Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. Roberts Robs Citizens of Crucial Information

 

There has been plenty of commentary, on Ricochet and elsewhere (see first and especially Amy Howe’s analysis), about the decision penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by the four consistent leftists in relevant parts on Department of Commerce v. New York. One issue, and important consequence, seems unaddressed. By sending the matter back to the Federal District courts, without imposing a very accelerated calendar and requiring a decision back to the Supreme Court by the end of the summer, Roberts has effectively pushed back any actual count of the illegal alien population by a decade! He has kept the political process uninformed, except by competing guesses, presented as statistical models and sample data. This is the point on which President Trump should be hammering daily.

Roberts did not rule that a citizenship question is unconstitutional, but he did not need to, as his opinion, as written, runs out the clock nicely. Instead, he relied on insinuations that Wilbur Ross had racist motives and had lied to cover up these racist motives. By entertaining this smear job by the lower courts, Roberts diverted the conversation from the ultimate bipartisan elite goal, perpetuating their numbers racket.

The Numbers Racket:

Eleven million? We have been fed that number for over a decade now. Where did it come from and what should we make of it? Is it fair to claim that commonsense points to the number having grown much larger? The Washington Post turns out to be a helpful starting point in understanding “how we can be confident that there are 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S.:”

The most common source for the 11 million figure is number-crunching from Pew Research Center.

Here is the Pew Research Center’s illegal immigration issue summary:

The number of unauthorized immigrants living in the United States has dropped to the level it was in 2004, and Mexicans are no longer a majority of this population. This decline is due mainly to a large drop in the number of new unauthorized immigrants, especially Mexicans, coming into the country. The origin countries of unauthorized immigrants also shifted during that time, with the number from Mexico declining and the number rising from Central America and Asia, according to the latest Pew Research Center estimates.

Here are five facts about the unauthorized immigrant population in the U.S.

  1. There were 10.5 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. in 2017, representing 3.2% of the total U.S. population that year. […]
  2. The number of Mexican unauthorized immigrants declined since 2007, while the total from other nations ticked up. […]
  3. The U.S. civilian workforce includes 7.6 million unauthorized immigrants, representing a decline since 2007. […]
  4. Six states account for 57% of unauthorized immigrants: California, Texas, Florida, New York, New Jersey and Illinois. […]
  5. A rising share of unauthorized immigrants have lived in the U.S. for more than a decade. […]

How does Pew get their answer? Here is one of their senior researchers to explain:

It turns out, however, that there may be basic flaws in their model, leading to serious underestimations. A researcher with appointments to both Yale and MIT led a study resulting in a very different set of estimates based on another set of assumptions. Mohammad M. Fazel-Zarandi estimated 22 million, not 11 million, illegal aliens are in America:

Fazel-Zarandi’s study compared inflows and outflows of immigrants as well as demographic data. According to the report, the number of undocumented immigrants could be as low as 16.5 million, or as high as 29.1 million.

“We combined these data using a demographic model that follows a very simple logic,” Edward Kaplan, a co-author of the report, told Yale Insights. “The population today is equal to the initial population plus everyone who came in minus everyone who went out. It’s that simple.”

[…]

The researchers emphasized the new number does not imply a growth in illegal immigration but a longstanding miscount of existing undocumented immigrants.

Consider that last point again: the Pew and Yale/MIT models show similar curves but the Yale/MIT data points plot above the Pew data points consistently. Who is right? This matters a great deal, as it disrupts the establishment narrative of confident, settled numbers. Consider an informative NPR report on “how did we get to 11 million unauthorized immigrants:”

The number has been around 11 million for almost a decade.

2017 snapshot

Today, the population of unauthorized immigrants is more urban, less seasonal and less Mexican than it used to be. About 52 percent are from Mexico, and the population is less single and male than before.

