Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Sunday January 29 2017, @12:14PM   Printer-friendly
from the stop-thinking-that-you're-a-dictator dept.

The Intercept reports

A Federal judge in New York issued a nationwide temporary injunction [1], halting the implementation of President Donald Trump's executive order on immigration on Saturday night, blocking the deportation of travelers with valid visas detained at airports in the past 24 hours.

Judge Ann Donnelly, a United States District Court Judge in Brooklyn, issued the ruling at an emergency hearing on a lawsuit [2] filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups on Saturday, as Trump's executive order temporarily banning citizens of seven nations with Muslim majorities from entering the U.S. took immediate effect.

The judge ruled that the government must immediately stop deporting travelers from those nations, including refugees who already went through a rigorous vetting process, and provide a complete list of all those detained, immigrants rights lawyer Lee Gelernt told reporters in Brooklyn.

[Ed Note (martyb): Original text and links from The Intercept are reproduced here — to bypass indirections and Javascript use the following links.]

[1] Direct link to a PDF of the Emergency Motion for Stay of Removal (Case 1:17-cv-00480 Document 8 Filed 01/28/17).
[2] Direct link to a PDF of the Original ACLU Complaint (Case 1:17-cv-00480 Document 1 Filed 01/28/17).

Previously:
Breaking News: Immigration Ban Includes Green Card Holders


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday January 29 2017, @04:58PM

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Sunday January 29 2017, @04:58PM (#460295) Journal

    Didn't this creeping unitary executive stuff start under Dubya the Armuhdilla Hunter? Lesson: never give an office political power if you don't want to see your opponent using it next term.

    --
    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Informative=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @08:16PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @08:16PM (#460382)

    It's been going on since at least FDR. Both parties certainly share some blame for it. But the polarization of politics has definitely contributed: Obama couldn't do anything via normal means because the Republicans in Congress wouldn't work with him on anything. When it was happening, I remember people warning about cheering on Obama's actions that were through executive orders out of fear for what a Republican president would do with the same power. It's unclear whether this was a deliberate strategy by the Republicans, but it unfortunately seems like it might be working out well for them.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @08:19PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @08:19PM (#460385)

      Obama couldn't do anything via normal means because the Republicans in Congress wouldn't work with him on anything.

      Maybe so, but that doesn't justify him or anyone else exceeding their authority; it would be better if things didn't get done than having the Constitution be violated.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday January 29 2017, @08:25PM

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Sunday January 29 2017, @08:25PM (#460386) Journal

    Didn't this creeping unitary executive stuff start under Dubya the Armuhdilla Hunter?

    Arguably, it began under George Washington, who already experienced a few crises where people questioned his use of executive powers. But that's not a serious answer -- federal power ebbed and flowed over the decades for roughly 150 years.

    I've said this elsewhere, but I think the "creeping unitary executive" really began around the time of FDR. Have we had any significant curbing of executive power since then? Before then, there were still debates over the reach of the powers of the federal government. Laws were routinely overturned by SCOTUS for usurping the "police power of the states" and such. Since the early 1940s, I'm really not sure anyone takes any proposed restriction on federal power seriously. (Recall our former Speaker of the House literally laughing that anyone could ask a question about the constitutionality of Obamacare and the idea that there could be ANY restriction on federal power, other than perhaps explicitly enumerated "rights" in the Constitution -- and even those have been increasingly manipulated recently.) And while balance has shifted slightly among the branches, the Executive has always been the largest of the federal government, wielding the most resources.

    P.S. I'm not some smart-government "nutter" -- I actually think we need federal programs and regulations to live in a modern world. But we left the world of "Constitutional constraint" many decades ago. And thus creeping powers have just happened unilaterally through SCOTUS reinterpretations and executive orders, with less public debate at every expansion, let alone Constitutional revision as the Founders would have required.