- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: We now have the dissent of Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas
Posted on 4/20/25 at 9:33 am to boosiebadazz
Posted on 4/20/25 at 9:33 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
and then claimed laughable impotency to return them?
This didn't happen.
What you're seeing is typical effort:reward behavior.
Why put forth much effort at all to retrieve a MS-13 gang member just so he can be deported again?
El Salvador doesn't seem interested in giving him up. Maybe we could pressure/bribe them to return this guy. But why would we?
I'll put in some effort to get a nice steak dinner.
If it's a ham sandwich? I guess I'll take it if it's dropped in my lap, but outside of that I'm not going to put forth much effort to obtain it.
1
Posted on 4/20/25 at 9:35 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
and then claimed laughable impotency to return them?
The fact that you people want this thug brought back here in the first place is the problem
Posted on 4/20/25 at 9:36 am to BCreed1
quote:
And he stated the SCOTUS already had the words of the Fed Gov from a lower court on THIS CLASS and their status.
No bearing on skipping the appellate court and issuing the order if they find “extraordinary circumstances”.
I feel like you’re circling the chess board ready to unload a big pile of shite!
Posted on 4/20/25 at 9:37 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
Sounds like 7 of the 9 thought that was an extraordinary circumstance. Exactly as their rules allow them to do
Rank the justices by legal and constitutional prowess. Just curious how yours list shakes out in the current context.
Posted on 4/20/25 at 9:37 am to thebigmuffaletta
That fact that you’re a constitutional conservative OK with renditioning “others” away before a court can rule is another problem.
Posted on 4/20/25 at 9:39 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
others
A wife beating gang banging human trafficking terrorist scum
Posted on 4/20/25 at 9:39 am to BCreed1
Thanks for posting. Good stuff.
Posted on 4/20/25 at 9:44 am to thebigmuffaletta
Remove the hold and send him back. Very simple solution.
Posted on 4/20/25 at 9:46 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
Remove the hold and send him back. Very simple solution.
Which is fricking stupid. The scumbag has already been deported.
Posted on 4/20/25 at 9:46 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
When you’ve lost Gorsuch then you’ve gone too far.
Posted on 4/20/25 at 9:47 am to boosiebadazz
quote:He is in his country currently no?
Remove the hold and send him back. Very simple solution.
Posted on 4/20/25 at 9:49 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
No bearing on skipping the appellate court and issuing the order if they find “extraordinary circumstances
It has every thing to do with it. If you are going to not wait on a lower court that has jurisdiction, that has told you they are about to rule, and then you ignore the other side of the argument... you make fools of the SCOTUS.
THAT is what they did. Make a fool ou the court.
Posted on 4/20/25 at 9:49 am to Jbird
Gotta love this SCOTUS playing politics again. Robert’s cares way more about their image than he lets on, that’s why a lot of their rulings are inconsistent. Watching their rulings feels like a peek into this moral struggles
Posted on 4/20/25 at 9:51 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
Remove the hold and send him back. Very simple solution.
So he can be arrested for illegally entering the country and then deported?
You're good with the exact same result as long as the "process" is satisfied?
Posted on 4/20/25 at 9:51 am to BCreed1
Another nail in the real justice coffin of Roberts. Note when the issue is Constitutional Principle and National Sovereignty, the Leftwingers on the Court will always side with the Globalists/Transnational Progressives.
But given that likely half of the populous has bought into the open Border/ "diversity is our strength" nonsense and the invasion and "fundamental transformation" of our Constitutional Republic, it remains to be seen how all this shakes out. There are so many extraordinary and powerful variables on the revolutionary table that on any given day or particular event the whole thing could collapse into exponential increasing anarchy.
One can just imagine the back-room conversations being had in the community of high-powered movers and shakers. Somewhat akin to this Forum I suspect.
But given that likely half of the populous has bought into the open Border/ "diversity is our strength" nonsense and the invasion and "fundamental transformation" of our Constitutional Republic, it remains to be seen how all this shakes out. There are so many extraordinary and powerful variables on the revolutionary table that on any given day or particular event the whole thing could collapse into exponential increasing anarchy.
