Trump Ignores the Courts

#1,826
#1,826
Constitutional crisis? Dipshit Trump knowingly and wilfully illegally deported a man wrongfully who has a get out of jail free card. Hope ****ing Trump burns in hell on this one.
 
#1,829
#1,829
LouderVol said:
Section 1 applies to agents of a foreign government.

"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"

criminals, cartels, and terrorists are almost explicitly not acting on behalf of a foreign nation or government.

section 2, the part I quoted, mentions the ability to deport ANYONE considered a threat to the US or its people. which would apply here.
"authorized upon complaint, against any alien or alien enemies, as aforesaid, who shall be resident and at large within such jurisdiction or district, to the danger of the public peace or safety,"
Click to expand...

I don't think you are following, matter of fact I know you are not following.

You are disputing the facts or the law in context as to the facts but you don't have a case in which really the courts have jurisdiction or authority to rule on any of that. You have the cart before the horse. As I have mentioned many times, you are going to have to first bring a solid case i.e. jurisdiction, standing, and proper authority.

My opinion, is the courts are generally going to stay away from that and for good reason i.e. war powers, its the same reason why the AEA was still in active proclamation many years after WW2.

But in the meantime, you are not helping your cause imo because you haven't really pointed out any real injustice.... even these people's attorney don't claim they were here legally. To be honest, I really don't even see a controversy.
 
#1,830
#1,830
lawgator1 said:
Ok.

Supreme Court says they still get process.

Trump refuses to do so.
Click to expand...

The executive administration has said that habeas has not been suspended, and the individual parties could have filed in the correct court, unfortunately for them... their attorneys were really hired to stop Trump and not look out for their best interest i.e. injunction. This has been explained to you multiple times.

In the case of the injunction, the Supreme Court said they should have filed a habeas in the correct venue, they didn't do that... they went judge shopping.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland
#1,833
#1,833
LouderVol said:
they have wide latitude in the justifications behind the deportation. but it still requires a process, which means going in front of a judge, who makes the ruling. then there is an appeals process, after which the judge issues the final deportation order.

depending on which of many cases you want to refer to, the admin has short circuited various parts of that process. up to and including changing which law they are being deported under, going from the non-criminal immigration laws, to the criminal Alien Enemy law. the fact that they are finding people "guilty" under a non-criminal law, and then carrying out sentencing based on a criminal law is deeply disturbing.
Click to expand...
Was Mr Maryland's deportation under immigration law started by Trump's admin?
 
#1,834
#1,834
Orange_Crush said:
And?
Click to expand...

Yeah. I am confused as to the controversy in that one. Apparently he had a deportation order that was stayed, the only question was where to deport him. At least that was my understanding, but I agree "and?". He was ejected via AEA, but at most was a determination as to the destination as a controversy. That is the remaining thing he could have challenged, if anything... which at this point probably wouldn't work either.

Nobody is pointing to any real injustice here that I can see, he was an illegal.

"He chose....... poorly"
 
#1,835
#1,835
LouderVol said:
which is the effing problem. like I said you need to pick a lane. is it a non-criminal immigration case, or is it a criminal AEA case. and its not just me saying it, its the Supreme Court saying it.

the guys were arrested, and tried, under immigration laws, which are not criminal. then thrown out under the Alien Enemy Act which is criminal.
Click to expand...
It sounds like the timeline is:



He was brought into immigration court before Trump's admin.

Trump's admin goes to work.

Trump's admin make the two gangs terrorist groups, and implement AEA.

Trump admin starts rounding up illegal gang members to send off under AEA.

As part of roundup, I assume they found court documents that Maryland-Dad is an illegal gang member.

He's shipped out under AEA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LSU-SIU
#1,836
#1,836
LouderVol said:
AEA is criminal, I literally just quoted it. which is far more than you have done. the law literally requires a criminal judge and a criminal case.

the AEA process would be someone getting arrested/detained under AEA. then tried under AEA. then punished under AEA.

the AEA process is NOT someone being arrested/detained under immigration, then tried under immigration. then punished under AEA. <---this should never be acceptable. its banana republic bs.

if you want to deport someone under immigration laws, deport them under immigration laws. if you want to deport someone as an Alien Enemy, deport them under the Alien Enemy Act. the Admin doesn't get to pick and choose.
Click to expand...
Ahem... Did the Trump admin arrest/detain him under immigration laws or have him tried under immigration laws?
 
