Trump Ignores the Courts

#1,707
#1,707


George
@BehizyTweets
11m

BREAKING: The President of El Salvador just said he will not be returning Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the United States. Bukele is a ROCKSTAR for this!

CNN's Kaitlan Collins: "Do you plan to return him?"

Bukele: "I suppose you're not suggesting that I smuggle a terrorist into the United States... How can I return him to the United States? Like I smuggle him into the United States or what do I do? Of course I'm not going to do it."




 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman
#1,708
#1,708
MemphisVol77 said:
What other loophole did the government use?

I agree with you that Trump wanted to be able to deport without due process. By the last quote box in my initial reply to you, I think USSC agrees with that sentiment, stayed ahead of it, and clarified AEA deportation parameters.

I don't agree with everything LSU says, but in this particular case(TRUMP v. J. G. G.), SCOTUS did vindicate the admin. WRT habeas, it wasn't the courts function to vindicate or condem.
Click to expand...
the loophole was not following the process and just deporting the guys so it was "too late" to follow due process.

the fact that the government just skipped the proverbial "judge and jury" and went straight to proverbial "executioner" is a problem. that is an insanely dangerous precedence, and anyone denying that is just playing partisan hackery instead of admitting the government, even if it isn't Trump, will do it again later.

the mahmoud guy is a perfect example. the government was going to deport him before he ever made it in front of a judge. a family member was able to get a judge to stop it. only because of the stay did Mahmoud get a day in a different court with the jurisdiction to rule he could be deported. he lost, but he lost in his day in court. the government was trying to skip the court. I don't care about the end result as much as I care about the procedure and the precedence it sets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#1,713
#1,713
lawgator1 said:
I don't think this turn of events is going to go over well in this building.

View attachment 735236
Click to expand...

Actually, I would say there is no turn of events or even any event. The lower court had jurisdiction of the prior case but at this point they really don't have authority, access to the party i.e. personal jurisdiction, and probably without jurisdiction in context.


f17e977f-863a-4b70-842b-9d4a458a23de_text.gif
 
#1,714
#1,714
evillawyer said:
It's almost like all those years shouting "law and order" was really a sham. So weird. I always took Republicans to be good faith actors.
Click to expand...

I keep calling you out for obvious reasons, you don't seem to know what you are talking about on basically anything you are writing on.

What is a sham legally at this point?

We took you for your word that you would work in good faith, but your name keeps checking out.
 
#1,715
#1,715
LouderVol said:
the loophole was not following the process and just deporting the guys so it was "too late" to follow due process.
Click to expand...

Actually, it appears that all process that was due was followed, that's not a loop hole. At this point it is too late as basically everything (generally) is moot, he lost. Nobody is contending he was here legally, the only question from what I can gather is the destination of the ejection via the administration process - in theory he could have left long ago.

the fact that the government just skipped the proverbial "judge and jury" and went straight to proverbial "executioner" is a problem. that is an insanely dangerous precedence, and anyone denying that is just playing partisan hackery instead of admitting the government, even if it isn't Trump, will do it again later.
Click to expand...

From what I can gather, he already had a deportation order, the only question was the destination. So, administratively he lost and the executive branch further made a determination as to his status. Nobody is deny that I know of that he wasn't here illegally. What type of justice do you want when everyone is on the same page?
 
Last edited:
#1,716
#1,716
evillawyer said:
It's almost like all those years shouting "law and order" was really a sham. So weird. I always took Republicans to be good faith actors.
Click to expand...


They are for law and order when the outcome is what they want. Otherwise, the judge is a sham leftist. And here, they are mincing words to try to justify the outcome of what they did, post hoc.

They really ought to simply admit the error, fix it, and move on. Of pressed say, look this is one of thousands of people wee are deporting. In the rare event of an error we will act to remedy it."

But no. They just don't like the optics of having been wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol, HeuperDrive and tvolsfan
#1,717
#1,717
LSU-SIU said:
Actually, it appears that all process that was due was followed, that's not a loop hole. At this point it is too late as basically everything (generally) is moot, he lost. Nobody is contending he was here legally, the only question from what I can gather is the destination of the ejection via the administration process - in theory he could have left long ago.



From what I can gather, he already had a deportation order, the only question was the destination. So, administratively he lost and the executive branch further made a determination as to his status. Nobody is deny that I know of that he wasn't here illegally. What type of justice do you want when everyone is on the same page?
Click to expand...
dude, you are conflating like three different cases. pick a lane.

the DC judge was 1 case.
the guy sent to the wrong place is another case.
and Mahmoud is a third case.

DC judge case, judge didn't have jurisdiction to stop, but the government wasn't following the process. the supreme court called this out as right argument, wrong place/jurisdiction.
the guy they sent to the wrong place, they had followed the process, until they sent him to the wrong place. supreme court hasn't weighed in on to my knowledge.
mahmoud they tried to deport without going thru the process, were stayed. he has now gone thru the process and can be deported. supreme court hasn't weighed in on to my knowledge.
 
