Trump Ignores the Courts

[LSU-SIU]

A warrant would require a finding of probable cause by a judge, which has not occurred. The failure to provide any rationale, even under seal, is what is causing skepticism that it even exists.

It may well exist and he may be a very bad guy who should in fact be deported. The problem with the absence of due process here is that no judicial authority has ever reviewed it to ensure it is sufficient to justify deportation, under whatever standard applies.

The more that Trump et al protest that they don't need to make such a showing and that we ought to just take their word on it, the more it looks like their judgment on this may well have been wrong -- perhaps very wrong -- and they just don't want to have to face any music over it.

He was detained and removed via AEA not criminal process. No criminal process exists because he hasn't been criminally prosecuted. (see Title 50 Chapter 3)

The problem with the absence of due process here

What other process was required that he didn't receive? (same question myself and others have said for weeks now)

 

[Sea Ray]

He was detained and removed via AEA not criminal process. No criminal process exists because he hasn't been criminally prosecuted.



What other process was required that he didn't receive? (same question myself and others have said for weeks now)

The Supreme Court ruled that even under the AEA these guys deserve due process. Now the court has for the time being blocked deportations via the AEA so they do have doubts about the way this administration is using that law

The high court acted overnight following an emergency appeal from the American Civil Liberties Union, contending that immigration authorities appeared to be moving to restart removals under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) of 1798. The Supreme Court had said earlier in April that deportations could proceed only if those about to be removed had a chance to argue their case in court and were given "a reasonable time" to contest their pending removals.

Supreme Court temporarily blocks new deportations under Alien Enemies Act

In a brief order, the court directed the Trump administration not to remove Venezuelans held in Texas' Bluebonnet Detention Center "until further order from this court."

www.cbsnews.com

 

[LSU-SIU]

The Supreme Court ruled that even under the AEA these guys deserve due process. Now the court has for the time being blocked deportations via the AEA so they do have doubts about the way this administration is using that law

Supreme Court temporarily blocks new deportations under Alien Enemies Act

In a brief order, the court directed the Trump administration not to remove Venezuelans held in Texas' Bluebonnet Detention Center "until further order from this court."

www.cbsnews.com

There is no due process other than what is specified in the AEA (Proclamation and determination) before removal, one would have to file a correct complaint, in a valid way to invoke a court's jurisdiction and authority. One possible way would be to file a habeas. The government has agreed that habeas has not been suspended.

>>>>Regardless, the guy is an illegal as that has previously been determined by the immigration process<<<<, so it was just a matter of the details of the removal or deportation. There is no way of changing that at this time, nor was there any way of changing that before removal.

 

[GroverCleveland]

For the most part I agree, but there has to be some exceptions.

Agree. Winston Churchill is one.

 

[Sea Ray]

There is no due process other than what is specified in the AEA (Proclamation and determination) before removal, one would have to file a correct complaint, in a valid way to invoke a court's jurisdiction and authority. One possible way would be to file a habeas. The government has agreed that habeas has not been suspended.

>>>>Regardless, the guy is an illegal as that has previously been determined by the immigration process<<<<, so it was just a matter of the details of the removal or deportation. There is no way of changing that at this time, nor was there any way of changing that before removal.

The Supreme Court ruled that he wasn't given "a reasonable time" to contest his pending removal. Hence this administration can no longer deport people under the AEA

 

[LSU-SIU]

The Supreme Court ruled that he wasn't given "a reasonable time" to contest his pending removal. Hence this administration can no longer deport people under the AEA

No they didn't, they are saying people should be given time without details. The lower court lacks jurisdiction as to a finding under AEA (nor did it provide one as it would lack jurisdiction see Trump v JGG) and the Supreme Court has no ability to judicial review the findings which don't exist.

As far the recent stay of the 30 individuals I haven't read that but even that is meaningless in this case, as he has already been removed.

As far as the Dad of Year Gangster Wanna Be, well.... not sure why people are talking about that at all. He's an illegal, it was just a matter of how how he was removed or deported, where to, and when.... that's all been solved under the AEA order. His legal status was determined over a half decade ago from what I can tell from the immigration process.

Under either the immigration process or AEA... he was always going to be deported or removed. He actually got two determinations as to his legal status when only one is enough.

