The United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit yesterday overturned a federal judge’s order requiring Immigration and Customs Enforcement Chief Greg Bovino to give daily immigration enforcement reports. In a stinging order, the panel found that U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis, an Obama appointee, had exceeded her powers and role as a federal judge in ordering the measures.
Some of us expressed surprise at the Ellis order, which assumed a very aggressive posture for a court in the management of a federal program or office. In addition to limits on the use of tear gas, she demanded Bovino’s daily appearance to brief her on any operations.
The Seventh Circuit shared the same concerns and ruled that Judge Ellis was acting more like an “inquisitor” than “a neutral adjudicator.” It noted that the parties had not demanded the measure and strongly suggested that Judge Ellis was too eager to interject herself into the daily operations of the federal law enforcement units:
“While this litigation presents very challenging circumstances, the district court’s order has two principal failings. First, it puts the court in the position of an inquisitor rather than that of a neutral adjudicator of the parties’ adversarial presentations. Second, it sets the court up as a supervisor of Chief Bovino’s activities, intruding into personnel management decisions of the Executive Branch.
These two problems are related and lead us to conclude that the order infringes on the separation of powers. Review by appeal at the end of the case would not solve the problems created in the interim, which justifies review by a prerogative writ. See In re Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 941 F.3d 869 (7th Cir. 2019). Cf. Cheney v. United States District Court, 542 U.S. 367 (2004).”
That is a striking rebuke for a federal judge.
In the meantime, Democratic congressional candidate Kat Abughazaleh and five others were charged with conspiring to impede an officer. The language of the 18 U.S. 372 is clear and seems to cover the surrounding of a vehicle to prevent its entrance into such a facility:
“If two or more persons in any State, Territory, Possession, or District conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any [federal officer] … from discharging any duties thereof, or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave the place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed…or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties, each of such persons shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six years, or both.”
Calling it a “political prosecution,” Abughazaleh is scheduled to appear on the charge that she joined others in blocking a vehicle to attempt to prevent it from entering an ICE facility. Also arrested were a candidate for the Cook County Board, a Democratic ward committeeman and a trustee in suburban Oak Park.
Notably, Abughazaleh is a journalist who has written for Mother Jones and The New Republic. She was also a senior video producer for Media Matters for America, a group that has long been criticized for biased attacks on conservatives and Republicans. It is the creation of David Brock, a highly controversial political activist tied to the Democratic Party. Abughazaleh has been lionized by liberal media in her campaign for Congress.
While abruptly ending a recent interview, she has been claiming to have been assaulted by ICE and declared:
“If they are willing to do that to a congressional candidate on camera in front of press, imagine what they are willing to do to their detainees behind boarded-up windows.”.
George X says Every act of Lincoln subsequent to his illicit and constitutional denial of secession is similarly illicit and unconstitutional and must be rescinded and abrogated
Every time George X repeats this lie in defense of his racist Confederate Democrat Kluxxer insurrectionists, you have to wonder if George’s writings are the result of an undeveloped prefrontal cortex.
George’s lies are the repeats of lies repeated by loser insurrectionist Confederate states just after the lost their Civil War Of Insurrection. Normally George loves SCOTUS when it’s Justice Taney assuring his Confederate mentors that Dredd Scott was not a human being, but instead a Darky farm animal.
But he he hates it when SCOTUS explained almost a century and a half ago why slaver Democrat states had no constitutional right to secede:
Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868)
Affirming the perpetual nature of American federalism, and that the USA is an indestructible union from which no state can unilaterally secede.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/74/700/
The Union of the States was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to “be perpetual.” And, when these Articles of Confederation were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained “to form a more perfect Union. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States.
When those states became one of the United States, they entered into an indissoluble relationship. The union between individual states and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of all the States to amend the Constitution.
Except tons of people including scholars didn’t see it that way until the Civil War decided the question by force not logic. Fact
Sal Sar
Just so you know how crazy Judge Ellis is, here’s more from the appellate court: “The judge [Ellis] justified this order by stating that she had seen videos that led her to question whether the TRO was being obeyed. The order was not, however, a response to any motion by counsel for the plaintiffs (and the videos to which the judge referred apparently do not deal with behavior involving any of the plaintiffs).”
Get her a red satin robe and a pass to an auto-de-fe and it’s 15th Century Seville all over agan.
great
Why bring religion into it, In particularly torture and murder?
Rabble:
So an unelected Art 2 rogue “federal” judge made an order and a judgement without any plaintiff bringing a complaint?
What do we call that? Sounds like a usurper and an insurrectionist to me!
For more than 40 years the United States federal AGs have practiced the most evil, most ungodly form of torture – Covert Blacklisting of U.S. citizens.
Neither party is even talking about America’s greatest evil.
abortion is America’s greatest evil… >60 million lives snuffed out
So the dems were cheating per CNN.
