Conway Defends Trump's Call To 'Get Rid Of Judges'

[FM123]

(Talking Points Memo) White House adviser Kellyanne Conway on Sunday defended President Donald Trump’s call earlier this month to “get rid of judges.”

“The President is saying, let’s stop having one or two judges in this country make immigration law for an entire country, that’s Congress’ job,” Conway said in an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

But it’s not clear at all that’s what Trump meant. And, while federal judges have stopped much of the Trump administration’s attempts to keep migrants and asylum seekers out of the country, immigration judges are members of the executive branch, and have been subject to precedent-setting decisions from the Trump administration itself.

Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, for example, instructed immigration judges last year that domestic violence and gang violence ought not be considered grounds for asylum. (A federal judge halted Sessions’ instruction.) Sessions also instituted a quota system for immigration judges to pressure them to resolve cases more quickly, among other changes meant to fast-track deportation orders.

The San Francisco Chronicle recently reported that Attorney General William Barr could attempt to institute massive changes in the immigration court system in an attempt to speed deportations and deny more asylum requests.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/conway-defends-trumps-call-to-get-rid-of-judges

[Hekate]

1. You'd think Kellyanne would be saddle sore feom all the Gish Galloping she does. nt

[struggle4progress]

2. I find it harder and harder to care much about the idiotic noises she makes

[Cold War Spook]

3. "Barr could attempt to institue massive changes in the immigration court system"

Yes, he could attempt it, but even illegal immigrants in this country are protected by the Constitution.

[mr_lebowski]

4. I tend to question whether domestic violence should qualify someone for asylum, I'm sorry to say ...

This is meant to be a 'political asylum' situation, by definition.

Asking to be allowed to switch your citizenship to another country because your old man hits you, I'm sorry ... but that's not 'political asylum', which is what our current laws are meant to address.

I'm not saying I'm not open to the idea that the law be changed to allow for it (in fact I'm quite open to it) ... BUT ... I do not think that current law was meant to be applied in that particular scenario.

Rampant gang violence, I can countenance that if it is known that in this particular country, the government lacks to power/strength to counter the gangs ... or if it is simply bought off. That is basically a scenario that mimics a civil war, which is definitely along the lines of what our policy is predicated on.

THAT BEING SAID, what Trump was actually saying was that he hates that it becomes a 'court case' every time someone steps foot onto our land from another country. It was very obvious from the context, and it had nothing to do with any particular small group of judges being able to set our 'immigration policy'.

KAC is full of shit on this one, as always.

[treestar]

5. It's called administrative law

She is so ignorant. So she would have to think the same of the tax court to be consistent. And the cases can be appealed to the federal courts. If they had to take them directly, they’d be overburdened. Isn’t she is lawyer! So is she lying or has forgotten it all ?

[C_U_L8R]

6. They just want judges who agree with them

no matter what the law says. Or compassion demands.