One can just imagine the back-room conversations being had in the community of high-powered movers and shakers. Somewhat akin to this Forum I suspect.
Posted on 4/20/25 at 9:52 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
Like when the Administration has already renditioned litigants out of the country and the jurisdiction of US Courts and then claimed laughable impotency to return them?
I agree that’s something extraordinary that’s never been done before.
The Supreme court hasn't ruled on this yet, so we'll see how they find. I don't believe that the administration's actions under the AEA violate the statute. The Supreme court in 1948 basically affirmed the executives broad power here. From my understanding of that ruling, "judicial review" under the AEA is very limited and can be completely fulfilled by a brief immigration court hearing prior to deportation.
quote:
Held:
1. The Alien Enemy Act precludes judicial review of the removal order. Pp. 335 U. S. 163-166.
2. In the circumstances of relations between the United States and Germany, there exists a "declared war" notwithstanding the cessation of actual hostilities, and the order is enforceable. Pp. 335 U. S. 166-170.
3. The Alien Enemy Act, construed as permitting resort to the courts only to challenge its validity and construction, and to raise questions of the existence of a "declared war" and of alien enemy status, does not violate the Bill of lights of the Federal Constitution. Pp. 335 U. S. 170-171.
4. The fact that hearings are utilized by the Executive to secure an informed basis for the exercise of the summary power conferred by the Act does not empower the courts to retry such hearings, nor does it make the withholding of such power from the courts a denial of due process. Pp. 335 U. S. 171-172.
Two things to note:
1) The language in this ruling about "declared war" does not limit the Executive's use of this power outside of wartime. The declaration of war was part of that specific case, but the act is specifically more broad.
2) Point 4 says that the Executive branch can hold hearings to "secure an informed basis for the exercise of the summary power conferred by the Act", but that does not make "withholding of such power from the courts a denial of due process".
This Supreme Court may disagree, but if they rule against the administration here, IMO they have defied the language of the AEA as written by congress and interpreted by prior courts.
This post was edited on 4/20/25 at 9:59 am
Posted on 4/20/25 at 9:53 am to TrueTiger
quote:
You're good with the exact same result as long as the "process" is satisfied?
Yes. The “process” is the rule of law. It’s what protects us all from President AOC doing whatever she wants. It’s amazing how you guys can’t see that.
This post was edited on 4/20/25 at 9:54 am
Posted on 4/20/25 at 9:55 am to BCreed1
It is all confusing. I just saw a headline on the MSN site that Trump won in SCOTUS on a unrelated issue. LINK
Who can keep up?
The current Ruiling in the OP seems to be time lined as Boasberg cuing up Roberts. The dissent from Alito and Thomas calling out the Chief essentially is very unprecedented. They usually don't show their dirty laundry, no?
----*Boasberg Admits He Doesn't 'Have the Power' to Stop Trump Deportation Flights in Huge Friday Night Ruling
Who can keep up?
The current Ruiling in the OP seems to be time lined as Boasberg cuing up Roberts. The dissent from Alito and Thomas calling out the Chief essentially is very unprecedented. They usually don't show their dirty laundry, no?
----*Boasberg Admits He Doesn't 'Have the Power' to Stop Trump Deportation Flights in Huge Friday Night Ruling
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. Posted on 4/20/25 at 9:56 am to wdhalgren
You’re conflating the merits of the AEA and BCreed’s assertion that SCOTUS broke their own rules in issuing the preemptive order without the Fifth Circuit weighing in.
What you quoted from me is on the preemptive order.
I think SCOTUS rules in favor of the Administration on the AEA issue.
What you quoted from me is on the preemptive order.
I think SCOTUS rules in favor of the Administration on the AEA issue.
Posted on 4/20/25 at 9:59 am to boosiebadazz
But when someone ask them to look into what they think may be stolen election it’s ok to close your eyes and refuse to look into it. Ok Commie ,trash
Page 2 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News