The Judiciary Is Attempting To Seize Executive Power

[The Sage of Main Street]

MAGA is now history, dude. Only idiots believe those Trump’s pets. lol.

The statement that the U.S. Supreme Court has previously ruled that deportations under the Alien Enemies Act are not subject to judicial review and that the Court cannot change its rulings is INCORRECT for several reasons:

Judicial Review: While the political question doctrine may limit judicial review in certain cases involving national security or political questions, it does not categorically bar review of executive actions under the Alien Enemies Act. The doctrine, as established in Baker v. Carr, allows for judicial intervention when there is an "obvious mistake" or a "manifestly unauthorized exercise of power" by the executive branch1.

Ability to Change Rulings: The Supreme Court can and has changed its previous rulings. This is evident from the numerous landmark cases where the Court has overturned its own precedents, such as Brown v. Board of Education (overturning Plessy v. Ferguson), Lawrence v. Texas (overturning Bowers v. Hardwick), and Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (overturning Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey)2. The principle of stare decisis encourages consistency but does not prevent the Court from revising its decisions when deemed necessary2.

Therefore, the Supreme Court retains the authority to review and potentially alter its stance on matters related to the Alien Enemies Act if it deems such actions are not in line with constitutional or legal standards.

Sources:
1. The Courts Can Stop Abuse of the Alien Enemies Act – the Political Question Doctrine is No Bar
2. A short list of overturned Supreme Court landmark decisions | Constitution Center
3. Trump administration touts deportations under Alien Enemies Act after a judge temporarily blocked its use
4. Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160 (1948)
5. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
6. https://www.npr.org/2025/03/18/nx-s1-5331857/alien-enemies-act-trump-deportations
7. https://www.justsecurity.org/109168/alien-enemies-act-litigation/
8. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/programs/constitution_day/landmark-cases/
9. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alison...ump-and-musk-are-winning-and-losing-in-court/

Why Should We Listen to What the Sadistic Big Shots Tell Us About Our Rights?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

SC, the appeals process, remember?

The Only Right the Bipartisan 1%'s Constitution Gives Us, the People, Is the Right to Remain Silent

 

[WEATHER53]

Asylum Is Insane

The American people have seen the results of allowing asylum. That policy must be canceled. We're sick of hearing quibbling arguments about due process, instead of repealing that law. The Republican'ts better start throwing fastballs instead of spitters. Repeal, revoke, rescind!

90% dont qualify for asylum

 

[Contumacious]

The Biden administration, whether you like it or not, was elected in accordance with the laws and procedures of this republic.

Joe Biden says he's built most extensive "voter fraud" org in history​

The evidence before the Court shows that voting machines are hackable and votes can be changed from one party to another in real time without leaving a trace of evidence " Federal Judge Amy Totenberg , Curling v Raffensperger , Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-2989 -AT . ND Georgia, Atlanta Division November 10, 2023
Curling v. Raffensperger, 403 F. Supp. 3d 1311 | Casetext Search + Citator

 

[Contumacious]

The statement that the U.S. Supreme Court has previously ruled that deportations under the Alien Enemies Act are not subject to judicial review and that the Court cannot change its rulings is INCORRECT for several reasons:

Incorrect.

The ruling is still BINDING CASE LAW​

The federal judge may enter its order , include findings of fact and conclusions of law and then withhold the ruling pending appeal


Chief Justice Roberts explained in Nken v. Holder,

It takes time to decide a case on appeal. Sometimes a little; sometimes a lot. “No court can make time stand still” while it considers an appeal, Scripps–Howard Radio, Inc. v. FCC, 316 U.S. 4, 9 (1942), and if a court takes the time it needs, the court’s decision may in some cases come too late for the party seeking review. That is why it “has always been held, . . . that as part of its traditional equipment for the administration of justice, a federal court can stay the enforcement of a judgment pending the outcome of an appeal.” Id., at 9–10 (footnote omitted). A stay does not make time stand still, but does hold a ruling in abeyance to allow an appellate court the time necessary to review it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Incorrect.

The ruling is still BINDING CASE LAW​

For those that would like to actually read the case, it's Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160 (1948),

He was detained in 1941, had a AEA Board Hearing in 1942 and a Repartriation Hearing in 1945 with deportation in 1946.

The court ruled that Ludecke was in fact deportable beccause the United States was still in declared war (World War II).

