AG Barr argued that no person in the United States should have unilateral “nationwide power” to create policies except the president.

Barr described the courts as an institution to “protect individual liberty” in individual cases, not an institution “to inquire how the Executive or Executive officers perform duties in which they have a discretion.”

*********

Barr Blasts Dangerous Rise in Injunctions Among Activist Courts
May 22, 2019 Joshua
‘Even the Chief Justice of the United States must convince at least four of his colleagues to bind the Federal Government nationwide…’

William Barr
(Joshua Paladino, Liberty Headlines)

Attorney General William Barr criticized the recent rise in nationwide injunctions, a tool that lower federal courts use to legislate from the bench, during a May 21 speech to the American Law Institute.

Barr said federal district courts have issued 37 nationwide injunctions since Donald Trump became president. Federal courts issued only two nationwide injunctions during President Barack Obama’s first two years in office.

For the first 175 years in America’s history, federal courts did not issue one injunction.
A D.C. Circuit Court started the unconstitutional policy-making in 1963.

“Some say this proves that the Trump Administration is lawless,” Barr said. “Not surprisingly, I disagree. And I would point out that the only case litigated on the merits in the Supreme Court—the so-called “travel ban” challenge—ended with President [Trump]’s policy being upheld.”

Moreover, the Supreme Court has reversed major 9th Circuit Court decisions on issues such as immigrant detention and equal pay.
The Supreme Court overturned 79 percent of all cases that it reviewed from the 9th Circuit Court.

Judicial partisanship and anti-Trump activism have led to more nationwide injunctions, but the practice threatens much more than the current administration’s policies.

They are flouting what Barr called the “bulwark against tyranny in America,” the separation of powers.

“Nationwide injunctions undermine the democratic process, depart from history and tradition, violate constitutional principles and impede sound judicial administration—all at the cost of public confidence in our institutions, and particularly in our courts as apolitical decision-makers dispassionately applying objective law,” Barr said.

Nationwide injunctions allow district courts to invalidate laws and determine enforcement procedures—roles reserved for Congress, which wields the legislative power, and the President of the United States, who wields the executive power.
The most “remarkable example” of a nationwide injunction, as Barr described it, is the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

The program began after a decade of debate over the DREAM Act led to Congress doing nothing. The act would have provided permanent residency to illegal aliens who came to the United States as minors.

Since Obama believed Congress not passing the DREAM Act meant the institution was “broken,” he took executive action.

Barr said Obama ordered the Department of Homeland Security to take a “non-enforcement posture” toward illegal aliens who arrived in the United States as children.

Obama made a policy decision—a controversial and likely illegal decision not to enforce immigration laws.

When Trump took office—in large part because voters were upset that Obama decided not to enforce immigration law—he said he would “would wind down DACA.”
“Two district judges in California and New York have nevertheless issued nationwide injunctions against the rescission—that is, effectively requiring the government to reinstate DACA notwithstanding the President’s contrary exercise of discretion,” Barr said.

He listed three bipartisan reasons to oppose nationwide injunctions.
First, presidents cannot enact the policies that they promised to voters.

“We are more than halfway through the President’s term, and the Administration has not been able to rescind the signature immigration initiative of the last Administration, even though it rests entirely on executive discretion,” Barr said.
Second, injunctions “inject courts into the political process,” he said.

“[O]nce a district judge forced the Executive Branch to maintain DACA nationwide for the indefinite future, the President lost much of his leverage in negotiating with congressional leaders who wanted him to maintain DACA nationwide for the indefinite future. Unsurprisingly, those negotiations did not lead to a deal.” he said.
Third, injunctions “inspire unhealthy litigation tactics.”

“Rather than an orderly pattern of litigation in which the Government loses some cases and wins others, with issues percolating their way through the appellate courts, we have an inter-district battle fought with all-or-nothing injunctions,” Barr said.

As Barr noted, this leads Republicans to find conservative judges in Texas willing to issue injunctions and liberal judges in California and New York willing to issue them, rather than litigating issues on their constitutional and legal merits.

Barr argued that no person in the United States should have unilateral “nationwide power” to create policies except the president.

District court judges exercise more power than Supreme Court judges because they act alone.

“Even the Chief Justice of the United States must convince at least four of his colleagues to bind the Federal Government nationwide,” he said.

Again, Barr described the courts as an institution to “protect individual liberty” in individual cases, not an institution “to inquire how the Executive or Executive officers perform duties in which they have a discretion.”

**********

(These judges who are breaking the law by making law for the benefit of the Democratic Party should be impeached.)

Judge Haywood Gillium partially blocks Trump border wall plan.

By Josh Gerstein

May 25, 2019

Another Judge Haywood Gilliam making law instead of using the Constitution and working against the Constitution.  What right does this jugnot out of California making law in Texas and Arizona.  There should be limitations to any rulings outside of CA and  stop these jugnots from making law.

An Obama appointed judge.

A federal judge has partially blocked President Donald Trump’s plan to fund construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

The preliminary injunction issued Friday immediately halts a $1 billion transfer of Pentagon counterdrug funding to cover expansions and enhancement of border barriers.

The court order also appears to jeopardize another $1.5 billion of the $8.1 billion the administration planned to use for border construction.

However, Oakland, Calif.-based U.S. District Court Judge Haywood Gilliam’s order only limits construction in specific border areas in Texas and Arizona and does not prevent the administration from tapping other funding sources to advance those projects.
Gilliam said the administration’s plan to transfer counterdrug funding to finance the border-wall construction appeared to be unconstitutional because the legal authority the administration was relying on applied only to “unforeseen” needs.

“Defendants’ argument that the need for the requested border barrier construction funding was ‘unforeseen’ cannot logically be squared with the Administration’s multiple requests for funding for exactly that purpose dating back to at least early 2018,” the Obama nominee wrote.

Gilliam noted that in the wake of the protracted partial government shutdown earlier this year Congress appropriated only $1.375 billion for border-wall construction, limited to the Rio Grande Valley sector in Texas.

“The position that when Congress declines the Executive’s request to appropriate funds, the Executive nonetheless may simply find a way to spend those funds ‘without Congress’ does not square with fundamental separation of powers principles dating back to the earliest days of our Republic,” the judge wrote.

Gilliam also said the administration’s claims of urgency were belied by its sluggishness in using appropriated border-wall-construction funds in the fiscal year that ended last September. Officials have said about $1.6 billion set aside for such projects was used to construct only 1.7 miles of fencing that year, which the judge said “tends to undermine Defendants’ claim that irreparable harm will result if the funds at issue … are not deployed immediately.”

While Trump declared a national emergency in February to try to free up additional funding for wall construction, the stream of money the judge blocked Friday was not contingent on the emergency declaration.

The injunction from Gilliam came in a lawsuit brought by the Sierra Club and a border-communities group. The judge said the order rendered moot part of a similar request in a parallel lawsuit filed by 20 states. He denied, for now, the states’ motion to block another aspect of Trump’s plan.

The judge’s order limiting use of the counter drug funds applies to two sectors: El Paso, Texas, and Yuma, Arizona. The administration had planned to start using the moneys there as soon as Saturday, the judge said.

A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment on the judge’s rulings.

kommonsentsjane