Trump Ignores the Courts

[Orange_Crush]

Why is it not realistic to handle deportations like we've always handled them? I don't understand that part.

The other part I truly do not understand is why a prison camp in El Salvador? There is nothing too high-minded or heavenly about opposing that. There is a need to deport people. There is no need to send them into forced labor where they get treated like dogs.

View attachment 730144

It's been referenced several times here.

1. The administration tried to handle things through normal immigration process, and low-level federal activist judges jumped in and turned it into a molasses quagmire. He has the right to implement this Act legally, and it sounds like the situation is in accord to the purpose of the Act.

A. The gangs have been deemed terrorist organizations with demonstrated danger to national peace and safety.
B. Congress wrote Biden's head of DHS, reminding him of the intel that Venezuela emptied their nation of TdA, with intent for them to join the immigration flood and become America's problem. Also, that Venezuela was not taking them back.
C. DoJ has noted that these gangs multiply and grow in standard prison environments, so they do not want to put them in our prisons, seemingly so as not to grow the gang with US citizens and make it that much harder to get rid of since we can't deport US citizens.

So, all this adds up to a population of illegal immigrants that are a danger to US safety, due to the orchestrated actions of a foreign government, that we can't put in our prisons, no one else will take, except El Salvador who have leased us their prison system that they feel is not susceptible to TdA multiplying and becoming stronger.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Thought for the day. It takes FIVE Supreme Court justices to stop a presidential action; but only ONE district judge to do the same. How in the world does that make any sense whatsoever?

Yep. Trump tries to use immigration law, and any number of activist judges, installed for just this purpose, tells him repeatedly that he can't.

Trump tries to do it legally, and legally uses the 18th century Act: "Trump is a dictator! I don't understand why he didn't just use standard immigration law!"

 

[OrangeTsar]

Yep. Trump tries to use immigration law, and any number of activist judges, installed for just this purpose, tells him repeatedly that he can't.

Trump tries to do it legally, and legally uses the 18th century Act: "Trump is a dictator! I don't understand why he didn't just use standard immigration law!"

The point I was trying to make is that, with over 600 district judges in the US, they are the judicial equivalent of mall cops. A single judge whose jurisdiction only covers the tiny footprint of Washington DC assuming he can shut down a government action across all 50 states (and in the case of Boasberg, even international waters) is the equivalent of Barney Fife trying to arrest the President. It is ludicrous

 

[Orangeburst]

The point I was trying to make is that, with over 600 district judges in the US, they are the judicial equivalent of mall cops. A single judge whose jurisdiction only covers the tiny footprint of Washington DC assuming he can shut down a government action across all 50 states (and in the case of Boasberg, even international waters) is the equivalent of Barney Fife trying to arrest the President. It is ludicrous

He did issue a vehicle citation to the Governor though.

 

[Orange_Crush]

The point I was trying to make is that, with over 600 district judges in the US, they are the judicial equivalent of mall cops. A single judge whose jurisdiction only covers the tiny footprint of Washington DC assuming he can shut down a government action across all 50 states (and in the case of Boasberg, even international waters) is the equivalent of Barney Fife trying to arrest the President. It is ludicrous

I got it, and fully agree.

Trump needs Congress and/or SCOTUS to reign in this perceived sweeping power at that level.

 

[LSU-SIU]

Why is it not realistic to handle deportations like we've always handled them? I don't understand that part.

The other part I truly do not understand is why a prison camp in El Salvador? There is nothing too high-minded or heavenly about opposing that. There is a need to deport people. There is no need to send them into forced labor where they get treated like dogs.

View attachment 730144

You first question has already been answered multiple times, see present litigation as to why things need to progress more rapidly.

The other part I truly do not understand is why a prison camp in El Salvador?

Why does it matter? Do we analysis the millions of people that are put in jail and prison in this country on a yearly basis? Seems pretty obvious to me why they are sending them there, not our problem.