___________________________
CNN Admits Census ‘Errors’ Favored Democrats Across the Board
I am so grateful for your frequent newsletters and your voice of clarity, I never miss any of your writings and love it when you are interviewed on television. Thank you for your wonder-full knowledge.
Well said. Thank you for saying what, I am sure, many of us think.
I certainly don’t. Turley’s blog is nothing more than repeat news taken from multiple sources. There are better websites about politics out there than the content posted here.
Sadly people are easily people are impressed by a professor title.
And…your comment is puerile and sophomoric whining.
“I certainly don’t.”
And yet you read the Prof’s column. Much cognitive dissonance?
-g
It is Turley’s look on those issues, which is far superior than yours, and he has the intellectual credentials, and experience in Law that you do not.
Thomas Moore posted: Turley’s blog is nothing more than repeat news taken from multiple sources. There are better websites about politics out there than the content posted here.
Would you be surprised to learn that looks suspiciously like a childish Democrat Marxist false flag attempt to gaslight and deflect? Development problems with your prefrontal cortex?
The tell is you wanted to helpfully criticize – but supposedly you were worried we would think you were trying to impress us if you told us which websites you think are better sources of commentary on the constitutional aspects of news.
So here’s your chance, Tommy boy: give us a list of the websites you want us to accept as better places to go and read about the constitutional aspects of these issues!
We’ll wait!
If there is better why are you here.
Interesting that you don’t respect Turley’s blog, but still read it and make unneeded comments. I enjoy Prof. Turley’s sensible and fair comments and the Prof. title has no effect either way.
*. We’re all of the errant judges appointed by Damian?
That’s too bad…
A blessed All Saints Day to all sinners here on Earth, which is all of us, facing inquisitors of all types, some external, most internal and self-made.
Excellent sermon by St Bernard of Clairvaux, O.Cist. (1090 – 1153), abbot, mystic, co-founder of the Knights Templar
Beautiful choir performance by who else but the Mormons.
Sine Nomine
It’s refreshing to see simple webpages, as found via the first link above to the sermons, that are not cluttered with animations or video, complex scripts, and bloatware craplets that bog down the page. It’s the content that matters.
I bought a URL months ago to host and create a medical – philosophical blog for the lay person while allowing moderated comments. Im also a dinosaur when it comes to web design, which is why I havent launched it. It wouldn’t keep the attention of a squirrel or current internet user past 5 seconds, given it would lack engaging visual elements I find super annoying. Given your “content matters” statement, I will reconsider
I really hate what has become of the internet compared to the 1990s when Netscape Navigator was more than sufficient for my needs (medical research and occasional emails and fun flame wars), and we connected via dialup from home. There was less chance of the dopamine hit, you signed off of the web after 30 mins and people interacted in public spaces like cafes and stores. The zombie look of today is super distressing to behold. All I see is pathology.
Estovir,
I empathize with what you said about the 1990s and the Internet, the early part of which users were mostly tech hobbyists, professionals, academics and agencies of a few governments. At one point advertising was frowned on if not prohibited, long ago. Granted it wasn’t all rosey especially with regard to bandwidth. My first home computer was an Atari 800 that I later connected a 300 baud modem to connect to BBSs and our town library’s computer. It was so slow that if outputing to the screen you could actually read the text at about the same speed as it was downloaded. Any file took appreciable amounts of time. Years later I went into the PC world with a 486 based IBM clone and connected to the internet via tunneling through a BBS and a faster modem. I think the first sign of things to come was when AOL hooked into the Internet and allowed access to the USENET, after which it seemed the net was now flooded with immature lamers who were a constant irritant. But I guess we had to suffer these fools reluctantly to prompt companies to invest in the infrastructure due to higher demand.
If you do decide to host a website some of the pre-packaged webhosting services provide templates to get you going. There is WordPress.com of course which if you’re going to have moderated comments and more features it takes a lot stress out of the endeavor. There is a bit of a learning curve but if you stick to just basic features you should have something up in short order. There are tutorials out there on doing this. Or you can just make a flat webpage like the one from the sermons and use a webpage creation tool to make it.
One thing I noticed over the years was how oddly simple and basic the personal webpages of highly talented software engineers and architects were. These were folks who designed entire systems over years time but their own webpage looked like something from 1993. I guess with having to code software all day, the last thing someone wants to do is spend all their free time making a bleeding edge web site.
It doesn’t have to be flashy, it only needs to be interesting to your tastes.
Darren
AOL, windows 95. O-my we are getting old.
