Trump Ignores the Courts

[Jxn Vol]

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?

They are terrorists even though you don’t like or agree with the label. So much so the SC says it with their ruling.

What are your thoughts on MK Ultra, operation paperclip, fast and furious, Obama bath houses, Larry Sinclair, Clinton Haitian boondoggle, etc.

Start with that and when you are done I will give you some more

 

[85SugarVol]

@lawgator1
@BowlBrother85
@n_huffhines
@Ashevolle

What was the breakdown of the 5-4 vote? I assume it was Barrett given some of the recent comments on here?

 

[LSU-SIU]

they actively kept the potential deportees from hiring lawyers. how is that going out of their way to say habeas wasn't suspended.

How does one do that? Who filed the actions in this dispute?

 

[Jxn Vol]

they are the Supreme Court, there is no fence for them to straddle but the Constitution.

the fact that you are making this argument shows how much Trump has broken the conservatives.

I was talking about the poster not the Supreme Court. He is a moderate fence rider that likes to take shots from his fence post.

The fact that you made this post in error shows how much Trump has broken the homosexuals and other feminists

 

[EasternVol]

They are terrorists even though you don’t like or agree with the label. So much so the SC says it with their ruling.

What are your thoughts on MK Ultra, operation paperclip, fast and furious, Obama bath houses, Larry Sinclair, Clinton Haitian boondoggle, etc.

Start with that and when you are done I will give you some more

Where did the SC say they're terrorists?
What does your list have to do with communism? I bet you're in favor or fluoridation and don't care about purity of essence.

 

[n_huffhines]

Court put appropriate guard rails on this.

Conservatives pretend to advocate for limited, originalist interpretations of the constitution, and this includes massive griping over expanding the executive with emergency powers. Some of these emergency powers laws in and of themselves are pretty flimsy, constitutionally. We have no point but to accept them. That's not changing. But what could change is that conservative judges have a chance to thwart executives from using emergency powers in ways they weren't intended to be used (like when there's not a war relating to these aliens). This was not the intended use of this power, and a stacked conservative court just expanded the power of the executive.

The good part about the ruling is that it did indicate they deserve due process. A conservative court stacked by Trump found that. I was pretty worried it would be too stacked to land on that correct ruling, but it still did. I can't believe some of y'all (not you) were saying Trump afforded them all the due process they are entitled to. ***. What an absolute **** show, and y'all defended this confidently.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Conservatives pretend to advocate for limited, originalist interpretations of the constitution, and this includes massive griping over expanding the executive with emergency powers. Some of these emergency powers laws in and of themselves are pretty flimsy, constitutionally. We have no point but to accept them. That's not changing. But what could change is that conservative judges have a chance to thwart executives from using emergency powers in ways they weren't intended to be used (like when there's not a war relating to these aliens). This was not the intended use of this power, and a stacked conservative court just expanded the power of the executive.

(1) The Act in question was written by an "original", and again...

(2) He went out of his way to add text that clarifies that it's not just meant to be times of war, in large part because...

(3) He wrote the Act for the freedom to deal with a non-wartime maritime problems with France.

 

[C-south]

they are the Supreme Court, there is no fence for them to straddle but the Constitution.

the fact that you are making this argument shows how much Trump has broken the conservatives.

Which makes you wonder why most rulings aren’t unanimous.

 

[LSU-SIU]

Conservatives pretend to advocate for limited, originalist interpretations of the constitution, and this includes massive griping over expanding the executive with emergency powers. Some of these emergency powers laws in and of themselves are pretty flimsy, constitutionally. We have no point but to accept them. That's not changing. But what could change is that conservative judges have a chance to thwart executives from using emergency powers in ways they weren't intended to be used (like when there's not a war relating to these aliens). This was not the intended use of this power, and a stacked conservative court just expanded the power of the executive.

Actually, I would say it factual that the judge never had jurisdiction (although we may have to wait for the dust to settle completely).... everything else is mostly moot.

It would seem like you think un-elected judges can at the wave of the hand magically be given themselves authority and jurisdiction that they never had i.e. pretend King.

 

[LouderVol]

How does one do that? Who filed the actions in this dispute?

by not allowing phone calls and taking them to parts of the nation without informing anyone of where they are. heck some of them were sent out of the nation before anyone was told. granted they haven't done that with everyone, but there are multiple cases out there alleging this.

the cases were filed by family members on behalf of those individuals. some of them only came after a judge put a hold on the active deportation.

 

[Jxn Vol]

Where did the SC say they're terrorists?
What does your list have to do with communism? I bet you're in favor or fluoridation and don't care about purity of essence.

The SC sided with your daddy that he can continue to deport the terrorists under the Alien Enemies Act indefinitely.

You are on your 2nd attempt to move the goalposts into the field of fluoridation. Not sure your motivation for that. Seems weird.

 

[LSU-SIU]

by not allowing phone calls and taking them to parts of the nation without informing anyone of where they are. heck some of them were sent out of the nation before anyone was told. granted they haven't done that with everyone, but there are multiple cases out there alleging this.

the cases were filed by family members on behalf of those individuals. some of them only came after a judge put a hold on the active deportation.

That isn't necessarily denying anyone an attorney, you said they were being denied an attorney.... someone(s) has filed all these cases. The government at this stage is saying if you get a proper order in the proper venue than we will comply if the person is being held improperly. The government's position is habeas is not suspended.