So, we should not be too worried, or we should be focussed on the changing population rather than pushing back hard on any politician who tells us we must give “a path to citizenship” for “11 million.” This, of course, is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce immigration policy line:

To help advance reform, the Chamber’s Employment Policy division is a leader in a broad coalition of supporters that spans industries and includes labor, law enforcement, the faith-based community, and ethnic organizations. The Chamber is leading the charge for commonsense reforms that include:

Green card reform and implementation of temporary worker programs for high-skilled and lesser-skilled workers including those in the agriculture industry;
A national employment verification system that is workable for employers;
Improved enforcement to protect our borders while facilitating the flow of trade and travel;
And a tough but fair process for the 11 million undocumented people who are living in our country today to earn a legal status.

Mind you, NPR, while reinforcing “11 million,” admits that amnesty guarantees the next wave of immigration law breaking:

Three million people were granted amnesty under the [1986] Simpson-Mazzoli Act, but by 1990 the number of unauthorized immigrants was back up to 3.5 million.

“Border enforcement never really kicked in in any significant way until about a decade later — the mid ’90s,” [former INS Commissioner] Meissner says. “Then, the real centerpiece of it, which was employer sanctions, was very weak. There was not really an effective way to enforce employer sanctions and lots of ways for both employers and workers to get around it.”

Moreover, those who had been in the U.S. less than five years weren’t eligible for the amnesty.

“So those people who couldn’t apply for the legalization program became the seedbed for today’s 11 million,” Meissner says.

Exploiting unenfranchised labor, again?

What we have here may actually be fairly analogous to the conditions at the framing of the Constitution. Then, too, there was a significant population that was exploited for labor without the right to vote, to run for federal office, or to command legal wages. Certain states and localities liked this just fine. In fact, they built their economies on the assumption that this pool of labor would not be disrupted by grants of citizenship rights. Accordingly, in order to get to a document all 13 confederated states could ratify, the formula for House and Electoral College representation allowed these people to be counted, but only gave the states 3/5 credit for unfree persons.

The question today is whether we see the Democrats going back to their bad old ways. The American people deserve to be fully informed, not by estimates derived from assumptions but by the constitutionally mandated decennial census, a door-to-door actual count of persons found in the United States in 2020. This answer, whatever it may be, would best inform our public discourse on the subject—but perhaps that is precisely the problem.

For two decades now, we have had our social betters and governing elites casually smear us as about to run riot in the streets against this or that identity group. Stories must be managed, don’t you know, so that Bubba, Junior, and Daisy don’t start spitting and beating on people. Now that a non-approved candidate was elected president on the Republican ticket, we have the TruCons of the conservative movement joining in those condemnations and concerns, as David French reliably has in the citizenship question case.

Wilbur Ross agreed to work for President Trump, and dares try to carry out part of the central campaign promise, rather than using his office to #resist the Great Big Ugly Man and his voting minions. So, he is fair game for none-to-subtly smearing as a racist, or at best a liar covering for a racist and all his racist voters. That, of course, is civil discourse, but do not make the mistake of turning it around on your betters.

What is to be done?

President Trump should Tweet and, with every walk-by press availability, speak the key portions of Justice Thomas and Alito’s opinions. He should profusely praise Gorsuch and Kavanaugh for their honest application of the Constitution and the law. He should throw in thanks to the Senators who made the thoughtful, responsible choice to confirm these good men.

And, while it would be momentarily satisfying, do not go full Andrew Jackson (founder of the Democratic Party) and “tell the Supremes to pound sand.” Instead, President Trump needs to set the two legitimate studies’ numbers, 11 and 22, side-by-side and demand the Supreme Court stop hiding the truth from the American people. Remind people of Roberts’ claim of no partisanship on the bench. Address Roberts and point out he is being utterly partisan in the result Roberts knew and intended: concealing the truth from the American citizens, from whom the government, including Roberts, get legitimate authority.

Clarity will be key to administration success. Questions about citizenship have been asked of some but not all residents since 1960. It was between the last decade of the 1800s and 1950 that everyone was asked about their citizenship status. See the U.S. Census Bureau Index of Questions — History. Think about what was going on and why real numbers may have helped inform political debate on immigration policy back then, in the midst of heated rhetoric.

