topic. Simply citing the statute number without explaining how it supports your argument indicates that you lack the ability to effectively defend your position.
Obviously not.
Even those with only a faint grasp of constitutional law can see that the INA provisions have been upheld for decades. They’re enforced daily, and deportations continue without significant interruption.
So, George Svelaz, unless you’re arguing that every one of those actions has been unconstitutional, you’re left with a single claim: that the INA itself violates the First Amendment. If that’s your position, you’ll need more than an assertion; you’ll need proof. Proof is something you lack, always.
George: Please see my comment addressed to OldManFromKansas, above, instead of wasting all your time on criticizing the professor (4th time today?). I would think that Turley indeed will address this case again when it is more developed. As evidenced by your para starting with “The professor should be raising the question of whether….” (merely repeating a solid long-standing truism/tenet of American jurisprudence), it appears that you yourself do not have a good handle on the issue yet. )
Thank you in advance.
Lin, as you well know by now criticism of the Professor’s opinions are fair game. I am surprised you have not show a grasp of the concept.
“I would think that Turley indeed will address this case again when it is more developed.”
More developted? Seriously. Professor Turley has commented on far less developed issues on free speech than this. What does he have to wait on? He clearly opposes attacks on free speech and this case is a clear attack on free speech. The difference is Trump is the one doing the attacking and Turley seems reluctant to directly criticize Trump’s attacks for what they are. He had no problem doing so when Biden was in office and “less developed” cases were presented. He wasted no time going full free speech crusader and plugging his book at the same time.
This case should be a no-brainer for Turley to lend his free speech expertise to analyze and compare. He’s avoiding it because he knows how finicky and temperamental Trump and MAGA die hards are.
“Lin, as you well know by now criticism of the Professor’s opinions are fair game.”
That is true, but it is fair game because the Professor permits it. That you violate decency is apparent and should lead all to recognize the ugliness of your comments, so that they respond to you with derision.
X,
“as you well know by now criticism of the Professor’s opinions are fair game. I am surprised you have not show[n] a grasp of the concept[ual] difference between criticizing the Professor’s opinions and criticizing the Professor]. One involves a legal mind capable of understanding legal nuances. The other involves defective ego functioning.
“Lin, making excuses for Professor Turley’s failure to address the merits of the case are we?”
George, engaging once again in public mental masturbation while failing to post anything coherent, are we?
Truly you are the Karen Of A Thousand Complaints.
Happy Jim Comey Statute of Limitations Expiration Day to all who celebrate!!
Lindsey Halligan hasn’t been lawfully appointed as US Attorney under 28 U.S.C. § 546.
This view is supported by a 1986 OLC opinion written by some guy named … {checks notes} … Samuel A. Alito.
It just so happens, the only lawyer who signed (or was willing to sign) the Comey indictment was … {checks notes again} … Halligan, and also the statute of limitations on the charges it purports to allege expired … {here’s another handy note!} … at midnight last night.
Which means that unless the courts accept some kind of wild unprecedented argument, Halligan, Pam Bondi, and Donald Trump won’t be able to fix this even if they had a single working brain among the three of them.
SAD!!!!!!
So James Comey, Obama et al. may legally conduct an ongoing and monumental coup d’état attempt in America with complete impunity.
Good to know.
I would not take anything said above about this at face value. The Shills will post “bombshell” stories like this, only for the immediate impact, and then when the fuse fizzles out, they never mention it again.
Actually it is very simple and straight forward.
28 USC 546 allows the AG to appoint an interim US Attorney without Senate confirmation, but this appointment is only good for 120 days. If the appointee is not confirmed within 120 days, then the appointment lapses.
However the District Court judges have the power to extend the appointment beyond 120 days. This is what happened with Halligan’s predecessor Erik Seibert who refused to indict Comey. The judges also have the power to appoint a different person to the position if they desire.
However, the AG can only do this once for one appointee. When he worked in the White House in 1986, Alito wrote an OLC opinion to this effect.
Thus, according to 28 USC 546, Halligan was not lawfully appointed as US Attorney, and there is no current US Attorney in EDVA.
It should be trivial to have the indictment dismissed because it did not lawfully issue from the US Attorney’s office in EDVA.
Yep. And the DOJ couldn’t know that, were it factual.
The indictment is NOT by the US Attorney – it is by the Grand Jury.
If you are correct – which you clearly are not – Halligan’s appointment may or may not be valid.
But the indictment most certainly is.
A criminal case does not disappear because the attorney leading the prosecution is fired or resigns.
I would further note the claim that Siebert refused to prosecute for lack of evidence is Absurd.
There is plenty of evidence in both the James and Comey cases.
I do not know what is in Sieberts head. But if his grounds for refusing to prosecute was lack of evidence – he should not be an attorney.
If his grounds is the likelyhood of securing a conviction – that is completely different BUT it also means he is required to proceed anyway if his superiors tell him too.
With respect to your 28 USC 546 – what you claim is NOT in the text of the law.
Your an anonymous poster, and frankly I have debunked far too many stupid claims of anonymous posters.
If as you claim Alito wrote an OLC oppinon 40 years ago – PROVIDE IT.
No one should trust your naked claim – anonymous posters have no foundation for credibility and can not have their reputation for truthfulness diminished by making false claims, so they can not be trusted – Provide a source.
Regardless, and OLC opinion is guidance it is not law or statute, it can be superseded.
And we have numerous examples where the OLC was not followed – just in the Biden admin.
So NO
Halligan’s appointment was NOT a violation of 28 USC 546.
and even if it were – the indictment does not go away.
