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

[Skylar]

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...

Who, pray tell, is saying that these folks can't be deported? You're creating a false dichotomy, where either they can simply be disappeared with no due process, no judicial review, no charges, no convictions, and no opportunity to defend themselves, and in defiance of a court order.

.....or they can't be deported.

They can absolutely be deported. With judicial review. With due process. As is demonstrated thousands of times a day.

 

[scruffy]

The federal judge, imbued with the judicial power to review the laws and determine if their specific application was constitutional found that Trump's actions were not.

Too ******* bad.

Judges don't write the law.

If the Trump administration disagrees and feels their actions were within their power under the law, they can appeal.

Or they can tell Boasberg to **** off.

The unitary presidency, where the President can decide his OWN constitutional authority and can claim the judicial power to interpret the laws is not part of our constitution.

Nor should it be.

The US Code is the law.

President Trump is operating within the law.

The individuals in question were in custody. They were no threat to the public. Due Process AND security are both attainable. Instead, Trump simply disappeared people in defiance of a court order.

The law says he can do that.

If you don't like it, change it.

Sending people who had been charged with no crime, nor convicted of anything, without judicial review, without due process or any representation, to be incarcerated in a foreign prison indefinitely.

That's terrifying. Both that Trump believes he has that power. And that your ilk believe he does.

The law says he has that power.

Maybe you should familiarize yourself with THE LAW before you open your mouth.

The law says the Commander in Chief decides what national security is.

Not some shit for brains corrupt judge.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Who, pray tell, is saying that these folks can't be deported?

you

You're creating a false dichotomy,

much like that judge is being accused of

where either they can simply be disappeared with no due process, no judicial review, no charges, no convictions, and no opportunity to defend themselves, and in defiance of a court order.

.....or they can't be deported.

They can absolutely be deported. With judicial review. With due process. As is demonstrated thousands of times a day.

So was the deportation legal? were they allowed to leave the country?

 

[Skylar]

Too ******* bad.

Judges don't write the law.

Judges intepret the law. That's the role of the judiciary. That's the balance of power between the branches. The Congress writes the law, the Executive enforces the law, the judiciary interprets the law.

If the Trump administration doesn't agree with the findings of a federal judge, they can appeal to a higher court.

Instead, Trump disappeared people in defiance of a court order.

What you are calling for is the unitary presidency, where Trump decides what the law is supposed to mean, what his constitutional authority is, and takes the judicial power into himself, becoming the interpreter of the law as well.

Um, no. That's not our Constitution. And Trump administration has since backed down, acknowledging that the judiciary's court orders will be abided.

That your ilk are so eager to imbue Trump with essentially unlimited authority, where his only checks are those that he believes exists, is terrifying. And wildly extra-constitutional.

We do not have kings.

The law says he has that power.

Maybe you should familiarize yourself with THE LAW before you open your mouth.

Yeah, I'm gonna go with the federal judiciary exercising its constitutional authority to interpret laws over some rando on the internet who insists he knows better.

As would any rational person.

 

[scruffy]

Judges intepret the law. That's the role of the judiciary. That's the balance of power between the branches. The Congress writes the law, the Executive enforces the law, the judiciary interprets the law.

If the Trump administration doesn't agree with the findings of a federal judge, they can appeal to a higher court.

Instead, Trump disappeared people in defiance of a court order.

What you are calling for is the unitary presidency, where Trump decides what the law is supposed to mean, what his constitutional authority is, and takes the judicial power into himself, becoming the interpreter of the law as well.

Um, no. That's not our Constitution. And Trump administration has since backed down, acknowledging that the judiciary's court orders will be abided.

That your ilk are so eager to imbue Trump with essentially unlimited authority, where his only checks are those that he believes exists, is terrifying. And wildly extra-constitutional.

We do not have kings.

Doofus, Congress writes the laws.

If you have a problem, take it up with them.

Yeah, I'm gonna go with the federal judiciary exercising its constitutional authority to interpret laws over some rando on the internet who insists he knows better.

As would any rational person.

The Supreme Court will rule on this eventually.

Even the Supreme Court doesn't write the laws

The court is REQUIRED to respect the law as written, or strike it down

No one has yet struck down the US Code.

 

[Skylar]

Doofus, Congress writes the laws.

And the judiciary interprets them.

Again, the federal judiciary found that Trump's specific application of the Alien and Sedition Act was unlawful. If Trump doesn't like the ruling, he can appeal.

What he cannot do is take into himself the authority to inpret the law and imbue himself with the judical power, where he decides what his own constitutional authority is.

The federal judiciary is the interpreter of the Constitution as well.

If you have a problem, take it up with them.



The Supreme Court will rule on this eventually.

Even the Supreme Court doesn't write the laws

The court is REQUIRED to respect the law as written, or strike it down

There is more than just those two options. The most frequent application of the federal judiciary's authority is in determining if the specific application of a law is constitutional. The law itself can be constitutional, but the authority claimed by a party under a given law is not.

So the Alien and Sedition act can stand AND Trump could have exceeded his authority in disappearing people without due process or judicial review, any charges or any conviction.....when there is no war. And in express defiance of a federal court order.

Again, you insisting that you know better isn't actually a legal argument. Its a personal opinion with zero legal relevance. As you do not possess the judicial power under the constitution.

The federal judiciary most definitely does.

 

[Skylar]

you

Not me. This is what I've said:

"They can absolutely be deported. With judicial review. With due process. As is demonstrated thousands of times a day."