Set the conditions for real pressure to get the question onto the 2020 census form. If Roberts stonewalls, start rolling out this passage from a 2005 New Yorker story on former Senator Harry Reid:

Roberts, Reid recalled, said, “ ‘Oh, on the Supreme Court you can change precedent only if there’s this and this,’ and he was rattling them off. I hope I didn’t act surprised, but I’d never heard anything like that before.” Roberts, in Reid’s view, left no doubt that he would be very reluctant to overturn precedents. To do so, Roberts had said, the Court would first have to consider a series of objective criteria, two of which stood out: whether a precedent fostered stability in the nation; and the extent to which society had come to rely on an earlier ruling, even a dubious one. “I thought it would be more of a weaselly answer than that, but he said you have to meet all these standards before you can change a precedent,” Reid said. Roberts’s view of precedent is likely to be an important issue during the upcoming confirmation hearings. Earl Maltz, a conservative and a professor at the Rutgers University School of Law at Camden, says that what Roberts told Reid could be “very significant,” because it runs counter to the “originalist” approach of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who believe that the Constitution should be strictly interpreted, according to the original intent of the Founding Fathers; on that premise, some previously decided cases, including Roe v. Wade, would be ripe for overturning. “The Constitution is not a living organism,” Scalia has said.
[…]
Reid more than once compared Roberts to Justice David Souter, who was appointed by the first President Bush, in 1990, and today is widely detested by conservatives because he frequently sides with the more liberal Justices. Souter and Reid are friendly. “He’s my favorite man on the Court,” Reid said. “I think he’s such a wonderful man, and he believes in precedent. That’s all he’s doing. He’s just following the law.” Reid smiled, and continued, “If somebody is a real lawyer and not a Clarence Thomas or Edith Jones, who is there not to be a judge but to be a legislator, it gives us some hope, and so, if he is approved, I would hope he would turn out like Souter or somebody like that.” There is, to be sure, little in Roberts’s early record to suggest that he is anything but a conservative. A Washington Post report last week, for instance, quoted documents suggesting that Roberts had been an aggressive advocate of Ronald Reagan’s agenda when he served as a special assistant to Attorney General William French Smith.

Reid, though, believes that Bush chose Roberts in a moment of political weakness.

This constant drama around personalities on the federal bench ought not be, and ought to have been fundamentally remedied at least after the horror visited on us by Chief (In)Justice Taney through Dredd Scott. That, however, is the subject for another day. Now we need focus on basic political integrity and pushing the Court, Congress, and the administration to stop hiding crucial information from the American people.

Published in Immigration
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 16 comments.

  1. Judge Mental Member

    I think it’s well past time someone pushed back on the notion that a single district court judge can overrule both the legislative and executive branches, issuing nationwide injunctions and decisions. And when it gets to the Supreme Court, I think it should be pointed out that if they find that power exists, then we really don’t need a Supreme Court. Every federal judge is the Supreme Court.

    • #1
    • June 30, 2019, at 9:45 PM PST
    • 12 likes
  2. Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… Thatcher

    The President needs to point out how absurd it is that this country cannot now ask a question that it had previously asked in every census until 2010. And point out that it the question was dropped in 2010 because President Obama sought “flexibility” on immigration, just as he sought “flexibility” in dealing with Putin in 2012. As you point out, the opponents want to deny the American public information.

    In the other Ricochet thread on this case I made a couple of practical comments about the pretextual nature of most Federal regulatory proceedings but refrained from commenting on the merits of the decision because I hadn’t read the case. I’ve now read it; Roberts decision is a pathetic attempt to pander to those who profess to be concerned that the Court preserve its reputation by avoiding politicization, while the concurring opinion by Breyer (joined in by the other three liberal justices) is even worse as it would permanently empower the Democratic dominated bureaucracy over the appointees who nominally are supposed to administer these agencies.

    • #2
    • June 30, 2019, at 10:25 PM PST
    • 7 likes
  3. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown Post author

    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… (View Comment):

    The President needs to point out how absurd it is that this country cannot now ask a question that it had previously asked in every census until 2010. And point out that it the question was dropped in 2010 because President Obama sought “flexibility” on immigration, just as he sought “flexibility” in dealing with Putin in 2012. As you point out, the opponents want to deny the American public information.

