March 22, 2022
Exceeding judicial authority to impose liberal preferences
Courts, Not Kings & Queens
Exceeding judicial authority to impose liberal preferences
Judge
Jackson’s record shows regular misuse of judicial authority to impose liberal
preferences instead of what the law demands.
In a rare move for the courts, Judge Jackson tried
to dictate the specifics of
training materials at the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
DHS
training materials directed officers to seek evidence and require asylum
seekers to present some “facts” showing a credible fear of persecution
Typically,
these training materials and non-final agency actions are decided
exclusively at the federal agency’s discretion
But
Judge Jackson found that she had the power to dictate their content,
deciding this training material was “entirely unreasonable” and placed an impermissible burden on asylum
seekers
She
even decided that illegal immigrants had standing to sue based on these
training materials
Judge Jackson weighed into an impending impeachment
battle between the executive branch and legislative branch, even though
courts typically stay out of political disputes
Judge
Jackson signaled
she would be willing to compel executive branch officials to comply with
congressional subpoenas
She
ordered former White House Counsel McGhan to testify before Congress
This
demonstrates an expansive view of judicial power, claiming that a
politically charged subpoena fight between the Executive Branch and
Congress is no different than “ordinary citizens bring[ing]
subpoena-enforcement claims in federal courts”
Disregarding the text and plain meaning of the law,
Judge Jackson issued an unusual nationwide injunction to prevent the Trump
administration from deporting illegal immigrants
Congress
granted the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) the “sole
and unreviewable” discretion to determine whether illegal immigrants
should be subject to expedited removal (See 8 U.S.C. §
1225(b)(1)(A)(iii))
Judge
Jackson decided that she had the authority to strike down the policy –
without citing any statutory text or precedent
A
unanimous
panel of the D.C. Circuit reversed
Judge Jackson
And
in a forceful rebuke of Judge Jackson’s opinion, an Obama appointee said “[t]here could hardly
be a more definitive expression of congressional intent to leave the decision about the scope of expedited
removal, within statutory bounds, to the Secretary’s independent
judgment”
Ignoring extensive historical practice, Judge Jackson halted three executive orders signed by President Trump
regarding federal labor-management relations
Judge
Jackson acknowledged presidents have “substantial authority” under the
Constitution to regulate relations between federal agencies and their
employees
Still,
Judge Jackson ignored recent Supreme Court decisions to hold that she had the authority to dictate these
labor rules
The
D.C. Circuit reversed Judge
Jackson, criticizing her for ignoring
binding precedent and exceeding her authority as a judge
|
Judge
Jackson’s record shows regular misuse of judicial authority to impose liberal
preferences instead of what the law demands.
In a rare move for the courts, Judge Jackson tried
to dictate the specifics of
training materials at the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Judge Jackson weighed into an impending impeachment
battle between the executive branch and legislative branch, even though
courts typically stay out of political disputes Disregarding the text and plain meaning of the law,
Judge Jackson issued an unusual nationwide injunction to prevent the Trump
administration from deporting illegal immigrants Ignoring extensive historical practice, Judge Jackson halted three executive orders signed by President Trump
regarding federal labor-management relations |
Next Article Previous Article
