[ad_1]
Attorney General Jeff Sessions speaks at a news conference in Washington Monday to announce his efforts to reduce transnational crime. (Carolyn Kaster / AP)
While the Supreme Court was wondering whether Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross should answer questions in which he decided to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, Attorney General Jeff Sessions publicly attacked the judge who had ordered the dismissal of Ross. "scandalous" actions even though they were confirmed by three appellate judges.
Since taking office, the administration has suffered numerous judicial losses as judges quash the travel ban imposed by President Trump for the first time and move to a series of decisions overturning regulatory decisions made by Environmental Protection. Agency.
"When a burning political issue ends up in dispute, the judges begin to believe that their role is to examine the entire process that led to the political decision – to redo all the political debate in their halls. 39, audience, "he said. "We have seen in the litigation relating to the cancellation of the DACA, the order regarding the service of transgender individuals in the army and the decision to terminate temporary protection status "for immigrants from Haiti, El Salvador and other countries.
"Federal court judges are not empowered to develop an immigration policy, fight climate change, solve the opioid crisis or manage police services," said Sessions. "Legislative and executive branches – of the federal and state governments – are the branches authorized by the Constitution to do so. If these branches did not do it to the satisfaction of an unresponsible judge, it's not because they need expert or forensic advice. "
He retained his harshest words for what he described as "invasive" investigations, which judges allow in the decision-making processes of the administration.
"For the moment," said Sessions, "we are suing in a case where the District Court has allowed the Secretary of Commerce to file a complaint against the decision to reinstate a census issue. The court believes this is appropriate because it wants to sound out the motives of the secretary, "said Sessions.
"But the question of the census – which has appeared in one form or another in the census for over a hundred years – is legal or illegal. The words on the page have no reason; they are allowed or not. But the judge decided to hold a trial for the workings of the spirit of a cabinet secretary. This is not the first time we need to call on an emergency appeal procedure to stop a scandalous find, "he said, citing the call in Supreme Court case to block Ross's testimony, as well as that of John Gore, Acting Deputy Attorney General. for the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.
Sessions did not mention the reasons why Federal Judge Jesse M. Furman in New York, supported by an appellate court, allowed a petition from the State of New York and from 39, other plaintiffs asking Ross to explain the controversial decision. As stated last week by a US Court of Appeals Court for the 2nd Circuit, Furman's decision was justified by Ross's evidence of "bad faith or inappropriate behavior".
The lawsuit stems from Ross's March announcement that he was adding a question on citizenship to the 2020 census, a decision that critics say was biased and likely to produce undercoverage favoring Republicans by suppressing immigrant responses. Eighteen states, the District of Columbia and a multitude of cities, counties, mayors and advocacy groups have filed lawsuits to block the decision.
Furman, along with at least two other federal judges in similar cases brought by other plaintiffs, said the accusations that the administration had acted inappropriately were sufficient to justify the move to trial.
The "bad faith" to which the court referred relates to Ross's changing and contradictory narratives of his action. Around the time of the announcement of the citizenship question, Ross told a congressional committee, before a congressional committee, that the Department of Justice had taken the initiative in this matter. to enforce the law on the right to vote.
[Wilbur Ross: The simple but explosive questions about the census he’s fighting not to answer]
But in successive amendments to his initial explanation after a lawsuit, Ross admitted in June that he had asked Justice to submit his claim to Commerce, not the other way around. In his most recent communications to the court, he admitted that he had acted after meeting with former White House advisor, Stephen K Bannon, as well as Sessions and D & # 39; other persons, statements which also appeared to contradict his testimony before the Congress. .
[New emails reveal a central political motivation for changing the census]
"The idea that a district judge may demand to see the executive's deliberations" will "have a chilling effect," Sessions said. "To submit the executive power to this type of discovery is unacceptable. We intend to fight against this and we intend to win. That is why we wear these discovery struggles before the Supreme Court in emergency situations. They disrupt government functions ordered at great expense.
A decision of the High Court could happen anytime.
More from Morning Mix:
Arizona race becomes ugly as Martha McSally accuses Kyrsten Sinema of "treason" over Taliban comments of 2003
The Jewish prayer book annotated by Marilyn Monroe, converted in 1956, could bring back thousands at auction
Trump's strange white painting: "What beautiful narcissism was made" crackles Jimmy Kimmel
[ad_2]
Source link