 

[Sea Ray]

No they didn't, they are saying people should be given time without details. The lower court lacks jurisdiction as to a finding under AEA (nor did it provide one as it would lack jurisdiction see Trump v JGG) and the Supreme Court has no ability to judicial review the findings which don't exist.

As far the recent stay of the 30 individuals I haven't read that but even that is meaningless in this case, as he has already been removed.

As far as the Dad of Year Gangster Wanna Be, well.... not sure why people are talking about that at all. He's an illegal, it was just a matter of how how he was removed or deported, where to, and when.... that's all been solved under the AEA order.

Nothing's been solved under the AEA order. In fact it's useless until further notice. The SC doesn't like how Trump used it and as you've correctly stated, it's difficult to reverse. Thus they've said "don't do that again"

 

[LSU-SIU]

Nothing's been solved under the AEA order. In fact it's useless until further notice. The SC doesn't like how Trump used it and as you've correctly stated, it's difficult to reverse. Thus they've said "don't do that again"

Unless something has happened today, there is no national injunction or similar as to the AEA. The Supreme Court has issued an order as to a certain "class" located in Northern Texas I guess on Friday, although I agree with the minority here... the court is likely without jurisdiction. The improper national injunction was lifted a week or two ago, fyi.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1007_22p3.pdf

As far as your favorite Dad of the Year, he most likely won't be coming back.

 

[volbound1700]

Unless something has happened today, there is no national injunction or similar as to the AEA. The Supreme Court has issued an order as to a certain "class" located in Northern Texas I guess on Friday, although I agree with the minority here... the court is likely without jurisdiction. The improper national injunction was lifted a week or two ago, fyi.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1007_22p3.pdf

As far as your favorite Dad of the Year, he most likely won't be coming back.

I don't think anyone is arguing about wanting this guy back. He is trash and I am glad he is gone.

I think the issue is that we want law and procedures to get followed. if not, then it opens up precedence for stupidity like a future Democrat President having you deported for nebulas reasons. That is the point.

 

[Sea Ray]

Unless something has happened today, there is no national injunction or similar as to the AEA. The Supreme Court has issued an order as to a certain "class" located in Northern Texas I guess on Friday, although I agree with the minority here... the court is likely without jurisdiction. The improper national injunction was lifted a week or two ago, fyi.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1007_22p3.pdf

As far as your favorite Dad of the Year, he most likely won't be coming back.

What is that PDF that you have here? Whose opinion is that? It's not the Supreme Court's. It's fine and dandy if you found someone who disagrees with the SCOTUS' decision but it doesn't change anything. No one can overrule the SC and they ruled that Trump cannot deport anyone under the AEA at this time. That's a fact

 

[volbound1700]

What is that PDF that you have here? Whose opinion is that? It's not the Supreme Court's. It's fine and dandy if you found someone who disagrees with the SCOTUS' decision but it doesn't change anything. No one can overrule the SC and they ruled that Trump cannot deport anyone under the AEA at this time. That's a fact

That wasn't quite what they said...

 

[Sea Ray]

That wasn't quite what they said...

How so? This is exactly what they said:

The
Government is directed not to remove any member of the putative
class of detainees from the United States until further order of
this Court. See 28 U. S. C. §1651(a).

24A1007 ORDER 4.19.25

www.documentcloud.org

 

[volbound1700]

How so? This is exactly what they said:

24A1007 ORDER 4.19.25

www.documentcloud.org

They stated without due process or a security reason.

 

[LSU-SIU]

I don't think anyone is arguing about wanting this guy back. He is trash and I am glad he is gone.

I think the issue is that we want law and procedures to get followed. if not, then it opens up precedence for stupidity like a future Democrat President having you deported for nebulas reasons. That is the point.

What else needed to happen under the AEA that didn't happen? Basically, what people are saying is some gross injustice was done, but there was no injustice but even than the process seems to have been followed. We can claim an injustice was done even if the process was done correctly.

The process is pretty simple, there simply is no lack of due process on the surface here, imo. The right outcome basically happened as well... the only way out is for someone to say he is an American.

 

[volbound1700]

What else needed to happen under the AEA that didn't happen, and if it didn't happen how was justice denied?

Where is the Warrant or proof of his status as an illegal?

Granted, at a Constitutional level, I agree with you. However, Congress passed laws that protect immigrants. Trump can easily solve this by having Congress pass another law on the matter.

 

[Sea Ray]

They stated without due process or a security reason.