“Actually it is very simple and straight forward.”
It is – and your Claim rests on an alleged OLC opinion that you do NOT cite.
OLC opinions are GUIDANCE, they are NOT the law.
Courts and particularly the Supreme court decide what the law is, relying on the plain text as the starting point.
The plain text of
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/546
I would further note that the statute has been ammended, modifed or address by the courts and congress and other laws atleast a half a dozen times since 1986.
Alito’s 1986 OLC opinon – if it exists, at best is relevant to the law(s) at that time, and does not even have the same weight as guidance today.
So your claim is this is straight forward based on a law you do not cite, that does not say what you claim, and a guidance opinion on the version of that law and other laws that iw 40 years lld that you also do not cite.
And all of this as an anonymous poster ?
WEe are all just supposed to beleive you – because of words from out of the blue ?
There is not even a YOU
As usual John Say treats us to a nonsensical diatribe disconnected from reality.
The issue at hand, is whether there is a valid lawful indictment of James Comey.
John Say rants incoherently about this situation, so lets reduce it to a simple level that perhaps even he can understand.
John Say seems to think that the Grand Jury issues indictments.
He may wish to consult the Federal Criminal Resource Manual from the DOJ, which states the following:
“Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(c), provides that the indictment and information “shall be signed by the attorney for the government.” If the attorney for the government refuses to sign, which is within his or her discretion, there is no indictment. This provision of Rule 7 recognizes the power of government counsel “to permit or not to permit the initiation of a prosecution.”
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-217-subscription
Thus, contrary to the absurd rantings of John Say, there is no indictment until it is signed by a “government attorney”.
Now that that is out of the way lets consider the next point.
Is Lindsey Halligan a lawfully appointed “government attorney”
The answer is NO !!!!
28 U.S.C. § 546 allows the AG to appoint an INTERIM US attorney for a period of no more than 120 days. . After that the appointment automatically lapses. After this 120 day period, the AG has no further authority in the appointment of a US Attorney. The judges of the District Court are empowered to extend the 120 day appointment. This is what happened to Erik Seibert, who was appointed on Jan 21, so his appointment expired in May. The judges exercised their authority to extend the appointment. The judges may, if they choose, appointment someone else to the position until such time as someone is confirmed by the Senate. Only the Judges in the EDVA can make an appointment of someone else who has not been confirmed.
Alternatively, the President, but not the AG, may appoint an “ACTING” US Attorney, but that person must have previously been confirmed by the Senate for some other position.
There is no provision to appoint a second unconfirmed “INTERIM” US Attorney for another 120 day period. The reasons for this are obvious. If this was possible the AG could simply keep making 120 day appointments ad infinitum, and completely subvert the process of confirmation by the Senate. This was the subject of an OLC opinion by Alito in 1986 that is not in the public domain. However, the opinion is referenced in other DOJ memoranda and opinions that can easily be found on the internet.
At this point the only lawful means of appointing an Acting US Attorney is if the President, not the AG, appoints an individual who has been previously confirmed by the Senate for some other position.
Conclusion:
Lindsey Halligan is not a lawfully appointed government attorney.
Halligan, alone, signed the indictment.
The indictment is not signed by a “government attorney” as required by Federal Rule Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(c)
There is no lawfully valid indictment at this moment in time.
if what you say is true, then why didn’t Comey and his team immediately object, before any more filings could occur? Not only the issue of Halligan’s appointment, but a dismissal of the indictment would also mean that the statute of limitations expired,. You talk like a phony pro, and you are dumber than I thought.
I am afraid that you are the stupid one.
You wonder why Comey did not immediately object regarding the issue of Halligan’s appointment.
The answer is obvious for anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together.
If he did that before today, then Trump would have had the opportunity to validly appoint a different US Attorney who could have signed the True Bill offered up by the Grand Jury. By law, there is no valid indictment until the True Bill is signed by a validly appointed “government attorney”.
As of today the True Bill does not bear the signature of a validly appointed government attorney, therefore there is no valid lawful indictment.
And as of today, the statute of limitations has run, so there is no way to correct the error to file a lawful valid indictment.
well, let’s wait and see if the indictment is dismissed and you are proven correct, then I’ll follow up with you.
….And so we see, and our children learn, CRIME does pay.
ATS – I have addressed your claims below.
What part of 28 U.S.C. § 546 was violated in the appointment of Halligan ?
Have you read 28 U.S.C. § 546 – there is nothing the text requires that was done incorrectly.
You claim that there is a 1986 OLC opinion by Alito – but you do not provide that opinion.
Regardless, OLC opinions are GUIDANCE for the law at the time. 28 U.S.C. § 546. has been modified a half a dozen times since 1986. Alito’s guidance – if it even exists, was never binding, and today would have to be re-evaluated based on changes to 28 U.S.C. § 546. and related laws – including related laws passed in 2007 and 2024.
Regardless, indictments are requested by US Attorney’s. It is Grand Juries – not US Attorney’s that issue an indictment.
At the very best you have a claim that Halligan can not herself prosecute the case. That is likely the case regardless, This is not going to trial in 120 days.
Finally – lest presume that you are complete correct.
Your actually celebrating that a serial perjurer is getting off ?
What do you think it is OK to lie to congress ?
If Democrats manage to take back the house in 2026 – which looks more unlikely each day,
I am sure that all the Trump administration officials will rely heavily on the Comey loophole to providing congress with truthful testimony.
We the People of the United States…SECURE the Blessings of Liberty TO OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY….
– Preamble, 1789