4 ms·
Because they aren’t part of the judicial branch. Especially in political contexts, I’ve found it more and more useful to treat a “WTF” reaction as a signal tha
by dcrazy 5mo ago
Because they aren’t part of the judicial branch.
Especially in political contexts, I’ve found it more and more useful to treat a “WTF” reaction as a signal that I might not have all the facts. It helps me avoid getting rage-baited.
- soraminazuki 5mo agoYou think a fake court run by the executive branch acting as if they have judicial authority doesn't warrant a WTF reaction?
- dcrazy 5mo agoI’m saying that if you have a WTF reaction, it’s a sign you need to learn about article IV tribunals. There’s a difference between being angry about the President’s actions, and being uninformed about the entire nature of the system.
- Hizonner 5mo ago... except that you should be enraged at the title "Judge" being applied to administrative hearing officers. Of course, you should also be enraged at administrative hearing officers being fired for doing their jobs correctly.
- dcrazy 5mo agoI’m not enraged by the term “immigration judge” any more than I am by the term “administrative law judge.” What I care about is whether immigrants are afforded due process.
- solenoid0937 5mo agoThe reason this is a "wtf moment" is because due process should not be under the purview of the executive. Immigration judges should be part of the judicial branch, not executive.
- dcrazy 5mo agoArticle I tribunals (I mistakenly called referred to Article IV earlier) are constitutional as long as their decisions are reviewable by an Article III court, which is clearly part of the legislative branch. So if an immigration judge rules against you, you have the right to appeal to a federal circuit court. If that’s a WTF moment to you, it’s because you don’t understand how administrative law works in this country. Wikipedia says it’s been this way since 1856.