Thread: Slamming ‘Judicial Activism,’ Sessions Tells DOJ Lawyers To Fight Nationwide Injuncti

POLITICS

Slamming ‘Judicial Activism,’ Sessions Tells DOJ Lawyers To Fight Nationwide Injunctions

“This trend must stop. We have a government to run.”


By Ryan J. Reilly

09/13/2018 02:12 pm ET Updated 6 days ago

ALLISON SHELLEY / REUTERS

WASHINGTON ― Attorney General Jeff Sessions wants Justice Department attorneys to push back on federal judges who have imposed nationwide injunctions against some of the Trump administration’s most controversial policies.

In a memo to the nation’s 94 U.S. Attorneys’ Offices on Thursday, Sessions said judges have been “acting outside the bounds of their authority and granting relief that reaches far beyond the confines of the particular case or controversy before them.”

The Trump administration has faced 25 nationwide injunctions, Sessions said, including cases involving bans on travel, transgender members of the military, and federal funding for so-called sanctuary cities.

The memo instructs litigators to remind courts of constitutional limits on their authority; emphasize that the rise in nationwide injunctions is “an historical anomaly inconsistent with centuries of judicial practices”; and argue that nationwide injunctions could discourage other litigants from suing and may “further undermine the public’s confidence in the judiciary because they may be perceived as a sign of disrespect from one court to another.”

“Increasingly, we are seeing individual federal district judges go beyond the parties before the court to give injunctions or orders that block the entire federal government from enforcing a law or policy throughout the country,” Sessions said in a statement.

“This kind of judicial activism did not happen a single time in our first 175 years as a nation, but it has become common in recent years,” Sessions said. “This trend must stop. We have a government to run. The Constitution does not grant to a single district judge the power to veto executive branch actions with respect to parties not before the court. Nor does it provide the judiciary with authority to conduct oversight of or review policy of the executive branch. These abuses of judicial power are contrary to law, and with these new guidelines, this Department is going to continue to fight them.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0b64a336cc5cd

“This kind of judicial activism did not happen a single time in our first 175 years as a nation, but it has become common in recent years,” Sessions said. “This trend must stop. We have a government to run. The Constitution does not grant to a single district judge the power to veto executive branch actions with respect to parties not before the court. Nor does it provide the judiciary with authority to conduct oversight of or review policy of the executive branch.

Sessions is absolutely correct on this!

If jeff wants to fight judicial activism then he needs to void the case of plyler v doe 1982 in which the SC ordered the states to provide free k-12 to illegal kids. That was writing a law and the constitution says courts can't do that. "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states."

OTOH there is a a law written by congress - section 1324 of title 8 - which makes it a federal felony to encourage illegals to live and schools that let illegals attend are clearly in violation. Jeff should say he will prosecute any school official who admits an illegal.

Originally Posted by Text Driving Is Deadly;1618604[SIZE=3

]If jeff wants to fight judicial activism then he needs to void the case of plyler v doe 1982 in which the SC ordered the states to provide free k-12 to illegal kids. That was writing a law and the constitution says courts can't do that. "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states."[/SIZE]

OTOH there is a a law written by congress - section 1324 of title 8 - which makes it a federal felony to encourage illegals to live and schools that let illegals attend are clearly in violation. Jeff should say he will prosecute any school official who admits an illegal.

He can't.

People need to be careful about Plyler vs Doe. Plyler vs Doe did NOT order states to provide free education to illegal aliens in K-12. What it said was if your state constitution requires compulsory school attendance for all persons in certain ages to attend school, then you can not charge one student tuition and another not, because of national origin and immigration status.

Plyler vs Doe is not really an example of judicial activism, it's actually a decision based on the 14th Amendment as written based on state constitutions as written.

I've thought about this case a lot during my now 15 years of fighting illegal immigration and my conclusion is that the mistake was not made by the US Supreme Court, the mistake was made by the failure to enforce US immigration law at all levels of our society by all of our "institutions".

In the Plyler vs Doe case, the issue wasn't illegal aliens attending public school, the issue was forcing them to attend public school under the Texas State Constitution and then charging them tuition for it based on their national origin, i. e. immigration status.

The solution to me is changing state constitutions to limit the compulsory education mandate to legal residents of the state and local applicable school district who are either US citizens or legal permanent residents of the United States. This would exclude all non-citizens, except green card holders, from the compulsory education mandate, and make them ineligible therefore from the free education benefit that accompanies that mandate. The children of visa holders for example would be exempt from the mandate and ineligible for the free tuition that accompanies it. The children of H1B visa holders for example would be exempt from the mandate and ineligible for free public education in those states. Obviously it would also exclude all illegal aliens from the compulsory attendance mandate and are thus ineligible for the free education.

What can Jeff and the federal government do? Well, the federal government can stop funding the education of illegal aliens. That is within the authority of the federal government to start withholding all federal payments to states for K-12 education for illegal aliens. It is not the responsibility of the federal government to fund the education or anything else of illegal aliens in the United States in violation of US immigration law.

Jeff CAN do that. I'm sure it will be challenged, and if so, then defend it in court. If you know the law and the Constitution and how to argue the case, then you will win. There is no "constitutional" right to a free education under the US Constitution, that is all state constitutions. No state constitution governs US federal payments, only federal law and the US Constitution govern federal payments. The federal payment is only about $1,000 a student last time I checked, but there's a lot of illegal aliens and a lot of visa holders, so if I were Jeff, I would work on that for awhile and see how it works. I think it will work out pretty well as a matter of law and Constitution. I would also prohibit the use of any federal 501 C 3 funds to fund the "free education" or anything else of anyone who is not a US citizen or legal permanent resident (green card holder) including anyone in our country in violation of US immigration law.

This President ran on the issue of removing all illegal and legal immigrants from being "public charges", using taxpayer benefits, yet I don't see much coming out of the DOJ or elsewhere, except the White House, doing or even trying to do anything about this. Support the White House, support this President, start cleaning up this mess of illegal aliens and excess immigrants sucking on taxpayer benefits.

E-verify...get ALL illegal aliens out of our taxpayer funded schools!

Send the illegal parents AND their minor's back to their country of origin!

Originally Posted by Judy

People need to be careful about Plyler vs Doe. Plyler vs Doe did NOT order states to provide free education to illegal aliens in K-12. What it said was if your state constitution requires compulsory school attendance for all persons in certain ages to attend school, then you can not charge one student tuition and another not, because of national origin and immigration status.

How do you reconcile plyler v doe with section 1324 of title 8 which makes it a federal felony to encourage illegals to live here.