The Constitutional Crisis Thread

[_EAllusion]

ME, perhaps you should read the news before flying off the handle at me. To shorten it up for you: Detainees are being denied their right to an attorney. A federal judge issued an order allowing them access to their attorneys. Customs and Border Patrol is blocking them. US Congressmen showed up to compel obeying the federal court order and were rebuffed.

The contempt is continuing into this very moment. So why is a branch of the department of homeland security refusing to obey the courts? Why aren't their superiors in Washington ordering them to stop?

If a motion to find contempt / show cause is filed (it's not clear if it has) and a judge finds CBP in contempt, then the judiciary has to have an enforcement mechanism to effectuate that order. That enforcement mechanism is US marshals. And to be clear here, CBP is obviously in contempt. US marshals can be ordered to action by the judiciary, but are under the control of the executive because of how separation of powers works. If the marshals refuse to obey court order because they get a contradictory order form the DOJ or if the CBP is disobeying orders at White House direction, then that's a Constitutional crisis. It's about as clear of a Constitutional crisis as can be. The rule of law would be breaking down as the courts check on the executive is ignored. The Congressional remedy for this is impeachment and removal from office.

That we're already up to this point is totally bananas. What the thread was started for was the possibility that the situation might slip into crisis. If CBP backs off, then crisis averted.

[_Res Ipsa]

ME, let me explain a little how this works.

The lawyers in New York got an order for an entire class of people. That means those lawyers are the lawyers for those people. So, yes, the lawyers trying to get in to meet with the prisoners (detainees being one of those, you know, PC terms) were those persons lawyers. Those who denied those lawyers access were violating the court order.

The politicians that were there were advocating for the rights of their constituents.

And, no, not every detained person was released. At least one in Seattle was sent back. I don't know whether it was before or after the court order was issued, but it was before lawyers, politicians and ordinary citizens showed up and screamed bloody murder.

The order issued yesterday applies only to people in transit when the executive order was issued. But the harm goes beyond that. We have a Syrian refugee family here in Washington who were split up administratively during the vetting process. Two of the adult children, who have been fully vetted, were scheduled to arrive tomorrow. One is six month's pregnant and is now barred from being with her family for the birth of her baby. Cruel and unnecessary.

[_Mayan Elephant]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... rt/514853/

The attorneys were there in force, for hours far outnumbering the people they were trying to help. Many had name tags that identified them as lawyers, and even on a Saturday evening, they were dressed in suit jackets and button downs. Some saw a call for attorneys on social media; others were on a listserv that blasted out details. Still others filled out a Google Doc with their information and were routed to the airport nearest them.

The army of attorneys had been marshaled by the International Refugee Assistance Project, but the lawyers I met all came from different organizations. Some had private immigration practices, others didn’t practice immigration law at all. Some just turned up on their own, without knowing something was being organized, and they joined the throng.

does that look like a practical scene to you? or some kind of a flash mob bar? that description is from the atlantic, not Faux news for dumbfox.

there is a massive difference between denying a flash mob of attorneys access to detainees, and denying an attorney for a detained person that wants an attorney. i am open, do you have evidence that a detainee was denied an attorney? or are you jumping to that conclusion because this mob was not given free access without a client?

the video was of a municipal cop, or port authority cop, not granting access to a restricted area. he said that the court order had been delivered to cbp. is there another video of a marshal being given the order and then denying attorney access when it had been requested? or, again, are they simply not responding to the respondents of the google docs request for responses?

The lawyers in New York got an order for an entire class of people. That means those lawyers are the lawyers for those people. So, yes, the lawyers trying to get in to meet with the prisoners (detainees being one of those, you know, PC terms) were those persons lawyers. Those who denied those lawyers access were violating the court order.

the lawyers got an order or they responded to a social media request and list serv?

what do you mean they got an order for an entire class of people? are you saying that the International Refugee Assistance Project filed the motion in the court and that all the lawyers that just showed up were then part of the international refugee assistance project?

also, the lawyers got an order in new york but this was at dulles? what exactly are you saying, that once a federal court implements a stay, that all lawyers are free to pursue all potential clients at any venue at any time, even if their target has not requested assistance? should we expect to have lawyers just wandering around the halls at customs, trolling, without a client but soliciting them as they enter?

A law enforcement source told The Times that 13 people had been detained at Terminal 2 on Saturday night, but each of them held a green card and was eventually let in.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... story.html

[_Kevin Graham]

[_Kevin Graham]

ME, let me explain a little how this works.

No need. ME has google.

The detainees were being "thoroughly vetted" in ways that are just r*******. For instance, before they were let go their Facebook and Social Media pages were investigated to see if they had made any political statements.