So I ask again, who says that these folks can't be deported?

much like that judge is being accused of

Accused of by whom?

So was the deportation legal? were they allowed to leave the country?

Not without due process and judicial review its not. The prison flight was in express defiance of a federal court order.

 

[scruffy]

Not me. This is what I've said:

"They can absolutely be deported. With judicial review. With due process. As is demonstrated thousands of times a day."

So I ask again, who says that these folks can't be deported?





Accused of by whom?


Not without due process and judicial review its not. The prison flight was in express defiance of a federal court order.

You still don't get it.

IT'S THE LAW.

The Court's only option is to strike down the law.

Period. End of story.

 

[Skylar]

You still don't get it.

IT'S THE LAW.

Its the law...says who? Again, the part that you don't seem to be able to wrap your head around is the judicial power. Its the judiciary that has the authority to interpret law. The federal judiciary disagreed with Trump's interpretation of the Alien and Sedition Act. And their interpretations are authoritative. Trump's are not. The judiciary holds the judicial power.

Not some rando on the internet who insists their personal opinions are the supreme legal authority.

There's a reason Trump backed down on defying the federal judiciaries orders and has shifted instead to rage tweeting conspiracy theories about the judge or promoting conspiracy theories that judges that overrule him are guity of treason or sedition.

The Court's only option is to strike down the law.

Period. End of story.

Nope. The most common application of judicial authority is in determining if the specific application of a law is constitutional. The law itself can be constitutional, but the authority claimed by a party under a given law is not.

Trump can claim that the Endangered Species Act gives him the authority to suspend US elections. If the court ruled that the Endangered Species Act gives him no such authority.......they didn't just rule that the Endangered Species Act itself was unconstitutional. But Trump's claim of authority under the law was invalid.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. This is why Trump isn't citing you in his legal briefs. No one is.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

So I ask again, who says that these folks can't be deported?

And I'll say/prove it again...you v

Not without due process and judicial review its not. The prison flight was in express defiance of a federal court order.

so it was illegal for them to leave the country then, right?

Accused of by whom?

most everyone who disagrees with him

 

[Skylar]

And I'll say/prove it again...you v

Show me, don't tell me. I'll demonstrate:

""They can absolutely be deported. With judicial review. With due process. As is demonstrated thousands of times a day."

- Skylar

Now your turn. Show me (or anyone relevant to the court case or this conversation) saying that these people can't be deported? They absolutely can be....with due process and judicial review. It happens every day.

 

[scruffy]

Its the law...says who?

The US Code, dumbass.

Go read it.

Nope. The most common application of judicial authority is in determining if the specific application of a law is constitutional.

I just said that, shit for brains.

Unconstitutional laws get struck down.

 

[IM2]

There is no judicial coup. And you right wingers are too damn stupid to see whats going on.

 

[IM2]

This is what? The third deadline this obscure judge has issue the president of the United States?

Question for any Dems on here about this part:

Boasberg claims the information provided to him so far is “woefully inadequate,” and lacks the citations of what cabinet-level officials were involved in deporting criminal illegal aliens

Did Biden or Obama ever do that about the millions of illegals that they deported?

Apparently they did, or the courts would have got them too.

 

[Skylar]

The US Code, dumbass.

Go read it.

The US Code according to who? Again, your entire argument is prefaced on YOU being the supreme legal authority and YOUR personal opinions overwriting any federal judicial ruling.

But you're nobody. You have no judicial power. The federal judiciary does. And they have interpreted the Alien and Sedition Act as not granting Trump the authority to simply disappear people when we're not at war.

If Trump doesn't agree with the ruling, he can appeal.

I just said that, shit for brains.

Unconstitutional laws get struck down.

They do. But that's not the only recourse. Your failure is in assuming that ANY power claimed under ANY law is either valid, or the law is unconstitutional.

That's simply not the case.

If Trump were to suddenly insist that the Endangered Species Act gives him unilateral authority to suspend US elections....that claim of authority can be challenged in court.

If the court ruled that the Endangered Species Act does NOT give Trump authority to suspend elections.......the court didn't just rule that the Endangered Species Act itself was unconstitutional. But Trump's claim of authority under the law was invalid.

You just don't know what you're talking about, Scruffy.

Is this really it? Just you insisting that your personal opinion about a given law is the supreme legal authority, that the federal judiciary must bow to? If so, that was easy.

 

[Mac-7]

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

Did trump comply?

 

[Skylar]

There is no judicial coup. And you right wingers are too damn stupid to see whats going on.

MAGA is fueled by a fairly constant need to be victims. Thus, a ruling they don't agree with isn't simply a legal setback. Its a 'coup', or some act of 'sedition', or even 'treason'.

They're melodramatic like that.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Show me, don't tell me. I'll demonstrate:

""They can absolutely be deported. With judicial review. With due process. As is demonstrated thousands of times a day."

- Skylar

TRANSLATION: "CAN I PLEASE HAVE ANOTHER SIR"

Now your turn. Show me (or anyone relevant to the court case or this conversation) saying that these people can't be deported? They absolutely can be....with due process and judicial review. It happens every day.

But they can't leave the country right?

 

[scruffy]

The US Code according to who?

Are you really this stupid?

You just don't know what you're talking about, Scruffy.

I already linked you to the current code.

I can't force you to read it.

 

[Skylar]

TRANSLATION: "CAN I PLEASE HAVE ANOTHER SIR"

Laughing....so nothing. No one, including me, is saying that these folks can't be deported.

As they absolutely can be. With judicial review and due process. It happens every day.