"And so we reach the claim that, while the President had summary power under the Act, it did not survive cessation of actual hostilities. [Footnote 10] This claim in effect nullifies the power to deport alien enemies, for such deportations are hardly practicable during the pendency of what is colloquially known as the shooting war. [Footnote 11] Nor does law lag behind common sense. War does not cease with a cease-fire order, and power to be exercised by the President such as that conferred by the Act of 1798 is a process which begins when war is declared but is not exhausted when the shooting stops. [Footnote 12] See United States v. Anderson, 9 Wall. 56, 76 U. S. 70; The Protector, 12 Wall. 700; McElrath v. United States, 102 U. S. 426, 102 U. S. 438; Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co., 251 U. S. 146, 251 U. S. 167. "The state of war" may be terminated by treaty or legislation or Presidential proclamation. Whatever the modes, its termination is a political act."

World War 2 (a war declared by Congress) didn't officially end until the signing of the Paris Peace Treaty in 1937.

We are not in an declared war with Venezuela nor has the Venezuelian government invaded US territory. One of the two triggers required by Congress in 50 USC 21 (the law) to enable Presidential powers under the AEA.

WW
.
.
.
.

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

Ludecke v. Watkins

supreme.justia.com

 

[JohnDB]

 

[Contumacious]

For those that would like to actually read the case, it's Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160 (1948),

He was detained in 1941, had a AEA Board Hearing in 1942 and a Repartriation Hearing in 1945 with deportation in 1946.

The court ruled that Ludecke was in fact deportable beccause the United States was still in declared war (World War II).

"And so we reach the claim that, while the President had summary power under the Act, it did not survive cessation of actual hostilities. [Footnote 10] This claim in effect nullifies the power to deport alien enemies, for such deportations are hardly practicable during the pendency of what is colloquially known as the shooting war. [Footnote 11] Nor does law lag behind common sense. War does not cease with a cease-fire order, and power to be exercised by the President such as that conferred by the Act of 1798 is a process which begins when war is declared but is not exhausted when the shooting stops. [Footnote 12] See United States v. Anderson, 9 Wall. 56, 76 U. S. 70; The Protector, 12 Wall. 700; McElrath v. United States, 102 U. S. 426, 102 U. S. 438; Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co., 251 U. S. 146, 251 U. S. 167. "The state of war" may be terminated by treaty or legislation or Presidential proclamation. Whatever the modes, its termination is a political act."

World War 2 (a war declared by Congress) didn't officially end until the signing of the Paris Peace Treaty in 1937.

We are not in an declared war with Venezuela nor has the Venezuelian government invaded US territory. One of the two triggers required by Congress in 50 USC 21 (the law) to enable Presidential powers under the AEA.

WW
.
.
.
.

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

Ludecke v. Watkins

supreme.justia.com

It appears that legalese is not your cup of tea - read the dissenters' opinion to understand the majority's holding which is still the Supreme Law of the Land


MR. JUSTICE BLACK, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE MURPHY and MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE join, dissenting.


The petition for habeas corpus in this case alleged that petitioner, a legally admitted resident of the United States,


Page 335 U. S. 174


was about to be deported from this country to Germany as a "dangerous" alien enemy, without having been afforded notice and a fair hearing to determine whether he was "dangerous." The Court now holds, as the Government argued, that, because of a presidential proclamation, petitioner can be deported by the Attorney General's order >>>>>>>>>without any judicial inquiry whatever into the truth of his allegations. <<<<<<<<<<<

[Footnote 2/1] The Court goes further and holds, as I understand its opinion, that the Attorney General can deport him whether he is dangerous or not. The effect of this holding is that any unnaturalized person, good or bad, loyal or disloyal to this country, if he was a citizen of Germany before coming here, can be summarily seized, interned, and deported from the United States by the Attorney

Page 335 U. S. 175


General, and that

>>>>>>>>>> no court of the United States has any power whatever to review, modify, vacate, reverse, or in any manner affect the Attorney General's deportation order.<<<<<<<<<<

Contumacious Rests

 

[Rumpole]

Joe Biden says he's built most extensive "voter fraud" org in history​

The evidence before the Court shows that voting machines are hackable and votes can be changed from one party to another in real time without leaving a trace of evidence " Federal Judge Amy Totenberg , Curling v Raffensperger , Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-2989 -AT . ND Georgia, Atlanta Division November 10, 2023
Curling v. Raffensperger, 403 F. Supp. 3d 1311 | Casetext Search + Citator

'voter fraud fighting org'.

Biden's gaffs have been the fodder for jokes for some 40 years, and this is a typical example.

