Boasberg’s Judicial Coup Update: Judge Gives President Trump Deadline of Tuesday for Compliance

[SweetSue92]

Nonsense. The individuals in question were already in custody. They weren't a threat to the public.

You're presenting a false dichotomy. Either security OR due process. You can have both. And we do, thousands of times a day.

oh hey there you are, still insisting you are ALWAYS right. Remember this?

Sue...you're still stuck in the crippling bullshit of MAGA mind. Where you equate what you WANT to be true, the narrative you want to believe, as evidence.

Its not.

Polls of purple states around the country are showing Harris is leading. That you genuinely believe that you YOUR STREET doesn't match that poll proves the polling is inaccurate across the nation is such a myopic and elegant demonstration of how the MAGA mind erodes your critical thinking skills.

No Sue....comforting narratives are not greater than facts. No Sue, your STREET does not define a national election.

 

[Skylar]

oh hey there you are, still insisting you are ALWAYS right. Remember this?

Oh hey, there you are. Still refusing to discuss the topic of the thread?

Give me a holler if you ever have anything relevant to say.

 

[SweetSue92]

Oh hey, there you are. Still refusing to discuss the topic of the thread?

Give me a holler if you ever have anything relevant to say.

Sure, you are often wrong and tantrum about it like a small child.

 

[Skylar]

Sure, you are often wrong and tantrum about it like a small child.

And still not a single comment on the topic of thread. Just your usual obsessive focus on me personally.

I'm flattered. But not interested.

I'll be around if you ever want to discuss the imaginary 'judicial coup', Trump's attempt to use the Alien and Sedition Act to invoke wartime powers without a war, or the judge's actual ruling in this case.

 

[kyzr]

Laughing....can you cite any of them saying this? Because I'm pretty sure that's you citing yourself as 'white liberals'. You're not quoting me. And you're certainly not quoting the judge. Remember, you still refuse to read his ruling. So you have no idea what he's said.
For those who don't have your obsessive aversion to reading, judge made it ludicrously clear that none of his rulings prevented the Trump administration from deporting these individuals under Title 8.
Just obliterating your pseudo-legal nonsense.
Try again, friend. This time, maybe read the ruling.

Not to jump into this interesting debate, but one factor you are not considering is that Bill Clinton deported 12,000,000.
So how did he do that if they all got hearings? HINT: they didn't

Yes, Obama deported more people than Trump but context is everything

President Donald Trump wants to deport a lot of people this weekend. "You know what? They came in illegally. They have to go out," he told reporters Friday as he confirmed that planned immigration raids would go ahead in certain cities starting this weekend.

www.cnn.com

Clinton deported 12,000,000
Bush deported 10,000,000
Obama deported 7,000,000
Trump-45 deported 2,000,000
Biden let 12,000,000 into the US

Say that Trump wants to deport 12,000,000 in 4-yeears
So where does he hold 1,000,000 people until they all get hearings?
Who pays for their lawyers?
Biden's open borders let them in, they are here illegally, deporting them needs to be expedited.

 

[SeaMajor7]

Nonsense. The individuals in question were already in custody. They weren't a threat to the public.

You're presenting a false dichotomy. Either security OR due process. You can have both. And we do, thousands of times a day.

Don't stop, stupid. Shout it OUT LOUD!!!!
WOOOOOOOT!!!!!!

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Laughing....can you cite any of them saying this? Because I'm pretty sure that's you citing yourself as 'white liberals'. You're not quoting me. And you're certainly not quoting the judge.

TRANSLATION: "Looks to me like ya musta spanked us all then"

Remember, you still refuse to read his ruling. So you have no idea what he's said.
For those who don't have your obsessive aversion to reading, judge made it ludicriously clear that none of his rulings prevented the Trump administration from deporting these indivudals under Title 8.

The real problem for you is that I understand it perfectly while you can't believe you didn't get it until I pointed it out to you, now you are hoping others don't realize just what it is you refuse to acknowledge:

And neither Order prevented the Government from deporting

anyone through authorities other than the Proclamation

TRANSLATION: "I am preventing those deportations by trumps proclamation with my own proclamation"

Just obliterating your pseudo-legal nonsense.

yeah, with the ol "nope" obliterator eh

Try again, friend.

learning by rote eh? ok

hmmm...leave it to white liberals to get it exactly wrong, they are now arguing that it is illegal for these folks to leave the country...

