There was a news story a week or so back, of how President Trump has called for more immigration judges in the past, and that his call of the moment for doing away with them marks a reversal of course.
A question to be asked, is whether his favoring more judges or getting rid of them has anything to do with how they are ruling. Does he draw his decision to get rid of them from whether he has come to believe they are ruling against him? If enough decisions are saying deport them, he likes these judges. But, if the rulings start coming back saying the immigrants should be granted asylum, then he wants them removed.
Frankly, I trust him not. I do believe this colors his decision..
And, what if the judges can see this? What if they can see the President wants them if they rule the way he wants them to, but he doesn't want them if they don't? Job security comes from compliance.
Isn't that an undue influence? Could it even stretch into the realm of obstruction of justice? Maybe not fitting into the legal definition of what can be prosecuted as obstruction of justice, but falling into the umbrella of what is wrongly influencing court decisions.
And, if his reasoning for axing the judges is to change the outcome of the decisions, that is obstruction as there has never been obstruction of justice. If he does get rid of them for this reason, he should be prosecuted for obstructing justice perhaps more severely than ever a president has. To fire just one would be a great injustice. But to get rid of them all -- to get rid of the whole legal system -- just to gain more power to deport? Has America ever known such injustice?
No comments:
Post a Comment