Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The Court didn't say they can't enforce the law. It said the government needs to comply with its Constitutional obligations when enforcing the law.

Take the politics out of it for a second. The government arrests 847Badgerfan and moves to deport him. 847Badgerfan thinks they have the wrong 847Badgerfan, or he didn't do what the government arrested him for, or he's a citizen. 847Badgerfan has the right to go to court to try to stop the deportation. Now, the government can keep 847Badgerfan detained while this is going on; it just can't deport him prior to the government proving its case. Mind you, the case for deportation is a low bar for the government. (1) The government has to show the person is not an authorized resident. If not, (2) the defendant has to prove (not the govermment, the defendant) that the deportation is not authorized for whatever reason (already established under the law). This is the opposite of any criminal procedure where the government has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and it is a lower bar than a plaintiff bringing a civil claim, where the plaintiff has to show he/she is more likely than not correct. Here, the defendant has the burden of proof. This is among the easiest cases for the government from a burden of proof perspective. All the Court said is: government, meet your burden before you deport. That's it.

It is a verifiable fact that the government has deported American citizens because of mistakes. Again, politics aside, surely you don't condone that. The purpose of the judicial process is to avoid those mistakes. So, unless you want the executive to have carte blanche to violate people's rights because of the vibe (as was noted in a post above), it isn't a good thing for the President to be able to ignore a court order.

There are lots of limitations on the courts' powers. Jurisprudence has always recognized that there are certain circumstances when the courts cannot stop the Executive from acting (even if they can later review the Executive's bad actions). War powers are a good example of that. But his deportation is not an exercise of war powers. This is a simple administrative act, wherein the government has the time to properly prove its case. There is no demonstrable harm to meeting the court's burden. It's just a political gripe, nothing more.

I plan to leave this argument after the following:
"He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."
"He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers:"
"For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:"
"For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:"

In other words, abuse of individuals at the hand of the executive was a crucial part of our founding. But, that is not the law of the land, this is:
"Congress shall make no law...prohibiting...the right of the people...to petition the Government for a redress of greivances."
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons...and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probably cause..."
"No person* shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial..."
"In suits at common law...the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United State, than according to the rules of common law."
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and ununsal punishments inflicted."

*Person, not citizen.

All of this is to say that we are a nation of laws, built on the fundamental concept that a single person cannot dictate government policy, and certainly cannot dictate how the government acts in relation to the people within its borders. Since Marbury vs. Madison we have agreed that the federal judiciary is the appropriate check on the executive branch's authority. It is not a minor thing for the executive branch to declare that it need not follow a court order because it disagrees with it. That is a breach of the fabric of our constitutional system. So where the harm to the government--keeping these people detained in the U.S. slightly longer--is microscopic, intentionally violating a court order is a really big deal.
If you are correct--these are dangerous criminals that require deportation, the government will have no trouble meeting its burden in court. And if it can't meet its very low burden, then it can't prove its case against them, and they should not be deported. Our system is premised on our government not being able to deprive a person of life, liberty, or property, without the government meeting its burden. Surely we can all agree on that.

All very valid points.  Which is why I say, they responded (current Admin) with shady shit to the previous Admin, who was also doing shady shit.  My guess is that the political parties feel that the referees (judges) aren't giving out fair calls, so they're just pulling facemasks and holding every play because if they going to do this, then might as well make it blatant.  

Genuinely curious why this took so long?  Think there was an issue with the AI that wouldn't let it read the plate, and somebody had to manually read it.  Once that task is done, they go thru and match all the others that are unresolved?  Like, we have 8 tolls from a yellow jeep, LP # LUV B00BS, but the AI reads it as LUV BOOBS, once it gets thru the que, somebody has to match it up? 
PS...just kidding about the B00Bs plate, we all know it reads LUV A55

No... It's also not just a plate. There's a window sticker transponder. But if they didn't know what car was going through the toll, they would have manually looked at it and charged me, or manually looked at it and given me a toll violation if I didn't have a payment method in place. However, [of course] I do, and with three vehicles on the same account and a single payment method for all three, they just weren't charging. 

So I trust that the system/software was accurately capturing that the vehicle was passing through the toll because anything else would have triggered a manual review. But for whatever reason that information wasn't being pushed through to the toll collection software. Essentially IMHO the capture system knew I was there and thought it was passing the info on for collection, but the collection system didn't even know it was missing tolls because it never received that it was supposed to collect anything. 