This time, maybe read the ruling.

the relevant part is all I needed

 

[Skylar]

Not to jump into this interesting debate, but one factor you are not considering is that Bill Clinton deported 12,000,000.
So how did he do that if they all got hearings? HINT: they didn't

Yes, Obama deported more people than Trump but context is everything

President Donald Trump wants to deport a lot of people this weekend. "You know what? They came in illegally. They have to go out," he told reporters Friday as he confirmed that planned immigration raids would go ahead in certain cities starting this weekend.

www.cnn.com

Clinton deported 12,000,000
Bush deported 10,000,000
Obama deported 7,000,000
Trump-45 deported 2,000,000
Biden let 12,000,000 into the US

Say that Trump wants to deport 12,000,000 in 4-yeears
So where does he hold 1,000,000 people until they all get hearings?
Who pays for their lawyers?
Biden's open borders let them in, they are here illegally, deporting them needs to be expedited.

Clinton never tried to invoke the wartime powers of the Alien and Sedition Act, which makes sense.....as there were no declared wars during his presidency. Or Trump's, so far.

If he had, there's a solid chance that there would have been hearings for the individuals that his administration attempted to apply wartime powers to. To determine if that application was legal and appropriate.

And we don't have a milllion people in custody.

 

[Skylar]

TRANSLATION: "Looks to me like ya musta spanked us all then"

Laughing....so you can't actually quote the 'white liberals' you imagined saying anything you do attribute to them.

Color me shocked.

With the judge in this case explicitly contradicting your assertion, fully acknowledging that his rulings did not prevent Trump from deporting these individuals under USC 8.

"Neither Order required the Government to release a single individual from its
custody. Neither Order prevented the Government from apprehending anyone pursuant to the
just-published Proclamation. And neither Order prevented the Government from deporting
anyone — including Plaintiffs — through authorities other than the Proclamation, such as the
INA. Indeed, as the President last month designated Tren de Aragua a Foreign Terrorist
Organization, members of the gang are already inadmissible to (and thus deportable from) the
United States under the INA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)."

No wonder you edited this passages of the judge's ruling from your reply.

As always, it obliterates your imaginary pseudo-legal nonsense.

Try again.

 

[Skylar]

Don't stop, stupid. Shout it OUT LOUD!!!!
WOOOOOOOT!!!!!!

'
Oh, so just random insults when your argument is dismantled.

Give me a holler if you ever manage something beyond silly little ad hominems.

If your argument had merit, you wouldn't need them.

 

[kyzr]

Clinton never tried to invoke the wartime powers of the Alien and Sedition Act, which makes sense.....as there were no declared wars during his presidency. Or Trump's, so far.

If he had, there's a solid chance that there would have been hearings for the individuals that his administration attempted to apply wartime powers to. To determine if that application was legal and appropriate. And we don't have a million people in custody.

My point was "did all 12m illegals that Clinton deported get lawyered-up hearings?" NFW
Clinton didn't have the "invasion" by state-sponsored gangs like TdA and MS-13 to deal with.
Clinton didn't house a million illegals waiting for their hearing, they were deported quickly.
Your argument is based on the courts ruling that Trump can't use the Alien act, we'll see how that shakes out.

 

[Skylar]

My point was "did all 12m illegals that Clinton deported get lawyered-up hearings?" NFW
Clinton didn't have the "invasion" by state-sponsored gangs like TdA and MS-13 to deal with.
Clinton didn't house a million illegals waiting for their hearing, they were deported quickly.
Your argument is based on the courts ruling that Trump can't use the Alien act, we'll see how that shakes out.

Whether or not these individuals are part of this gang, or if the Alien and Sedition Act could be applied to them is something to be determined individually at court hearings.

And which state is supposedly sponsoring Tren De Aragua, and according to who? Here's Trump's EO. It makes no such claim.

And my argument isn't that Trump can't use the Alien and Sedition Act. Its that the use of the Alien and Sedition Act outside of a declared war is questionable. And that its applicability per individual under Title 50 would be determined at a court hearing.

And it really not my argument. Its the judge's in this case.

"They justifiably feared that, in a matter of hours, they might be removed from the country pursuant not
to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, but instead the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a law
last invoked in the wake of Pearl Harbor as the nation was preparing for a world war. That Act
authorizes the President to summarily remove “natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects” of a
“hostile nation or government” when there is “declared war” against it or when it has
“perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States” an “invasion or
predatory incursion.” 50 U.S.C. § 21.

And you're right. We'll see. All I can do is cite the federal judiciary's current position on the matter. The judge's argument is compelling. As 50 U.S.C. § 21 is specific to declared wars or invasions/predatory incursions by foreign nation or government.

Which foreign nation or government would be making this incursions, exactly? Because it sounds like Trump is attempting to declare the gang itself as a nation or government. Which would be a real ******* stretch.