    In the other Ricochet thread on this case I made a couple of practical comments about the pretextual nature of most Federal regulatory proceedings but refrained from commenting on the merits of the decision because I hadn’t read the case. I’ve now read it; Roberts decision is a pathetic attempt to pander to those who profess to be concerned that the Court preserve its reputation by avoiding politicization, while the concurring opinion by Breyer (joined in by the other three liberal justices) is even worse as it would permanently empower the Democratic dominated bureaucracy over the appointees who nominally are supposed to administer these agencies.

    Not quite so. Here is the full list of lists of questions over the history of the decennial census. Notice that 1950 was the last time that everyone was asked about citizenship (if not native born, what is naturalization status). After that, the question was put to a sample group on a long form questionnaire, while most people got a short form questionnaire without any question about citizenship or naturalization status.

    President Trump will only have a strong argument if citizenship status is asked of all people, not a sample.

    I appreciate you bringing this up, as it caused me to go dig that information out and fold it into the post.

    • #3
    • June 30, 2019, at 10:43 PM PST
    • 6 likes
  4. JoelB Member

    Right now it seems that the numbers we use are provided by progressive-biased institutions. We might not even be close.

    • #4
    • July 1, 2019, at 4:53 AM PST
    • 9 likes
  5. Profile Photo Member

    JoelB (View Comment):

    Right now it seems that the numbers we use are provided by progressive-biased institutions. We might not even be close.

    Dangerously not close.

    The only way the 11 million number can stay the same for the last 20 years, is if an equal number of illegals leaving (or dying in) the US is the same as the number of illegals entering.

    By my count of the last 20 years’ total apprehensions (FY 1999-2018), 15 million illegals were apprehended. Now some were deported, but many more entered that were not apprehended – a wash? Don’t know, but surely we would have heard the hue and cry about MASSIVE deportations, but I don’t remember any such outcry. Some have died, some were deported, some may have returned home. But just for the sake of argument, even if only half of the 15 million are no longer here, shouldn’t that make the current number north of 18 million?

    And let’s not forget the visa-over-stays… How many is that? Even left-leaning Politifact admits that Kevin McCarthy was mostly correct is saying that half of the illegals in the country are visa overstays. If so, then that brings us up to at least 25 million…and that’s not considering the illegal border crossers and overstays BEFORE 1999.

    • #5
    • July 1, 2019, at 5:42 AM PST
    • 8 likes
  6. Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… Thatcher

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… (View Comment):

    The President needs to point out how absurd it is that this country cannot now ask a question that it had previously asked in every census until 2010. And point out that it the question was dropped in 2010 because President Obama sought “flexibility” on immigration, just as he sought “flexibility” in dealing with Putin in 2012. As you point out, the opponents want to deny the American public information.

    In the other Ricochet thread on this case I made a couple of practical comments about the pretextual nature of most Federal regulatory proceedings but refrained from commenting on the merits of the decision because I hadn’t read the case. I’ve now read it; Roberts decision is a pathetic attempt to pander to those who profess to be concerned that the Court preserve its reputation by avoiding politicization, while the concurring opinion by Breyer (joined in by the other three liberal justices) is even worse as it would permanently empower the Democratic dominated bureaucracy over the appointees who nominally are supposed to administer these agencies.

    Not quite so. Here is the full list of lists of questions over the history of the decennial census. Notice that 1950 was the last time that everyone was asked about citizenship (if not native born, what is naturalization status). After that, the question was put to a sample group on a long form questionnaire, while most people got a short form questionnaire without any question about citizenship or naturalization status.

    President Trump will only have a strong argument if citizenship status is asked of all people, not a sample.

    I appreciate you bringing this up, as it caused me to go dig that information out and fold it into the post.

    Thanks for the clarification. I learn something new every day on Ricochet.

    • #6
    • July 1, 2019, at 6:35 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  7. D.A. Venters Member

    I’m sure asking about citizenship is a valuable question for certain reasons, but I’m skeptical that it would do very much at all to help count illegal aliens. First of all, if the question asks only how many non-citizens are in a home, your count will include legal non-citizens, not just illegal aliens. I suppose you could then compare that data to legal immigration records, but I don’t think that would get anywhere near an accurate count. This is primarily because you are relying on people voluntarily giving up potentially incriminating information. People tend not to do that.