I quoted exactly what they said. It means what it says.

 

[LSU-SIU]

How so? This is exactly what they said:

24A1007 ORDER 4.19.25

www.documentcloud.org

That only pertains to the group or class there, there is no national injunction. (I would say the court lacks jurisdiction but we will see how it goes.... see minority... the USSC might have to be ignored at some point)

 

[LSU-SIU]

Where is the Warrant or proof of his status as an illegal?

Granted, at a Constitutional level, I agree with you. However, Congress passed laws that protect immigrants. Trump can easily solve this by having Congress pass another law on the matter.

This is not a criminal process, as far as I know, the immigration process resulted in him being deemed "illegal" I think back in 2019... the deportation order was simply stayed, which is what the court process is about.

He was removed via AEA though.

Trump can easily solve this by having Congress pass another law on the matter.

Seems like the law already exist, he was removed successfully. Not sure what law you think needs to exist.

 

[volbound1700]

This is not a criminal process, as far as I know, the immigration process resulted in him being deemed "illegal" I think back in 2019... the deportation order was simply stayed, which is what the court process is about.

He was removed via AEA though.



Seems like the law already exist, he was removed successfully. Not sure what law you think needs to exist.

That is the issue. There are mechanisms for AEA that were not met. It is an easy fix, it was just laziness/error on the Federal Government. They can't correct the error now that he is in El Salvador.

The case was there to deport Garcia, it just wasn't followed correctly. This is why you get a 9-0 rejection by the Supreme Court.

 

[LSU-SIU]

That is the issue. There are mechanisms for AEA that were not met. It is an easy fix, it was just laziness/error on the Federal Government. They can't correct the error now that he is in El Salvador.

The case was there to deport Garcia, it just wasn't followed correctly. This is why you get a 9-0 rejection by the Supreme Court.

What part wasn't met?

This is why you get a 9-0 rejection by the Supreme Court.

In the national injunction case the U.S. government won, meaning the government could proceed.

This is why you get a 9-0 rejection by the Supreme Court.

The Garcia case is about immigration process and the stay order, the AEA isn't even discussed as the court lacks jurisdiction. The was removed via AEA. Under immigration law they couldn't deport him to El Salvador, so the government removed him via AEA.

 

[volbound1700]

What part wasn't met?

Evidence

 

[LSU-SIU]

Evidence

Under AEA there is no process to present evidence in and by itself, the person subject to the Proclamation would have to invoke the jurisdiction of the court properly for review, the exception to that is one is already under criminal jurisdiction of a court, see Title 50 Chapter 3.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title50/chapter3&edition=prelim

Either way, he was always going to be deported or removed as he was already deemed an illegal under immigration process.

 

[volbound1700]

Under AEA there is no process to present evidence in and by itself, the person subject to the Proclamation would have to invoke the jurisdiction of the court properly for review, the exception to that is one is already under criminal jurisdiction of a court, see Title 50 Chapter 3.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title50/chapter3&edition=prelim

Either way, he was always going to be deported or removed as he was already deemed an illegal under immigration process.

That is the issue. There wasn't proof provided to this fact. This is why a Supreme Court (that is heavily pro-Trump) ruled 9-0 against it.

 

[LSU-SIU]

That is the issue. There wasn't proof provided to this fact. This is why a Supreme Court (that is heavily pro-Trump) ruled 9-0 against it.

No. His legal status had already been determined through the immigration process, the issue is there was a stay of the deportation order. The issue is, he was not deported via immigration law, he was removed via Title 50 Chapter 3.

He's not coming back.

The Supreme Court is talking about the immigration process, but the AEA has no process to acknowledge any other process other than criminal jurisdiction (see Title 50 chapter 3). The lower court lacks jurisdiction to judicial review the subject via the AEA in that action as it was not properly presented.

His immigration process was done I believe in 2019, that determination was a half decade ago.... the only question in that process was where to send him.

https://www.justice.gov/ag/media/1396906/dl?inline

The only thing that could have changed under the immigration process is the destination, but even that was most probably not going to work anymore going forward.

He is not claiming to be an American, there really is no controversy that I see.

Proof of what? I believe him, he's an El Salvador citizen.

 

[just bob]

That is the issue. There wasn't proof provided to this fact. This is why a Supreme Court (that is heavily pro-Trump) ruled 9-0 against it.

lol