Trump Ignores the Courts

#1,527
#1,527
Vol423 said:
"Challenges to removal under the AEA, a statute which largely 'preclude judicial review,' Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U. S. 160, 163−164, (1948), must be brought in habeas," the ruling added.

….and no more venue shopping.
Click to expand...

It allows the administration to shop through a preferred venue for sure.
 
#1,528
#1,528
lawgator1 said:
Hmmm..

Trump won't like that.
Click to expand...

Why is that? It was their position the whole time that the Plaintiffs needed to file a proper habeas in the proper venue. The administration never claimed that habeas was suspended, matter of fact, they went out of their way to say it was not suspended.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#1,530
#1,530
Vol423 said:
It says that they're held in Texas, so the appropriate venue is Texas.
Click to expand...

That would be the proper venue in this instance, but in theory the government can move them to any venue they choose, give notice and deport from whatever point that is. However, let's say the government doesn't provide adequate notice, what is the recourse anyway to someone that is not here legally? 🤷‍♂️

At the end of the day, none of these people are saying they are Americans, so there is limited to no recourse (generally speaking) even if the U.S. doesn't give proper notice, imo.

Its a fair ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court i.e. duck the issue(s) for now.... allow the President to do his thing, bring something right and better, and maybe we can take a look at things.

The DC judge is an activist idiot that has no business being on the bench, imo.
 
Last edited:
#1,531
#1,531
n_huffhines said:
I just don't think you understand what I'm driving at. My whole point is about the concept of God given rights, and I read this whole response and it doesn't appear to talk about that at all. You're not looking at this from a wrong perspective. I think you are reasoned. But what I'm saying is that it is what it is, from a God-given rights perspective. You cannot say one has no God-given right to be in the US without logically concluding nobody has a God-given right to exist. Governments have to grant that. You don't have to care that freedom of movement is a God-given right, just like speech, the right to own property, etc. Sure, a government can take them all away, but God/nature gave us these freedoms. We limit them all in ways, even the rights we hold most precious. This one is just not precious for some reason.
Click to expand...
“Thou shall not steal” endorses the concept of property ownership. Once you accept that, how can you not accept the ownership of land and hence the right to restrict travel on to one’s land?
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85 and LSU-SIU
#1,538
#1,538
Orangeslice13 said:
Well……if you are to have “no other gods before YHWH….” Who exactly would those gods be?
Click to expand...
Human created “gods”, ie idols. A big problem in the context of the OT world. Still happens today it’s just that people don’t make them out of stone or clay.
 
#1,540
#1,540
Orange_Crush said:
It's pretty simple.

Every human being has the God-given right to exist anywhere they choose. Countries don't exist. But also: Countries have the right to refuse people the privilege of living there, so countries need to exercise that right with caution.

E-Z Pee-Z.
Click to expand...
What if they choose to exist on my farm?

Isn’t this why those folks in the Middle East keep killing each other - both think they own the same land?
 
#1,542
#1,542
EasternVol said:
That's far from the only alternative, especially since terrorists and communists aren't really involved.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Those gang members are terrorists and have been labeled as such.

As for communists- you don’t have to look far. Thousands in our government that are destroying the country from within.
 
#1,545
#1,545
Jxn Vol said:
Wrong. Those gang members are terrorists and have been labeled as such.

As for communists- you don’t have to look far. Thousands in our government that are destroying the country from within.
Click to expand...
They haven't been labeled as terrorists by anyone who wasn't just trying to rile up the masses.
As for your second line, what are your thoughts on fluoridation? Purity of essence?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DuckInAPen
#1,546
#1,546
n_huffhines said:
I just don't think you understand what I'm driving at. My whole point is about the concept of God given rights, and I read this whole response and it doesn't appear to talk about that at all. You're not looking at this from a wrong perspective. I think you are reasoned. But what I'm saying is that it is what it is, from a God-given rights perspective. You cannot say one has no God-given right to be in the US without logically concluding nobody has a God-given right to exist. Governments have to grant that. You don't have to care that freedom of movement is a God-given right, just like speech, the right to own property, etc. Sure, a government can take them all away, but God/nature gave us these freedoms. We limit them all in ways, even the rights we hold most precious. This one is just not precious for some reason.
Click to expand...

I specifically addressed how people would have a right to be here. By being born here. that would be the "god given right". if you are here at the moment of your birth, its a pretty strong indication that you have a god given right to be there. just because someone can theoretically walk here doesn't give them the same type of default right to be here. they still have the right to be wherever they were born. denying them a physical place here doesn't require them to die, its an absurd absolutist argument that ignores reality. they have somewhere to be, it just may not be here.

If they travelled here that is a conscious decision they made to be here. there is nothing about it being a right. they made a choice. being born here doesn't involve a choice. it just is.

just because you have a right to exist somewhere, doesn't mean you have the right to exist EVERYWHERE. thats just loony toon reasoning. Just because I have a right to own things, doesn't mean I have the RIGHT to ACTUALLY OWN everything. same logic applies to both.

I COULD own everything, and if I did I would have the right to it all, but no one is denying my rights if I don't actually own everything.

same thing with this existence argument you are trying to make.

I COULD exist anywhere, and if/because I do exist I have the right to it, but no one is denying my right to exist if they say I can't BE in a particular location. those are two separate issues.

the right to something is not the actuality of the thing. and vice versa, just because something exists, doesn't mean there is a right to it.
 
#1,547
#1,547
volfanhill said:
Good

"Despite siding with the administration, the court's majority placed limits on how deportations may occur, emphasizing that judicial review is required.

Detainees "must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act. The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs," the majority wrote."
Click to expand...
this is what I have been saying all along. but all the Trump fan boys wanted to act like Trump could do whatever he wanted because he is president. He never had the Constitutional power to ignore the process like he was.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DuckInAPen
#1,548
#1,548
LSU-SIU said:
Why is that? It was their position the whole time that the Plaintiffs needed to file a proper habeas in the proper venue. The administration never claimed that habeas was suspended, matter of fact, they went out of their way to say it was not suspended.
Click to expand...
they actively kept the potential deportees from hiring lawyers. how is that going out of their way to say habeas wasn't suspended.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top