What I think probably happened was at some point they had some sort of auditing software or comparison of the books that caught it. Probably wasn't just me, IMHO, and was probably a systemic issue. So at some point they reviewed and the capture system perhaps said over some time period they had 10,147,957 tolls captured and then they looked at the collections and saw that they only charged out 9,850,137 tolls, and someone said "WTF how did we miss out all this money?!?!" And they probably had to do a massive amount of work to figure out which tolls were charged, which omitted, and then go back and charge all the missed tolls in a giant batch. IMHO this could be the explanation for why I was suddenly charged when I used the system last summer, i.e. they immediately fixed the issue of the data not being pushed through. But then it took 8 months for them to then go figure out all the past missed charges and charge out all the arrears. 

That's my speculation as an engineer who has some understanding of how these types of software systems would be connected to each other, how certain things (for whatever reason) would be missed or not passed between systems, etc...

I'm just glad they didn't do something daft and try to assess a bunch of late charges, or violations, or interest, or anything like that for THEIR mistake. Because then I'd be already involving a lawyer lol...

Ok, so you dragged me back in. It's a rhetorical point you are making, but it's really not the same thing at all.

Prosecutors have always had prosecutorial discretion, i.e., the right to decide what to prosecute. Executives have a similar right to dictate how laws will be enforced. Can they go too far in not enforcing laws? Yes. But that is a much different burden (you, the government, should have done more).

"Government, do more" is fundamentally different than "government don't deprive a person of liberty without due process."

Ok, let's talk about this because understanding it is fundamental to understanding Trump's response.

DACA:
II'll try to be mostly even handed here and @SFBadger96 can argue the other side if necessary.

As @SFBadger96 mentioned in his post, "Executives have a similar right to dictate how laws will be enforced."

Let's use a much less polarizing example. Here in my town in Ohio we recently had a run of car 🚗 vs 🚶‍♀️ pedestrian crashes around our downtown square including fatalities. @SuperMario is familiar with the area. Anyway, the Mayor directed the Police Department to focus on traffic enforcement around our square.

It is absolutely within the purview of the Executive to set priorities in this way. Nearly everyone would support this given the 🚗 vs 🚶‍♂️ crashes and fatalities. However, there is an unspoken reality that is part of this equation. Resources are not unlimited, they are finite. This inherently means that spending additional resources on traffic enforcement around the square can only be accomplished by spending less resources on something else.

The above means that when you say you are in favor of spending more resources on traffic enforcement around the square, you must also be in favor of spending less resources on *SOMETHING* else. But . . . What if that something else is detective time tracking down online predators? What if one of the cyberpredator's victims was YOUR son or daughter? Are you still in favor of spending more resources on traffic enforcement around the square when it means spending less resources tracking down the pedophile who victimized your child?

For a less dark example, maybe we spend more on traffic enforcement around the square by spending less on speed and DUI enforcement. Still, there are people who are passionate about having better speed enforcement on their street or on DUI enforcement.

Here though is where DACA diverged from the usual, and acceptable exercise of Executive Discretion: When a Mayor prioritizes traffic enforcement around the square over tracking down online predators or DUI enforcement or Speed enforcement, online predators, driving while intoxicated, and speeding are still illegal. If you victimize kids, drive drunk, or cruise through town at 100 MPH, you *MIGHT* face legal consequences. The Mayor's prioritization of traffic enforcement around the square has only slightly decreased the chances that you'll get caught doing these things.

DACA was not that. Obama/Biden didn't merely reprioritize, they openly declared that properly enacted laws that they had sworn to faithfully execute would not be enforced.

The local equivalent would be for a Mayor to openly announce that:

• We are not going to enforce laws about victimizing children online against anyone whose victims are over 14, those older kids can watch out for themselves, or
• We are only going to enforce DUI laws against drivers who have a crash and test 2x over the limit, no more 'one too many DUI's', or
• We are only going to enforce speed laws against drivers who exceed 100 MPH.

The three examples above involve the Executive substituting his judgement for the law, much as DACA involved Obama/Biden substituting their view of what immigration law should be for what we the people through our Congressional Representatives enacted.

Also, real quick little court procedure primer. This kind of an order (the immigration thing) from the court is a temporary/emergency order. Basically one side has come to the court and argued that irreperable harm will take place if the court doesn't block the government (or in other cases, a party) from doing something, so the court should stop that action, at least until the court can determine whether the government has the right to do it. There is a balancing act between the harm (and whether it can be reset later) and the likelihood of success. Unsurprisingly, the higher the degree of irreperable harm (i.e., you can't go back and fix it later: think death penalty, or, say deporting someone to a gulag somewhere where the U.S. loses control over the person), the lower the need to show a likelihood of success. Remember, this is just at the emergency relief/temporary stage. If the court orders the temporary relief, the parties will still litigate the question of who is right/who is wrong on the underlying legal issue, they will just do it before the irreperable harm takes place. 

