Save Our State  

Go Back   Save Our State > Priority Topics Section > Immigration

Immigration Topics relating to the subject of US Immigration

Immigration Pushed To The Forefront Again.... Thanks! To Everyone Who Has Propelled This Issue To Its' Rightful Position. Years Of Hard Work Are Paying Off.....Keep Up The Good Work!......
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-08-2012, 03:02 PM
Ayatollahgondola's Avatar
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
SOS Associate
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,047
Default Ninth Circuit Court Stays Deportations Based on Obama's Directive

the Ninth Circuit court of appeals is apparently taking orders directly from the Obama administration now

Quote:
In a 2-1 ruling on Monday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals demanded the Obama administration explain whether the immigrants can avoid deportation because of two memos released last year by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement director John Morton urging prosecutors to use "discretion" when deciding whether to pursue immigration cases
Quote:

Before: William C. Canby, Jr., Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, and
Raymond C. Fisher, Circuit Judges.
Order;
Quote:

Dissent by Judge O’Scannlain

David Aranda Rodriguez has filed a petition for rehearing
en banc in this consolidated matter. Rodriguez has had a longterm
presence in the United States and has two United States
citizen daughters, one of whom suffers from asthma. He does
not appear to have any criminal convictions.
In light of ICE Director John Morton’s June 17, 2011
memo regarding prosecutorial discretion, and the November
17, 2011 follow-up memo providing guidance to ICE Attorneys,
the government shall advise the court by March 19,
2012, whether the government intends to exercise prosecutorial
discretion in this case and, if so, the effect, if any, of the
exercise of such discretion on any action to be taken by this
court with regard to Petitioner’s pending petition for rehearing.

O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. "[T]he Executive Branch has exclusive
authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to
prosecute a case." United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693
(1974). Judicial supervision of such decisions is sharply limited
by the separation of powers and is guided by "the recognition
that the decision to prosecute is particularly ill-suited to
judicial review." Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607
(1985). We have generally respected these limitations on our
authority and competence. See, e.g., United States v.
Banuelos-Rodgriguez, 215 F.3d 969, 977 (9th Cir. 2000) (en
banc) (collecting cases).
But not today. Today the majority instructs the Attorney
General to tell us whether he will prosecute a specific case
notwithstanding his brief defending the Board of Immigration
Appeals’s decision denying the petitioner relief. We have
only the slimmest authority even to review the exercise of
prosecutorial discretion, see, e.g., Banuelos-Rodgriguez, 215
F.3d at 976-77; we certainly lack authority to demand a preemptive
peek into whether and when (and no doubt, before
long, why) the executive branch will exercise such discretion.
Cf. Wayte, 470 U.S. at 607 ("Examining the basis of a prosecution
. . . threatens to chill law enforcement by subjecting the
prosecutor’s motives and decisionmaking to outside inquiry,
and may undermine prosecutorial effectiveness by revealing
the Government’s enforcement policy."). The memoranda
cited by the majority offer only internal guidance within the
executive branch and squarely disclaim any suggestion that
they might create any rights or benefits enforceable by the
judiciary. What is more, the petitioner never even asked us for the
audacious ruling we issue today. The majority thus needlessly
catapults this court into a realm of decisionmaking from
which it is constitutionally walled off. I cannot join that effort
and rather would decide the petition for rehearing on the basis
of the record already before us.

Last edited by admin; 02-08-2012 at 03:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-09-2012, 05:04 AM
wetibbe wetibbe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 801
Default Repeat.

I'll just repeat: -----------------------------------

Federal Circuit Court Judge Robert Dierker - in his book " The tyranny of Tolerance" spelled out the problems with the court system and the liberal, secular progressives.

Everyone makes up his/her own rules. The Constitution isn't an impediment. It's "just a piece of paper" - "it's a living document" - "it was created by old,dead white men" - it's old and out of date", etc., etc, .......................

Federal Immigration and Customs Laws don't matter. Mayors and Town Councils just make up their own rules.

I lived overseas for a long time in some real Banana Republics. Sadly the USA is apparently trying to mimic all of everything that is wrong in those Bananas !!!!!

Last edited by wetibbe; 02-09-2012 at 10:11 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-09-2012, 08:25 AM
Patriotic Army Mom Patriotic Army Mom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 829
Default

Mr O is handing them a ballot on their way into our country, already marked with his name! Wish he'd go back to Kenya and fix that country.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright SaveOurState 2009 - 2016 All Rights Reserved