    If you ask how many illegal aliens are in a home, then a) if forced to provide an answer, the question likely violates the 5th Amendment, and maybe the 4th Amendment, and b) no one would answer that question honestly and so your results will be wildly inaccurate.

    I’m all for trying to get an accurate count of the illegal alien population, but it seems unwise to rely on a census question to do that.

     

     

    • #7
    • July 1, 2019, at 7:49 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  8. Barfly Member

    We would have been much better off with Harriet Myers.

    • #8
    • July 1, 2019, at 9:39 AM PST
    • 5 likes
  9. Aaron Miller Member

    Perhaps bringing the case before the court again with new arguments is practical. But it seems to reaffirm judicial supremacy. If judges object to a lawful Executive action, that Executive authority is moot.

    • #9
    • July 1, 2019, at 1:58 PM PST
    • 4 likes
  10. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown Post author

    Aaron Miller (View Comment):

    Perhaps bringing the case before the court again with new arguments is practical. But it seems to reaffirm judicial supremacy. If judges object to a lawful Executive action, that Executive authority is moot.

    I’m inclined to say yes, and yes. Hence my tentative bookmarking of a possible future post at the end.

    • #10
    • July 1, 2019, at 2:02 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  11. Al Sparks Thatcher

    What is to be done?

    A lot of this can be solved by statute. A statute that forbids the courts from considering motives of an official would be hard to ignore by the courts. They can only rule on whether the official has authority to do what it is they are challenged about if Congress passed such a statute.

    And most of these rogue district judges are ruling on existing statute not on a constitutional challenge, which means that Congress can limit that mischief.

    Congress has considerable authority when it comes to limiting all the courts power. It has absolute authority when it comes to the scope of all lower courts, which are created by statute. The only court that is directly sanctioned by the constitution is the Supreme Court.

    Congress could limit or completely remove the power of the lower courts to rule on constitutional issues. Or simply forbid the issuance of nationwide injunctions, requiring the Supreme Court to issue each one.

    Yes, Congress is useless right now, and may never have the will to take back its powers. But through Congress we have the ability to significantly reduce the power of the federal courts, more than is generally thought.

    • #11
    • July 1, 2019, at 2:14 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  12. Fritz Member

    If what I read is the actual question at issue, then it has nothing to do with illegal immigration.

    It asked if the respondent was a US citizen and then provided several choices to check to say

    yes, born here, or in territories, etc., or

    yes, born to US citizens but elsewhere, or

    yes, naturalized on such and such a date.

    The last choice was Not a US citizen. No details are to permanent residency or other status, simpy not a citizen.

    Seems pretty anodyne to me.

    • #12
    • July 1, 2019, at 5:06 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  13. The Reticulator Member

    Al Sparks (View Comment):

    What is to be done?

    A lot of this can be solved by statute. A statute that forbids the courts from considering motives of an official would be hard to ignore by the courts. They can only rule on whether the official has authority to do what it is they are challenged about if Congress passed such a statute.

    And most of these rogue district judges are ruling on existing statute not on a constitutional challenge, which means that Congress can limit that mischief.

    Congress has considerable authority when it comes to limiting all the courts power. It has absolute authority when it comes to the scope of all lower courts, which are created by statute. The only court that is directly sanctioned by the constitution is the Supreme Court.

    Congress could limit or completely remove the power of the lower courts to rule on constitutional issues. Or simply forbid the issuance of nationwide injunctions, requiring the Supreme Court to issue each one.

    Yes, Congress is useless right now, and may never have the will to take back its powers. But through Congress we have the ability to significantly reduce the power of the federal courts, more than is generally thought.

    But the SC could simply declare such a law unconstitutional because Congress’s motives were all wrong. (Of course, someone would have to come up with a test case.) Then what?

     

    • #13
    • July 1, 2019, at 6:45 PM PST
    • 1 like
  14. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown Post author

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Al Sparks (View Comment):

    What is to be done?