If you really believe he's admitting to crime on national TV you're dumber than I initially thought.

You're in bozo town. Get thee to a sandbox.

 

[Rumpole]

Incorrect.

The ruling is still BINDING CASE LAW​

The federal judge may enter its order , include findings of fact and conclusions of law and then withhold the ruling pending appeal


Chief Justice Roberts explained in Nken v. Holder,

That is utterly wrong.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Nken v. Holder addressed a narrow question of immigration procedure. Specifically, it considered whether the filing of a petition to review a removal order automatically suspends deportation. The Court held, by a 5-4 majority, that it does not. A stay of removal must meet traditional criteria: likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, and balance of equities. The ruling did not concern, mention, or analyze the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.

The Alien Enemies Act, one of the original Alien and Sedition Acts, remains in force. It grants the President authority to detain or deport nationals of a foreign power with which the United States is at war. Crucially, the statute requires a formal declaration of war by Congress. In the absence of such a declaration, its provisions do not activate. Hence, it has not been employed since the Second World War.

That being said...

The Act applies solely to individuals who are nationals of the enemy state; it does not apply broadly to immigrants or those unlawfully present. It does not require a criminal conviction, but it is not without legal boundaries. Judicial review of actions taken under the Alien Enemies Act has occurred, notably in Ludecke v. Watkins, in which the Supreme Court upheld the President’s wartime authority to detain an enemy alien, but also confirmed that courts retain jurisdiction to consider such cases.

Thus, contrary to your misconception, Nken v. Holder has no bearing on the Alien Enemies Act, does not strip courts of review powers under that act, and the act itself cannot be invoked in the absence of a congressional declaration of war.

 

[Contumacious]

'voter fraud fighting org'.

Biden's gaffs have been the fodder for jokes for some 40 years, and this is a typical example.

If you really believe he's admitting to crime on national TV you're dumber than I initially thought.

You're in bozo town. Get thee to a sandbox.

A "gaff" that 's what it was ? Hummmmmmmmmmmm, ,

Or was it a parapraxis?

How come you never demanded that the Cackle Queen invoke the 25th Amendment ?

 

[Contumacious]

That is utterly wrong.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Nken v. Holder addressed a narrow question of immigration procedure. Specifically, it considered whether the filing of a petition to review a removal order automatically suspends deportation. The Court held, by a 5-4 majority, that it does not. A stay of removal must meet traditional criteria: likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, and balance of equities. The ruling did not concern, mention, or analyze the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.

The Alien Enemies Act, one of the original Alien and Sedition Acts, remains in force. It grants the President authority to detain or deport nationals of a foreign power with which the United States is at war. Crucially, the statute requires a formal declaration of war by Congress. In the absence of such a declaration, its provisions do not activate. Hence, it has not been employed since the Second World War.

That being said...

The Act applies solely to individuals who are nationals of the enemy state; it does not apply broadly to immigrants or those unlawfully present. It does not require a criminal conviction, but it is not without legal boundaries. Judicial review of actions taken under the Alien Enemies Act has occurred, notably in Ludecke v. Watkins, in which the Supreme Court upheld the President’s wartime authority to detain an enemy alien, but also confirmed that courts retain jurisdiction to consider such cases.

Thus, contrary to your misconception, Nken v. Holder has no bearing on the Alien Enemies Act, does not strip courts of review powers under that act, and the act itself cannot be invoked in the absence of a congressional declaration of war.

Yo Dingle Berry , pay attention.


My position is that the District Court has no jurisdiction . If he is TRULY concerned about the immigrants then enter a ruling , stay the same pending appeal.

But at this time he is acting like a politician in black robes who wants to embarrass the President and act like the Commander in CHief.

REMINDER



>>>>>>>>>The District Court is without any judicial authority whatsoever to ascertain the truth of the allegations. <<<<<<<<<<<

 

[DonGlock26]

Pam Bondi — Supreme Court will stop judge Boasberg.

 

[Rumpole]

Yo Dingle Berry , pay attention.


My position is that the District Court has no jurisdiction . If he is TRULY concerned about the immigrants then enter a ruling , stay the same pending appeal.

But at this time he is acting like a politician in black robes who wants to embarrass the President and act like the Commander in CHief.