 

[the watcher]

Judge Boasberg standing up for the Constitution and the Rule of Law from those that want to undermine it.

It's important to know that after the Enabling Act of 1933, everything that Hitler and the Nazis did after that was legal under their new laws.

 

[SeaMajor7]

'
Oh, so just random insults when your argument is dismantled.

Give me a holler if you ever manage something beyond silly little ad hominems.

If your argument had merit, you wouldn't need them.

I'm not arguing anything. I WANT you and the rest of the demented LEFT to shout from the rooftops how much you WANT CRIMINAL ILLEGAL ALIENS to be catered to and unleashed against the citizens of the United States.
KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!!!!!!!

 

[Skylar]

No one knows what the % of voters want to impeach the judge.

The impeachment of Judge James Boasberg has sparked significant debate, but there isn't clear data on voter margins regarding this issue. The push for impeachment stems from disagreements over his rulings, particularly concerning deportation policies, but Chief Justice John Roberts has emphasized that impeachment is not an appropriate response to judicial decisions.

Trump has resorted to promoting conspiracy theories that judges who rule against him are guilty of treason or sedition. With treason being punishable by death.

So really classy shit.

 

[kyzr]

Whether or not these individuals are part of this gang, or if the Alien and Sedition Act could be applied to them is something to be determined individually at court hearings.

And which state is supposedly sponsoring Tren De Aragua, and according to who? Here's Trump's EO. It makes no such claim.

And my argument isn't that Trump can't use the Alien and Sedition Act. Its that the use of the Alien and Sedition Act outside of a declared war is questionable. And that its applicability per individual under Title 50 would be determined at a court hearing.

And it really not my argument. Its the judge's in this case.

"They justifiably feared that, in a matter of hours, they might be removed from the country pursuant not
to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, but instead the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a law
last invoked in the wake of Pearl Harbor as the nation was preparing for a world war. That Act
authorizes the President to summarily remove “natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects” of a
“hostile nation or government” when there is “declared war” against it or when it has
“perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States” an “invasion or
predatory incursion.” 50 U.S.C. § 21.

And you're right. We'll see. All I can do is cite the federal judiciary's current position on the matter. The judge's argument is compelling. As 50 U.S.C. § 21 is specific to declared wars or invasions/predatory incursions by foreign nation or government.

Which foreign nation or government would be making this incursions, exactly? Because it sounds like Trump is attempting to declare the gang itself as a nation or government. Which would be a real ******* stretch.

A valid argument.
Mine is much simpler. The Act says that judicial review is not applicable. We'll see how that shakes out.

Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160 (1948)

Ludecke v. Watkins

supreme.justia.com

Held:
1. The Alien Enemy Act precludes judicial review of the removal order. Pp. 335 U. S.163-166.

 

[DonGlock26]

They were sent to a foreign prison where they were incarcerated indefinitely despite being convicted of no crime in our country or the nation they were sent to. They had no court hearings, they had no representation, they had no opportunity to defend themselves. They had no due process.

They were just disappeared.

That's terrifying. As is your eager support of flagrant violations of due process. And Trump's promotion of pseudo-legal conspiracy theories that judges that rule against him are guilty of treason and sedition. With treason carrying the death penalty.



Rights, judicial review and due process doesn't just disappear because someone says 'national security'.

If you believe it does, show me anywhere in the constitution it says this.

You'll find it simply doesn't exist.

They weren't disappeared. They were sent to El Salvador.

 

[WorldWatcher]

A valid argument.
Mine is much simpler. The Act says that judicial review is not applicable. We'll see how that shakes out.

Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160 (1948)

Ludecke v. Watkins

supreme.justia.com

Held:
1. The Alien Enemy Act precludes judicial review of the removal order. Pp. 335 U. S.163-166.

Now finish it. They held thate teh removal order was not reviewable.

Why?

Because we were in a declared war. From your link.

WW
.
.
.

 

[kyzr]

Now finish it. They held that the removal order was not reviewable. Why?
Because we were in a declared war. From your link. WW
View attachment 1093623

I disagree with that interpretation.
The Law states a "war" or an "invasion" would both not require judicial review.
It doesn't just say "only during a declared war".

 

[elektra]

Again, you don't need me for this. You can just imagine whatever position you'd like for me. And then refute whatever argument you've made up.

I'll stick with my own position: that your obsession with 'turnbacks' has nothing to do with Trump's use of Title 50.

Play pretend to your heart's content. It has nothing to do with me.

Then why did you add your two cents. You thought you have some sort of argument.

No passport, no port of entry stamp, no trial, no lawyer

Your position is once they touch the border they are here legally and deserve a lawyer.

Got it,