    A lot of this can be solved by statute. A statute that forbids the courts from considering motives of an official would be hard to ignore by the courts. They can only rule on whether the official has authority to do what it is they are challenged about if Congress passed such a statute.

    And most of these rogue district judges are ruling on existing statute not on a constitutional challenge, which means that Congress can limit that mischief.

    Congress has considerable authority when it comes to limiting all the courts power. It has absolute authority when it comes to the scope of all lower courts, which are created by statute. The only court that is directly sanctioned by the constitution is the Supreme Court.

    Congress could limit or completely remove the power of the lower courts to rule on constitutional issues. Or simply forbid the issuance of nationwide injunctions, requiring the Supreme Court to issue each one.

    Yes, Congress is useless right now, and may never have the will to take back its powers. But through Congress we have the ability to significantly reduce the power of the federal courts, more than is generally thought.

    But the SC could simply declare such a law unconstitutional because Congress’s motives were all wrong. (Of course, someone would have to come up with a test case.) Then what?

     

    Actually no. SCOTUS acts within the safety of what it reads as elite opinion. If Congress acts within its clear Article III authority, the Court will knuckle under, knowing it has no cover.

    Article III

    Section 1.

    The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

    Section 2.

    The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

    […]In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

    • #14
    • July 1, 2019, at 8:27 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  15. D.A. Venters Member

    Al Sparks (View Comment):

    What is to be done?

    A lot of this can be solved by statute. A statute that forbids the courts from considering motives of an official would be hard to ignore by the courts. They can only rule on whether the official has authority to do what it is they are challenged about if Congress passed such a statute.

    Eventually there will be another progressive president and progressive administrative state. A statute such as the one you mention could be a big help to them. A statute like this would have be worded very carefully, as the authority of an official to do something is often bound up with the motive – or at least the rationale. If a person, or a company, or an industry, is being hounded by a public official, who has technical authority to do what they are doing, but is motivated by a private grudge or animosity, that person or company needs to be able to have that motive examined, at some point, by the court.

    And most of these rogue district judges are ruling on existing statute not on a constitutional challenge, which means that Congress can limit that mischief.

    Congress has considerable authority when it comes to limiting all the courts power. It has absolute authority when it comes to the scope of all lower courts, which are created by statute. The only court that is directly sanctioned by the constitution is the Supreme Court.

    Congress could limit or completely remove the power of the lower courts to rule on constitutional issues.

    This would be a bad idea if you mean all constitutional issues. Constitutional issues come up very often in lower courts, and in state courts as well. They arise in every criminal case. Even if they are not ultimately put before the court, the attorneys are dealing with them as they try to give advice to their clients. If the lower courts have no jurisdiction to rule on them, it would be absolute chaos. 

    • #15
    • July 2, 2019, at 6:05 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  16. Al Sparks Thatcher

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):
    This would be a bad idea if you mean all constitutional issues. Constitutional issues come up very often in lower courts, and in state courts as well. They arise in every criminal case. Even if they are not ultimately put before the court, the attorneys are dealing with them as they try to give advice to their clients. If the lower courts have no jurisdiction to rule on them, it would be absolute chaos. 

    Chaos? Absolute chaos? Probably not. I see more chaos from the courts inserting themselves into constitutional “issues” than the other way around.

    I suspect that most, probably the vast majority, of day to day constitutional issues are clarified by statute. An example would be the process of getting a search warrant and what constitutes probable cause. I wouldn’t be surprised if a day to day constitutional issue not covered by statute is rare.

    And I don’t have a problem with a District Judge conducting a criminal trial ruling on a constitutional issue. But the judge wouldn’t be allowed to issue an injunction against the state beyond the actual person(s) that are before his court. And it wouldn’t extend to civil suits.

    As for the states, a state judge’s writ doesn’t go beyond the state’s boundaries. No state judge can issue a nationwide injunction, and I don’t know of any state judge that has a lifetime appointment. They are more accountable for their actions.

    • #16
    • July 2, 2019, at 1:29 PM PST
    • 1 like