I haven't seen anything wrong with the prisons there, seem pretty effective from this pov. (don't harbor criminals and you won't find yourself there)

 

[n_huffhines]

It's been referenced several times here.

1. The administration tried to handle things through normal immigration process, and low-level federal activist judges jumped in and turned it into a molasses quagmire. He has the right to implement this Act legally, and it sounds like the situation is in accord to the purpose of the Act.

A. The gangs have been deemed terrorist organizations with demonstrated danger to national peace and safety.
B. Congress wrote Biden's head of DHS, reminding him of the intel that Venezuela emptied their nation of TdA, with intent for them to join the immigration flood and become America's problem. Also, that Venezuela was not taking them back.
C. DoJ has noted that these gangs multiply and grow in standard prison environments, so they do not want to put them in our prisons, seemingly so as not to grow the gang with US citizens and make it that much harder to get rid of since we can't deport US citizens.

So, all this adds up to a population of illegal immigrants that are a danger to US safety, due to the orchestrated actions of a foreign government, that we can't put in our prisons, no one else will take, except El Salvador who have leased us their prison system that they feel is not susceptible to TdA multiplying and becoming stronger.

No, they didn't. They did not follow a normal process. They used a war-time law that hadn't been used in 80 years, and we're not at war. Nothing normal about that.

Learn the basic facts before you go off.

 

[lawgator1]

This is wrong at so many levels. To be brief:

It's been referenced several times here.

1. The administration tried to handle things through normal immigration process, and low-level federal activist judges jumped in and turned it into a molasses quagmire. He has the right to implement this Act legally, and it sounds like the situation is in accord to the purpose of the Act.

The administration doesn't get to simply ignore federal court orders because judges who rule against them are deemed by the administration to be "activist judges." A Dem administration could decide not to follow a federal court order from a right-leaning judge and you'd lose your sh!t.

A. The gangs have been deemed terrorist organizations with demonstrated danger to national peace and safety.
B. Congress wrote Biden's head of DHS, reminding him of the intel that Venezuela emptied their nation of TdA, with intent for them to join the immigration flood and become America's problem. Also, that Venezuela was not taking them back.
C. DoJ has noted that these gangs multiply and grow in standard prison environments, so they do not want to put them in our prisons, seemingly so as not to grow the gang with US citizens and make it that much harder to get rid of since we can't deport US citizens.

So, all this adds up to a population of illegal immigrants that are a danger to US safety, due to the orchestrated actions of a foreign government, that we can't put in our prisons, no one else will take, except El Salvador who have leased us their prison system that they feel is not susceptible to TdA multiplying and becoming stronger.

I accept your representations and that these folks needed to go.

That's not the point.

The point is that the administration does not waive a magic wand and declare itself the arbiter of these issues. That is for the courts. And when you don't like the ruling, appeal. Don't ignore it.




This really is not complicated.

 

[Orange_Crush]

This is wrong at so many levels. To be brief:



The administration doesn't get to simply ignore federal court orders because judges who rule against them are deemed by the administration to be "activist judges." A Dem administration could decide not to follow a federal court order from a right-leaning judge and you'd lose your sh!t.



I accept your representations and that these folks needed to go.

That's not the point.

The point is that the administration does not waive a magic wand and declare itself the arbiter of these issues. That is for the courts. And when you don't like the ruling, appeal. Don't ignore it.




This really is not complicated.

No. I wouldn't. On principal, independent of parties, I do not believe a bunch of single judges across the country should have the jurisdiction to halt Executive policy. If you are so partisan that you can only imagine everyone else being equally partisan, then that projection is your problem. Not mine.

And if you accept my representation, you accept that Trump seems to have enacted the Act legally, thus your point is invalid. If he didn't have the right to legally enact it, then the SCOTUS needs to tell him so.

And the last I read, the judge doesn't even know if they defied his order. He was promising Sunday to get to the bottom of it. If he doesn't know, and you do, then your words are wasted here and of much better use to the judge.