#1,718
#1,718
LouderVol said:
dude, you are conflating like three different cases. pick a lane.

the DC judge was 1 case.
the guy sent to the wrong place is another case.
and Mahmoud is a third case.

DC judge case, judge didn't have jurisdiction to stop, but the government wasn't following the process. the supreme court called this out as right argument, wrong place/jurisdiction.
the guy they sent to the wrong place, they had followed the process, until they sent him to the wrong place. supreme court hasn't weighed in on to my knowledge.
mahmoud they tried to deport without going thru the process, were stayed. he has now gone thru the process and can be deported. supreme court hasn't weighed in on to my knowledge.
Click to expand...

Dude, no I'm not. If we are talking Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

The judge had jurisdiction of the underlying case but once the individual was out of the country, and out of control i.e. personal jurisdiction of the subject, he lacks authority at that point. Which is what the USSC is really saying without getting in to specifics.

the supreme court called this out as right argument
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The U.S. government never claimed the court lack jurisdiction, they claimed the court has no authority at this point as the individual is not within their possession and is no longer either in the U.S. or in U.S. custody i.e. personal jurisdiction was lost. The court never did the things you are claiming. At this point, its all moot.... see video I posted earlier today.

the guy they sent to the wrong place, they had followed the process, until they sent him to the wrong place.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

What the government is saying is the only thing the individual could have in theory challenged was the destination i.e. he lost, other than that he was subject to deportation. The government contends at this point he was sent to the right place but the person that put that was incorrect has been fired, but to be honest I don't see the relevance anyway. Either way he got all the process that was required, you apparently don't like the outcome but the outcome was actually determined years ago i.e. ejection and definitely determined by the executive branch.

Justice has been served i.e. everyone agrees he was an illegal and was subject to ejection. There isn't anything else to do here, the U.S. involvement should end at this point.

I don't even know what one could even get at this one at this point - EVERYONE AGREES HE WAS DETERMINED TO BE AN ILLEGAL AND HAD A PREVIOUS ORDER TO DEPORT. The sad thing is he had like 6 years to self-deport.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia was determined not only by the immigration process to be an illegal subject to deportation but also by the executive branch (AEA) to be an illegal subject to deportation, the only question was where to send him but that was finally determined by the President's authority under the Constitution and AEA.

tenor.gif
 
Last edited:
#1,719
#1,719
abcnews.go.com

'Homegrowns are next': Trump doubles down on sending American 'criminals' to foreign prisons

President Donald Trump told Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele he wanted to send "homegrown criminals" to El Salvador next and encouraged Bukele to build more prisons.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com

Now Trump wants to commit unconstitutional rendition of US citizens to El Salvadorian prisons next. I'm guessing he'll be exempted somehow despite also being a convicted criminal. Who could have ever seen this coming????
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol, EasternVol, DuckInAPen and 1 other person
#1,721
#1,721
Ashevolle said:
abcnews.go.com

'Homegrowns are next': Trump doubles down on sending American 'criminals' to foreign prisons

President Donald Trump told Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele he wanted to send "homegrown criminals" to El Salvador next and encouraged Bukele to build more prisons.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com

Now Trump wants to commit unconstitutional rendition of US citizens to El Salvadorian prisons next. I'm guessing he'll be exempted somehow despite also being a convicted criminal. Who could have ever seen this coming????
Click to expand...
If only his demented predecessor didn’t unconstitutionally open the border to all the illegals.

How many did you take in under your roof?
 
#1,722
#1,722
Jxn Vol said:
If only his demented predecessor didn’t unconstitutionally open the border to all the illegals.

How many did you take in under your roof?
Click to expand...
Biden has zero to do with these comments. Every American should tell Trump to F off with this if he did indeed say it. Uncontainable. Obama level ignoring of citizens rights bc of the potential scale


"President Donald Trump on Monday doubled down on his idea of sending U.S. citizens to foreign prisons, telling El Salvador's President Nayib Bukele he wanted to send "homegrown criminals" to his country next, according to a video posted by Bukele's office on X."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol, LouderVol, EasternVol and 2 others
#1,725
#1,725
lawgator1 said:
They are for law and order when the outcome is what they want. Otherwise, the judge is a sham leftist. And here, they are mincing words to try to justify the outcome of what they did, post hoc.

They really ought to simply admit the error, fix it, and move on. Of pressed say, look this is one of thousands of people wee are deporting. In the rare event of an error we will act to remedy it."

But no. They just don't like the optics of having been wrong.
Click to expand...

The sham leftist involved in the injunction was just that an activist judge, he clearly didn't have jurisdiction, and I would say he clearly knew how a real injunction works and even failed to do that correctly on purpose.

It is, what it is. Are you claiming the court had jurisdiction in that instance, how so? Was the USSC wrong? If so, please explain.

Hint: That was a very easy one to figure out.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top