As far as attorney's outnumbering detainees, this is expected initially. If you watch the video between the CBP officer and the Congressman the CBP guy said he's only had 3 people detained and then someone interrupted him and said that number is actually over 30 because a flight just arrived. So as more flights arrive, more detainees are expected. But because there were more attorneys than detainees initially this means it was a "flash mob"? Get real.

[_Res Ipsa]

So I did a some searching. Here is the court order that was issued in Virginia for the people detained at Dulles. https://www.justice4all.org/wp-content/ ... signed.pdf The order is crystal clear: "Respondents shall permit lawyers access" If lawyers were denied access to the detainees, all of the respondents, Trump included, can be held in contempt.

You really think that people who got on a plane with the right to legally enter the United States and were instead detained on their arrival and threatened with being sent back don't want a freaking lawyer? The problem is that, when the government holds someone prisoner incommunicado, that person doesn't even know what rights they have. That's why the judge issued the order -- so that the detainees had access to legal advice. There is no way to know whether someone wants legal advice unless someone asks, and the only way the court trusted they'd get that advice is to order the respondents to give lawyers access.

No, I read that the lawyers in New York had some kind of class approval in one of the articles. If that's the case, those lawyers are lawyers for the class, however defined. The order in Virginia specifically orders the respondents to give lawyers access. Part of the problem at Dulles appears to be that CPB hid back in the restricted area and refused to comply with the order. An orderly process could easily have been set up, had they wanted to. I doubt a mob arrived all at the same time, and the frustrations you see in the clip were the result of the CPB's refusal to admit ANY lawyers.

I did a PACER search on the Virginia case. It doesn't recognize the case number when I search for it. I don't know whether that means the filings have been on paper to this point so it isn't in the system yet, or whether it's being withheld from the system. I expect the former. At any rate, I'll try again tomorrow. If a motion for contempt has been filed, it will show up on the docket, and I should be able to read the motion.

A law enforcement source told The Times that 13 people had been detained at Terminal 2 on Saturday night, but each of them held a green card and was eventually let in.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... story.html

From the same article:

Although the New York court decision may have marked a partial victory for opponents of the ban, the emergency stay came too late for some. Kristen Jackson, an attorney with Public Counsel, said attorneys tried to intervene after a 70-year-old Iranian man was held by federal authorities at LAX. His son is an American resident and the father was moving to the U.S., she said.

Jackson and other attorneys filed court papers to try to stop the man’s removal, but he was put on an airplane back to Iran, she said.

The article also states that Federal officials have repeatedly refused to say how many people were detained and whether they were released or sent back.

[_Kevin Graham]

So I did a some searching. Here is the court order that was issued in Virginia for the people detained at Dulles. https://www.justice4all.org/wp-content/ ... signed.pdf The order is crystal clear: "Respondents shall permit lawyers access" If lawyers were denied access to the detainees, all of the respondents, Trump included, can be held in contempt.

If only ME would have looked this stuff up before commenting, he may have averted sounding like a complete moron.

[Guest]

I did a PACER search on the Virginia case. It doesn't recognize the case number when I search for it. I don't know whether that means the filings have been on paper to this point so it isn't in the system yet, or whether it's being withheld from the system. I expect the former. At any rate, I'll try again tomorrow. If a motion for contempt has been filed, it will show up on the docket, and I should be able to read the motion.

excellent. thanks man.

just for clarification, the "Virginia Case" was specific to detainees named, correct? the contempt filing is one that could have been filed by the aclu? or is the virginia case the contempt case that may be pursued by the aclu?

[_Kevin Graham]

Here are some choice quotations from Steve Bannon, the Brietbart guy who is now running the National Security Council:

“I’m a Leninist... Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.” - http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... inist.html

"Like [Andrew] Jackson’s populism, we’re going to build an entirely new political movement. It's everything related to jobs. The conservatives are going to go crazy. I'm the guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan. With negative interest rates throughout the world, it's the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Shipyards, ironworks, get them all jacked up. We're just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks. It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution — conservatives, plus populists, in an economic nationalist movement."
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/s ... ent-948747

Andrew Jackson was the President who defied a Federal judge when it was ruled that Georgia could not lease land on Indian reservations to anyone but Indians. Jackson was a known racist who murdered many Indians and made some kind of threatening remark, daring the courts to even try to enforce their ruling since he is the one who controls the army. That's the kind of guy who is in charge now.

But hey, nothing to see here. Move along.

[_Mayan Elephant]

So I did a some searching. Here is the court order that was issued in Virginia for the people detained at Dulles. https://www.justice4all.org/wp-content/ ... signed.pdf The order is crystal clear: "Respondents shall permit lawyers access"

hey man. why is there a distinction in the order for legal residents? is that consistent with the new york order? is this a distinction that would mean that the order does not apply to all detainees? perhaps only green card holders?