But that's not actually the point. The point of the post was answering fire-marshal-huff's question about why not use regular immigration law, and why the El Salvador prisons. THAT was the point of the post.

 

[LSU-SIU]

No, they didn't. They did not follow a normal process. They used a war-time law that hadn't been used in 80 years, and we're not at war. Nothing normal about that.

Learn the basic facts before you go off.

If we haven't been at war in 80 years, why has the country been dropping bombs since then?

Nothing normal about that.

Actually I would say its been the norm and on a constant basis.

 

[LSU-SIU]

This is wrong at so many levels. To be brief:



The administration doesn't get to simply ignore federal court orders because judges who rule against them are deemed by the administration to be "activist judges." A Dem administration could decide not to follow a federal court order from a right-leaning judge and you'd lose your sh!t.



I accept your representations and that these folks needed to go.

That's not the point.

The point is that the administration does not waive a magic wand and declare itself the arbiter of these issues. That is for the courts. And when you don't like the ruling, appeal. Don't ignore it.




This really is not complicated.

Under that theory, the executive branch could issue an executive order shutting down the ability of the Supreme Court to issue rulings.

This really isn't complicated.

 

[lawgator1]

No. I wouldn't. On principal, independent of parties, I do not believe a bunch of single judges across the country should have the jurisdiction to halt Executive policy. If you are so partisan that you can only imagine everyone else being equally partisan, then that projection is your problem. Not mine.

And if you accept my representation, you accept that Trump seems to have enacted the Act legally, thus your point is invalid. If he didn't have the right to legally enact it, then the SCOTUS needs to tell him so.

And the last I read, the judge doesn't even know if they defied his order. He was promising Sunday to get to the bottom of it. If he doesn't know, and you do, then your words are wasted here and of much better use to the judge.

But that's not actually the point. The point of the post was answering fire-marshal-huff's question about why not use regular immigration law, and why the El Salvador prisons. THAT was the point of the post.

It's been the case that federal judge have such jurisdiction for a very long time. It would take a lot of at least Congressional amendment to change that and that seems unlikely.

 

[Ritzwatch]

No, they didn't. They did not follow a normal process. They used a war-time law that hadn't been used in 80 years, and we're not at war. Nothing normal about that.

Learn the basic facts before you go off.

We haven’t been at war since 1945, but that hasn’t stopped people from wanting to kill, and facilitating the killing of Vietnamese, Koreans, Africans, Arabs, Afghans, and, more recently, Russians, and many others, all to the applause of the masses.

Not sure I like our definition of “normal.”

 

[Orange_Crush]

It's been the case that federal judge have such jurisdiction for a very long time. It would take a lot of at least Congressional amendment to change that and that seems unlikely.

Agreed.

 

[Orange_Crush]

No, they didn't. They did not follow a normal process. They used a war-time law that hadn't been used in 80 years, and we're not at war. Nothing normal about that.

Learn the basic facts before you go off.

Reread my post before lecturing me, Fire Marshall Huff. I said that they tried to use the normal immigration policies, and changed to the Enemy Aliens Act when radical judges tried to stop them with lawsuits.

Comprehend what you're reading before condescending.

Also..

Have you read the Act? It is explicitly NOT (just) a wartime process.

As has been stated here several times, with links to the verbiage of the Act, the writers went out of their way to give this broad power to the President in times that we were not at war, probably because it was written to fill the needs of a conflict that was not a war.

SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever there shall be a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States, by any foreign nation or government, and the President of the United States shall make public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being males of the age of fourteen years and upwards, who shall be within the United States, and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured and removed, as alien enemies.

Alien and Sedition Acts (1798)

EnlargeDownload Link Citation: An Act Concerning Aliens, July 6, 1798; Fifth Congress; Enrolled Acts and Resolutions; General Records of the United States Government; Record Group 11; National Archives. View the Alien Act in the National Archives Catalog View the Sedition Act in the National...

www.archives.gov

* I would tell you to know the facts before you go off, but I'm not that petty.