#1,837
#1,837
Orange_Crush said:
It sounds like the timeline is:



He was brought into immigration court before Trump's admin.

Trump's admin goes to work.

Trump's admin make the two gangs terrorist groups, and implement AEA.

Trump admin starts rounding up illegal gang members to send off under AEA.

As part of roundup, I assume they found court documents that Maryland-Dad is an illegal gang member.

He's shipped out under AEA.
Click to expand...

The stuff they bring up has no material change to what the legal outcome should be either. Meaning, they claim that such and such person wasn't a gang member. So what? They're still illegal so no injustice or irreparable injury is really being done.
 
#1,840
#1,840
LSU-SIU said:
Yeah. I am confused as to the controversy in that one. Apparently he had a deportation order that was stayed, the only question was where to deport him. At least that was my understanding, but I agree "and?". He was ejected via AEA, but at most was a determination as to the destination as a controversy. That is the remaining thing he could have challenged, if anything... which at this point probably wouldn't work either.

Nobody is pointing to any real injustice here that I can see, he was an illegal.

"He chose....... poorly"
Click to expand...
It's worse. I merely said it started in immigration and ended in AEA.

He posted proof that it started in immigration court, as if that were some "gotcha" moment. AAMOF, his point only argues against the @LouderVol complaint that Trump's admin needs to "pick a lane".
 
  • Like
Reactions: LSU-SIU
#1,843
#1,843
Orange_Crush said:
It's worse. I merely said it started in immigration and ended in AEA.

He posted proof that it started in immigration court, as if that were some "gotcha" moment. AAMOF, his point only argues against the @LouderVol complaint that Trump's admin needs to "pick a lane".
Click to expand...

Loud is basically mad at me for pointing out the defects of the legal course taken, even if I thought it was over reach at this particular time.... this one isn't an easy one to deal with. Meaning, even if I didn't like what Trump was doing - its a very tough one to tackle at this point. Simply saying people aren't receiving due process really isn't on point in my opinion on many levels.

Right now, it appears the administration is working in good faith and not targeting Americans. For Trump to be successful though, all tools might be needed and even that might not be enough.

At the end of the day, none of these people are really pointing to any injustice being done... even if I took their fact position.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Crush
#1,845
#1,845
LSU-SIU said:
Loud is basically mad at me for pointing out the defects of the legal course taken, even if I thought it was over reach at this particular time.... this one isn't an easy one to deal with. Meaning, even if I didn't like what Trump was doing - its a very tough one to tackle at this point. Simply saying people aren't receiving due process really isn't on point in my opinion on many levels.

Right now, it appears the administration is working in good faith and not targeting Americans. For Trump to be successful though, all tools might be needed and even that might not be enough.

At the end of the day, none of these people are really pointing to any injustice being done... even if I took their fact position.
Click to expand...

1744845279124.png

 
  • Like
Reactions: LSU-SIU, whodeycin85 and Orangeburst
#1,849
#1,849
Sea Ray said:
Due process. I highlighted that part. SC says that this guy deserved due process and did not get it
Click to expand...
No the only thing that could be a controversy is the destination under the existing action but no he could only get additional process unless he filed a habeas as he was deported via AEA. Nobody is claiming he wasn't illegal, there is no controversy as to that even. The supreme court is saying, the previous process can proceed....but to me it's moot as he was deported via AEA, the U.S. involvement is basically over.


He was deported via AEA? What other due process was not given that he was entitled to under AEA?

Under the pre-existing immigration action, he can in theory continue but its moot as he has already been deported. But even under that, it was already determined that he was illegal, the only thing that could have changed was the destination.
 
Last edited:
#1,850
#1,850
LSU-SIU said:
No the only thing that could be a controversy is the destination under the existing action but no he could only get additional process unless he filed a habeas as he was deported via AEA.

Nobody is claiming he wasn't illegal, there is no controversy as to that even.

The supreme court is saying, the previous process can proceed....but it's moot as he was deported via AEA.
Click to expand...
Your facts are wrong. Please address this:

the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that all deportees under the Alien Enemies Act must be afforded due process of law, including "notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal.

He was given no opportunity to challenge his removal

There most certainly is a controversy as to whether he's here illegally. Have you not seen reports that our courts ruled he can stay here because of the gang threat he'd face if sent back? If a judge did say that then it is valid and this gives him legal status to stay here

Look, I don't know which of these reports are true. That's why he needs a hearing to sort this stuff out. You need to be careful about stating things as facts.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top