re: It seems Mamoud khalil will likely win his immigration court hearing.

quote:

---

Be an adult and make the best decision you ever could for your kids.

---

Legally

quote:

---

Legally

---

depends on the judge, just like every other case in this fricked up legal system we have!

Rogue judges need to be on the list....

quote:

---

Pandy Fackler

---

Q1. IF, again IF this was to happen this would make you happy?

Q2. Why? Why would this make you happy?

quote:

---

Which laws WOULDN'T apply to the President, and why wouldn't they?

---

One example: Murder of US citizens

Why? NDAA

Another: Executive Privilege

Why? legal precedent

quote:

---

And it looks like the executive branch doesn’t have a legitimate reason to deport him

---

By contrast, in accordance with the law, it looks to me like the illegitimate claim here emanates from the Judicial Branch.

Americans are groomed to accept that the Judicial Branch is automatically right in these interbranch conflicts. We have lawyers on this sight who consistently argue in that direction. E.g., Roe v Wade is sound law because the Courts say so ... until it isn't ... because the Courts say so.

Regarding interbranch disputes, the JB may well win more than they lose in such disputes due to being granted rights as sole arbiter. Self inflicted defeats in such instances obviously weaken the Judiciary relative to their "co-equal" branches. So there is obvious incentive to find in their own behalf. But accepting JB fiat as automatically correct in interbranch conflicts is unsound.

For example, there is current JB premise that a single politically/personally conflicted district judge who is specifically judge-shopped by Administrative opponents for a preordained finding has the right to shutdown entire divisions of the Executive Branch. The premise is painfully flawed, yet we accept it on the basis of JB fiat, fiat actually founded in nothing but a JB power grab. It's what one should term a Constitutional crisis created by the Judiciary.

In the Rubio case we are addressing, the law is clear. The decision to deport is a decision resting with the SOS. The Court lacks basis in inserting itself in ways it is attempting. Yet here we are debating elements of a judge's claim which is basically outside the law. It is a JB power grab which could curtail by precedent EB powers.

Rubio, by refusing cooperation, is simply rejecting the Court premise that it has rights of insertion not inherent in the law. There are well documented reasons for the SOS action in this instance. His basis for refusal to forward those is not that they don't exist. It is that the Court lacks legitimate ability to question them in the ways being attempted.

quote:

---

The length of time he's been a permanent US resident isn't really a factor in this for me.

---

If I was a judge I think it would play some role. It would not be dispositive by any stretch, though.
But most of these protests were donecwhile he was on a student visa. He got married, i think, this past fall.
Much like you would/might factor in his pregnant wife I would factor in that he has very little in thecway of "roots" here. He has not spent any time in the country not being part of/leading a movement that is full of anti-semitism and harrassment of Jewish students. That likely would play a role in my determination if the Secretary's decision was reasonable.

[Edit]
It is like he came here just for political reasons. And those reasons are opposed to US foreign policy interests.

quote:

---

That's what appellate courts are for, to hear his argument.

---

and?

quote:

---

I explained this to y'all in the exact same way with the AEA

---

The inconsistency of your argument falls apart when applied to cherry-picked district judges issuing nationwide injunctions or injunctions essentially shutting down wide swaths of EB Departments. Your statement there is if Congress doesn't like the law as it exists, they can change it. In the instance of legislatively assigned SOS oversight the same premise holds. Congress can change the law.

Instead, the JB wants to insert itself, essentially seizing assigned power from the EB. The JB has a history of ignoring the written law, Constitution be damned. Roe being a glaring example.

Here is one of the worst: As written by Congress, the ACA was clearly unconstitutional due to the mandate-penalty and inherent Commerce Clause issues.

Nonetheless, during questioning the government argued vehemently that the mandate-penalty DID NOT constitute a tax, and fell outside of Commerce Clause restraints. NFIB agreed ACA penalties did not constitute a tax, so there was zero disagreement between parties on that fact throughout the entire evolution of the case. NFIB argued that the mandate enforced by a penalty was a breach of the Commerce Clause .... as it clearly was in the majority SCOTUS opinion.

In an unprecedented, audacious ruling, Roberts ignored Congressional language and intent, ignored the government's vehement insistence that the language was as intended, ignored the plaintiff's concordance with those arguments and instead claimed the ACA penalties were not the penalties they actually were. He invented a premise out of thin air that the ACA penalties were, in fact, taxes.

By ignoring Congressional intent and every single argument in the case, and then framing the penalties as a tax, Roberts sidestepped concerns about the federal government regulating inactivity. If the mandate had been deemed a regulation under the Commerce Clause, it would have been struck down as an overreach of federal power.

Though NFIB v. Sebelius was not touted as a SCOTUS power grab d/t the finding coinciding with desires of the other two branches, that is actually exactly what it was. SCOTUS audaciously contended in the ruling that it could flatly ignore law as written, and essentially rewrite legislation itself, superseding Congress.

Green cards guarantee rights.

quote:

---

Green cards guarantee rights.

---

Indeed.

Protection from deportation is not among those guarantees.