That's what happened here: the court ordered the government not to do something until it had proven its case because to do the thing was irreperable--if the government ended up being wrong on the merits of the legal question, but had already acted, there was no undoing the harm done.

And that's the point here: the reason for the court's order is to prevent irreparable harm, but if the government (or any other litigant) ignores that order, the irreperable harm takes place. That's what the system is intended to prevent--and that's why it is important to implement the court's order (while at the same time appealing it, or immediately arguing the underlying legal issue).

A different hypothetical: the IRS determines that 847Badgerfan hasn't properly paid his taxes, so the IRS seizes his business and begins to sell it off to satisfy the tax burden. 847Badgerfan goes to court to say (1) the IRS hasn't proven its case against me; and (2) if it sells off my business, even if I am right, I will still have suffered the injury. Now, the IRS says we wouldn't have done this if we weren't right, but how many of you think the IRS--or any other department of the government--should have the right to sell of 847Badgerfan's business just on that assertion? So 847Badgerfan says to the Court: if the IRS sells off my business, I can never fix that, so stop the IRS from doing that until the case--whether I properly paid my taxes--is decided. What if the Court orders the IRS not to sell the assets, but the IRS does so anyway because the President just won an election in which a primary issue was whether business owners are paying their fair share of taxes? Ok?
Not in my view of the world.

I'm asking the latter question mainly as a point of interest as I watch the Opposition Party (yes, we're England now). 

According to exit polling in the November election, the two highest priorities of voters were illegal immigration and men in women's sports (not anything economy-related, to my surprise).  In fact, it still polls to be an 80/20 issue, same as back in November, and it's the two areas where the current administration has the highest approval ratings, even amongst people who poll as overall dissatisfied with the current administration. 

Somewhat astoundingly, what I've mainly seen from office-holding democrats is doubling down on those two issues in which 75% of their own base is against them (80% is the aggregate, I believe voting democrats are only 75% on the two issues).  There are some exceptions, of course. 

It's a bold strategy, Cotton....let's see how it works out for them.  

So anytime I see any judges gumming up the works in deportation processes, I am curious how much is genuine jurisprudence and how much is "F*** this guy."  

I keep hearing something about how the Supreme Court has already ruled elsewhere that the Executive branch is within its purview to do what it did, therefore a lower court judge should not have issued the order he did. 

Is that in any way accurate?

No.

The Supreme Court has issued rulings in three cases so far that relate to the new administration's actions. It has ruled for the Administration and against it, but none of those three cases are remotely close to what happened here, and none gave the Administration the right to ignore an injunction issued by a district judge.

No.

The Supreme Court has issued rulings in three cases so far that relate to the new administration's actions. It has ruled for the Administration and against it, but none of those three cases are remotely close to what happened here, and none gave the Administration the right to ignore an injunction issued by a district judge.

I believe what's being referred to is something other than what you're talking about here.  i.e., not the Supreme Court rulings regarding the recent deportation policies, but rather previous rulings on something I'm probably incorrectly calling the president's wartime powers.  As I said, I haven't yet had a chance to catch up on all this yet, but it seems that what's being discussed which I'm alluding to is the administration is apparently treating certain foreign-based gangs as invaders, somehow?  (I'm probably getting that wrong, but I gather it's something along those lines.)  Previous SCOTUS rulings are then pointed to regarding what can and can't be done there. 

So the issue seems to me to be, is it, or is it not, a reach to file foreign gang members causing mayhem here under "enemy combatants?"  That would be the crucial element, as I sift through the back-and-forths I've seen so far.  Supposing I'm framing that correctly, that seems to be main question I'd have.  Beyond that, the border guy, whassisname, says the plane not already in international territory were recalled, as per the injunction.  In which case, I have another question.....is a plane under US command not subject to a court ruling just because it is outside the physical jurisdiction of the judge?  I have no clue how that's supposed to work.  

I get, for example, that a citizen traveling abroad is subject to that country's laws and not those of his home country.  But it seems like a different matter when talking about, presumably, military planes.  Or maybe it wasn't a military plane?  I don't know, but there's several points there I need clarification on.