An EO must still, theoretically at least, conform to the constitution and any laws passed. Otherwise the Judge in Washington state (I think it was) couldn't have suspended the immigration EO.
It's actually more like a Judge making common law, in that it can only exist in the vacuum left by lack of legislation or constitutional coverage. If there is legislation that says "all houses must be painted red", and that legislation is held up as constitutional, the president can't enforce an EO that says that all houses must be blue. Sure, he could issue it, but it wouldn't be legally enforceable.
At least, that's my understanding, usual disclaimers (IANAL, IAN SCOTUS etc.) apply.
bah, should have added this to original reply, but no edit.
Get a supply of business cards for a lawyer, and if they ever speak to you, hand them the card and say "speak to my lawyer - BTW he doesn't have a telephone or email address, you'll have to arrange an appointment to speak to them via postal mail or fax".
Does this mean if an agent doesn't like his daughters date he can screw with the guy? If he's teed off at his girl or ex he can mess with them? If his neighbor is married to a foreigner he can look them up?
TL:DR it's par for the course.
Of course they can, and have since day dot of the existence of any such body.
Police have done it for ever, staff at intelligence agencies, Attorney General's staff, DA's, Sheriff's (both the US-style Sheriff and the 'old times' Sheriff of Nottingham-type Sheriffs) and other positions that give access to such information/powers.
It is illegal in most places for 'the authorities' to do that. But in many departments it's one of those nudge-nudge-wink-wink type situations, as long as you aren't too obvious about it it's ignored and swept under the rug. In others, it might be a sackable (even indictable) offense, but if there is no oversight or monitoring in place (if you don't audit accesses to records, you'll never know) then it's never found out.
There were articles on TD a couple years ago about the NSA/CIA having a term for it, LOVINT ("love" intelligence, a play on the term intelligence agencies have for Human Intelligence, that is actual spies/informants on the ground, HUMINT, and Signals Intelligence, that is interception of communications, SIGINT, and the other xxxINT terms). An employee would look up the backgrounds of loved ones, family, partners, potential love interests etc. And they were only found out because THEY came forward to their auditors that they had done it (guilty conscience - they are actually the ones who we want to keep in the agencies), not because they were "found out" by their auditing systems.
Re: Re: Guess the highest bidder hasn't stepped forth yet.
Don't make up stupid complaints completely unsupported by evidence.
Interesting, you've managed to do exactly what you're complaining about in your very next sentence (emphasis in original changed to bold instead of italics as markdown has made the whole quote italics!):
Everybody on the left has been doing this, and they are making themselves look ridiculous.
The dangerous anti-police atmosphere in America is wrong.
The anti-police atmosphere is a result of the anti-constitution attitudes and practices of the police departments - they've brought it on themselves.
The police, unions and so on keep using phrases like "police and public partnership".
Well, I'm sorry, but there is no partnership involved.
The police are public servants, they are there to serve the people. They are not our partners, they are our subordinates.
Unfortunately, they have gotten above themselves and view themselves as the masters, the ones in charge, the ones who make the rules. But like any employee, servant, subordinate who has elevated themselves above their actual bosses, employers, they need to be smacked down and put back in their place. Or let go to find a job that better suits them.
> It's pretty clear that Pallante was removed from her job because she had actively, and publicly, reached out to Congress to ask that she no longer have to report to Hayden. That seems like fairly basic insubordination and a fairly standard reason why a boss might fire you.
That is not insubordination. Insubordination is willfully disobeying a lawful (legal, ethical, within the authority of the one giving the order, and within the scope of duties of the one being ordered) order.
This was internal politics that backfired on Pallante, who had to wear the consequences of failure.
Uber could have made travel to and from the airport free for the period of the taxi strike, with Uber paying the drivers their normal commission out of Ubers own pocket to cover the drivers expenses so the company, not the drivers, is paying for the free trips.
Are immigration courts actually full courts of law as most people would think of as a court of law? Operating under the various rules of procedure we hear about courts operating under?
Maybe "Immigration Court" is a label and not an actual statement that they are a what most would consider a court. Which is probably why they aren't article 3 judges, because they are not a body that requires judges.