 

[LouderVol]

Which makes you wonder why most rulings aren’t unanimous.

as McDad points out, the Constitution is there to protect the uncertain parts. if everyone agreed with everything there would not need to be a Constitution at all, or at least a BoR.

 

[LouderVol]

That isn't necessarily denying anyone an attorney, you said they were being denied an attorney.... someone(s) has filed all these cases. The government at this stage is saying if you get a proper order in the proper venue than we will comply if the person is being held improperly.

if you are jailed, and aren't allowed to talk to your lawyer, nor are you given one, but your wife can talk to one; your rights have still been denied. your wife's haven't been, but yours has.

 

[LSU-SIU]

if you are jailed, and aren't allowed to talk to your lawyer, nor are you given one, but your wife can talk to one; your rights have still been denied. your wife's haven't been, but yours has.

That's not true, the attorney can still file a habeas action.

 

[EasternVol]

The SC sided with your daddy that he can continue to deport the terrorists under the Alien Enemies Act indefinitely.

You are on your 2nd attempt to move the goalposts into the field of fluoridation. Not sure your motivation for that. Seems weird.

Bad deflection. Where did the SC say they're terrorists?
No surprise that you don't get the reference.

 

[Jxn Vol]

Bad deflection. Where did the SC say they're terrorists?
No surprise that you don't get the reference.

No deflection Mr. Fluoridation.

I never said the SC said they were terrorists. I’m fine with telling you to look at the scoreboard and say Trump won. Because the SC gave him a victory.

You can reference deez

 

[jmacvols1]

 

[EasternVol]

No deflection Mr. Fluoridation.

I never said the SC said they were terrorists. I’m fine with telling you to look at the scoreboard and say Trump won. Because the SC gave him a victory.

You can reference deez

Remember writing this?: "They are terrorists even though you don’t like or agree with the label. So much so the SC says it with their ruling." But ok, now you agree that the SC didn't call them terrorists. Step by step. The SC also told him that due process must be applied. So it's not the victory you claim.
Most 12 year olds can come up with better than 'deez'. If that's the best you can do then it's what it is.

 

[LSU-SIU]

Remember writing this?: "They are terrorists even though you don’t like or agree with the label. So much so the SC says it with their ruling." But ok, now you agree that the SC didn't call them terrorists. Step by step. The SC also told him that due process must be applied. So it's not the victory you claim.
Most 12 year olds can come up with better than 'deez'. If that's the best you can do then it's what it is.

Due process was being followed by the administration, simply what happened was an activist judge tried to be King. Although, they didn't necessarily address everything, I think what is clear is once these illegals are gone... they're gone.

I would say its a fairly large victory depending if they are going to continue this route for ejection because once they are gone... they're gone. (at least in this context, at this moment)

This particular judge should be probably targeted for impeachment, and the Supreme Court and/or Congress needs to address this national injunction crap.

 

[LouderVol]

Due process was being followed by the administration, simply what happened was an activist judge tried to be King. Although, they didn't necessarily address everything, I think what is clear is once these illegals are gone... they're gone.

I would say its a fairly large victory depending if they are going to continue this route for ejection because once they are gone... they're gone. (at least in this context, at this moment)

This particular judge should be probably targeted for impeachment, and the Supreme Court and/or Congress needs to address this national injunction crap.

due process was not being followed. thats why the SC included comments about the admin having to follow due process. even the judges who sided with Trump said they weren't following due process.

 

[Jxn Vol]

Remember writing this?: "They are terrorists even though you don’t like or agree with the label. So much so the SC says it with their ruling." But ok, now you agree that the SC didn't call them terrorists. Step by step. The SC also told him that due process must be applied. So it's not the victory you claim.
Most 12 year olds can come up with better than 'deez'. If that's the best you can do then it's what it is.

They are terrorists. The administration that won an election labeled them as terrorists. That same administration won a case allowing them to continue to deport your cousins to their crap hole countries.

You sound vaccinated and boosted. And quite frankly a p

 

[LSU-SIU]

due process was not being followed. thats why the SC included comments about the admin having to follow due process. even the judges who sided with Trump said they weren't following due process.

Yes they were, the Supreme Court said the APA crap does not confirm jurisdiction in this instance and the habeas was filed in the wrong venue i.e. lack of jurisdiction. They didn't lack due process at all, they simple didn't file a habeas in the correct venue thereby the lower court has no jurisdiction.

You don't even have a court involved that has jurisdiction to hear whether there was a due process violation.... the lower court lacks jurisdiction.

What wasn't being followed?

You have the cart before the horse.

 

[Jxn Vol]

Yes they were, the Supreme Court said the APA crap does not confirm jurisdiction in this instance and the habeas was filed in the wrong venue i.e. lack of jurisdiction. They didn't lack due process at all, they simple didn't file a habeas in the correct venue thereby the lower court has no jurisdiction.

You don't even have a court involved that has jurisdiction to hear whether there was a due process violation.

What wasn't being followed?

You have the cart before the horse.

Careful. His cousins are Chilean terrorists

 

[EasternVol]

They are terrorists. The administration that won an election labeled them as terrorists. That same administration won a case allowing them to continue to deport your cousins to their crap hole countries.

You sound vaccinated and boosted. And quite frankly a p

I'd hate to be that gullible but help yourself. My cousins aren't eligible for deportation but thank you for your concern.
Getting frustrated and throwing a tantrum makes you look like a three year old.