 

[rekinhavoc]

NY Gov. Kathy Hochul: 'We're Not Going to Allow This Mass Deportation'

"We're not going to allow this mass deportation," New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) said, making it clear that state police will not cooperate.

www.breitbart.com

“So our state policy, our state law, does not allow for our state police to be involved in those situations,” the Democrat continued, pointing to what she described as a few “renegade counties in New York.”

“Individual counties can sign a pact with ICE and we have a lot of them — some on Long Island some in upstate New York, where there’s different political views,” she said, explaining that their local police are cooperating. However, she made it clear that state police, which is in her jurisdiction, will not cooperate under her watch.

Different political views? Does the federal law state that it is okay to ignore it because you have a different political view?

State police should ignore her orders. It's in their best interest to get criminals out of their state.

 

[OrangeTsar]

It's been the case that federal judge have such jurisdiction for a very long time. It would take a lot of at least Congressional amendment to change that and that seems unlikely.

The suit was brought by five individuals from Venezuela who were being held in Texas. The suit was brought in DC where the prisoners were not physically present instead of Texas, the jurisdiction that had the ability to hear the suit. After that, none of the five individuals Party to the suit were ever placed on an aircraft for deportation. So there was neither standing nor jurisdiction for Boasberg to even hear the case. Boasberg unilaterally decided to usurp jurisdiction and to expand the suit to individuals who had not asked to be included. Pure. Judicial. Activism.

 

[Orangeslice13]

You mean the process that wasn’t working? You’re asking why we are not continuing that process?

He claimed asylum. Meaning he claims to be unsafe in his home country. So he was sent to a different country.

You don’t have to go home, but you can’t stay here

 

[Orangeslice13]

Do you happen to remember the Elian Gonzalez case and the ensuing deportation?

I was thinking about bringing that up too

 

[Orangeslice13]

No, they didn't. They did not follow a normal process. They used a war-time law that hadn't been used in 80 years, and we're not at war. Nothing normal about that.

Learn the basic facts before you go off.

So they used a legal process.
Got it

 

[Orange_Crush]

You don’t have to go home, but you can’t stay here

Well, that El Salvadoran prison probably explains why Canada is complaining about all the illegals flooding their country, fleeing the United States.

 

[lawgator1]

The suit was brought by five individuals from Venezuela who were being held in Texas. The suit was brought in DC where the prisoners were not physically present instead of Texas, the jurisdiction that had the ability to hear the suit. After that, none of the five individuals Party to the suit were ever placed on an aircraft for deportation. So there was neither standing nor jurisdiction for Boasberg to even hear the case. Boasberg unilaterally decided to usurp jurisdiction and to expand the suit to individuals who had not asked to be included. Pure. Judicial. Activism.

Not the administration's decision. They are bound by law to follow the order and appeal.

No matter how much you post to undermine his authority, no matter how much you argue the judge was wrong, you just keep pointlessly dodging the fundamental point.

 

[OrangeTsar]

Not the administration's decision. They are bound by law to follow the order and appeal.

No matter how much you post to undermine his authority, no matter how much you argue the judge was wrong, you just keep pointlessly dodging the fundamental point.

The fundamental point is the judge exceeded his authority as the Supreme Court will soon verify. But the „judge“ suffers no consequences for being a toddler having a melt down in the grocery store.

 

[dalton_vol]

The point I was trying to make is that, with over 600 district judges in the US, they are the judicial equivalent of mall cops. A single judge whose jurisdiction only covers the tiny footprint of Washington DC assuming he can shut down a government action across all 50 states (and in the case of Boasberg, even international waters) is the equivalent of Barney Fife trying to arrest the President. It is ludicrous

Absolutely, these aren't judges, these are politicians in black robes.

 

[dalton_vol]

Not the administration's decision. They are bound by law to follow the order and appeal.

No matter how much you post to undermine his authority, no matter how much you argue the judge was wrong, you just keep pointlessly dodging the fundamental point.

Trump need ls do get around these nut bag judges.