Darren,
thanks for the tips. I own (don’t laugh) Dreamweaver CS6 (2015 version) for Mac, and will likely use it for my future site. I was practicing today because of our exchange yesterday. You are right about simple webpages being designed by talented software folk. I know a few very bright (nerdy) physicians and PhD medical scientists who have their own blogs and they are as plain Jane as they come. As you have stated, they keep it cluttered free likely because they know their audience who are seeking the content they create. I’ll do likewise and not worry about the lack of flashy-ness
Dustoff,
I like to teach, and write accordingly but for audiences who lack fluency in the language of medical science. I’ll announce my blog at some point, and it will in no way compete against Res Ipsa. I know quite a few combat medics who became Physician Assistants and Nurse Practitioners, and were excellent at their craft. Respect!
Estovir
I can’t wait to read you’re medical blog. I’m a retired flight medic and a combat medic. (-:
What, you can read?
I know, shocking. Far better that you. I would guess.
A beautiful rendition of a beautiful hymn.
The judicial branch possesses no executive power.
The judicial branch possesses no power to usurp and exercise the executive power of the executive branch.
There is NO power of the judicial branch to “interpret,” modify, or amend the Constitution.
The Supreme Court, at some point, MUST support the Constitution and stop rewriting it.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 2, Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 3, Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
People must adapt to freedom.
Freedom does not adapt to people; dictatorship does.
I don’t see how a judge or justice can settle most cases or controversies without interpreting the constitution or statutes. — Concerned Citizen
Judges and justices have no choice; that they disagree with fundamental law does not bear.
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”
_______________________________________________________________________________
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
There is NO power of the judicial branch to “interpret,”
That is not true. The constitution explicitly vests the federal courts with the judicial power, which is the power to say what the law is. No one else has the authority to do that.
In the American Juristocracy, there is no need for the legislative and executive branches.
Absolutely… send them home!
The American Juristocracy must be impeached and convicted en masse.
*. Next thing ya know Judge Ellis will be calling in Pete Hegseth telling him he can’t use bunker busters and she wants a daily report of his activities and a list of arms sold daily or distributed. There might be some citizens in Ukraine and elsewhere!
*. Another, Judge John McConnell, appointed by Rosemary’s Baby is running the purse strings of congress in an order to fund snap.
These judges can run everything and anything they’re so smart. Send everyone else home.
Question: why didn’t J udge Ellis simply command congress?
Oh, smacking my head, she’s demoncrap.
I’ll bet she is considering it.
Lets see come Monday?
It was tried in 1973 when a district judge enjoined US bombing in Cambodia.
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/articles/Schlesinger_v._Holtzman
What America is stuck with is precisely what the American Founders intended to preclude in perpetuity: The vote of the “poor.”
In 1789, turnout was 11.6%, and voters were required to be male, European, and 21, with 50 lbs. Sterling or 50 acres.
Never were the “poor” supposed to vote; never will a nation be great if it functions solely for the desiderata of the “poor” as proposed by Karl Marx.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“the people are nothing but a great beast…
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”
– Alexander Hamilton
_________________________
“The true reason (says Blackstone) of requiring any qualification, with regard to property in voters, is to exclude such persons, as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own.”
“If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.”
– Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775
_____________________________________________________
“[We gave you] a [restricted-vote] republic, if you can keep it.”
– Ben Franklin, 1787
The expansion of voting rights in constitutional amendments 15, 17, 19, 23, 24, and 26 should be celebrated.
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/amendments-11-27
— Concerned Citizen
Every act of Lincoln subsequent to his illicit and constitutional denial of secession is similarly illicit and unconstitutional and must be rescinded and abrogated, with emphasis on the “Reconstruction Amendments” of Karl Marx.
Re: Marx Letter to Lincoln, 1865 https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm
>> The expansion of voting rights in constitutional amendments 15, 17, 19, 23, 24, and 26 should be celebrated.<<
Why?
Are you saying people who can not govern their own life having a say in how the country is governed leads to "good government"? Develop that idea. I'd like to see how that works. How does it lead to a stronger society?
Look at a long term chart of the federal debt. It begins the long process of going parabolic with the invention of the bureaucratic welfare state, which happened shortly after women got the right to vote. Is that a mere coincidence? How is being $38 TRILLION in debt a sign of "good governance" or a strong society capable of enduring? How is it good for the country that the politicians have turned "our democracy" into one corrupting vote buying scheme after another, promising more and more goodies for votes but not paying for them. Instead, leaving the $38 TRILLION bill to people not born. Explain how that is moral in your worldview? They did not vote for the vote politicians who manufactured vote buying schemes.
The bureaucratic welfare state has been a complete, catastrophic, unmitigated disaster for the country. It came about because of universal suffrage. Explain how that is good.
I have an honest question: Are we stuck with these judges until they retire or die?
Yes. There is hope that congress can change some rules.
Congress may impeach and convict judges and justices.
Is stupidity an impeachable condition?
Wise
I don’t think these judges are stupid. More like power hungry
Uh, oh! Somebody hit a nerve!
Yes, we are. Congress can impeach them, but not for their decisions on the bench, only for their conduct off the bench. And an impeached judge would have to be convicted by 2/3 of the senate, which can’t happen without Democrat votes.