Ah, you--the contumacious armchair constitutionalist, swinging your gavel of grievance from the comfort of your own ignorance. You declare, with great authority and zero foundation, that “the District Court has no jurisdiction.” But your assertion is not a legal position--it’s a tantrum dressed as jurisprudence. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, district courts have original jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the Constitution and federal law, including immigration cases. That’s not up for debate. It’s the scaffolding of the judicial system you so conveniently ignore when it doesn’t serve your desired outcome.

Then you lurch into your next contradiction, claiming that if the judge “TRULY” cared about immigrants, he would rule--and then immediately stay his own ruling pending appeal. That’s not concern. That’s cowardice. That’s like turning on a life raft’s air pump and yanking out the hose before it inflates. A stay delays the very relief the ruling is meant to provide. In Nken v. Holder, the Supreme Court ruled a stay is not automatic--it’s a discretionary act, requiring a serious legal standard. You don’t get to demand judicial compassion and then insist it be handcuffed for your convenience.

And then, in what can only be described as rhetorical panic, you accuse the judge of playing “Commander in Chief” and trying to “embarrass the President.” No judge is deploying troops or issuing military orders. That title belongs to the President alone under Article II. But what you seem unable--or unwilling--to grasp is that Marbury v. Madison made it the judiciary’s duty to interpret the law and stop the executive from trampling it. When a president overreaches, a judge’s job is to push back, not play footman to his political fortunes.

This whole performance of yours isn’t about law. It’s about loyalty. You want a judiciary that affirms your political idol, not one that checks his abuses. But Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer stands as your rebuke: the Court stopped President Truman from overstepping in the middle of a war. They weren’t trying to “embarrass” him. They were upholding the separation of powers. That’s what grown-up governance looks like.

So no, the judge isn’t a politician in black robes. He’s a constitutional safeguard. And if that wounds your pride or bruises your illusions of presidential infallibility, that’s not judicial misconduct--it’s just your ego bleeding out under the weight of the law

 

[BluesLegend]

Here's the good news, Democrats always OVERREACH and this always BLOWS UP in their stupid faces. They will rue the day.

 

[Rumpole]

A "gaff" that 's what it was ? Hummmmmmmmmmmm, ,

Or was it a parapraxis?

How come you never demanded that the Cackle Queen invoke the 25th Amendment ?

You don't do the 25th over a gaff.

WTFU.

 

[Rumpole]

Pam Bondi — Supreme Court will stop judge Boasberg.

She knows she's wrong. I don't why she's saying this.
The judge absolutely has jurisdiction, numerous rulings prove it. see #174

 

[DonGlock26]

So no, the judge isn’t a politician in black robes. He’s a constitutional safeguard. And if that wounds your pride or bruises your illusions of presidential infallibility, that’s not judicial misconduct--it’s just your ego bleeding out under the weight of the law

This is the judge who oversaw FISA abuse.



"The federal judge who is blocking Trump’s efforts to deport Venezuelan gang members also played a key and controversial role in the Trump-Russia collusion saga as the leader of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Judge James Boasberg, nominated to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by then-President Barack Obama in 2011, is currently engaged in an all-out legal battle with the Trump Justice Department.

But in his role as the head of the FISA Court he made a number of divisive decisions, including a slap on the wrist for a member of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane team, the appointment of officials who had defended the FBI’s actions during the Russiagate saga, the renewal of the FBI’s FISA powers, and more."

Judge Blocking Trump Deportations Played Key Role in Trump-Russia FISA Saga - Tennessee Star

The federal judge who is blocking Trump’s efforts to deport Venezuelan gang members also played a key and controversial role in the Trump-Russia collusion saga as the leader of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

tennesseestar.com

Where were the constitutional safeguards then?

 

[DonGlock26]

She knows she's wrong. I don't why she's saying this.
The judge absolutely has jurisdiction, numerous rulings prove it. see #174

How do you know that she knows she's wrong?

Did the SCOTUS check FDR putting Japanese Americans into concentration camps?

Korematsu v. United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[mamooth]

SInce you are not even faintly familiar with the Constitution you arbitrarily claim that "power grabs" have been attempted .

You're not as dumb as you're pretending to be there, so I'll ignore that phony question which was not offered in good faith.

Tell us, Trump cultists, what high crimes or misdemeanors did the judges commit to justify impeachment? Before you answer, remember that, to non-fascists, "disagreeing with DearLeader" is not a crime.

You can run now, cult boi. Your type always does when challegend to back up their cult talking points.

There's no chance of impeachment working, so we know what this is really about. You thugs are trying to justify violence against judges.

What, you thought it wasn't obvious? Come on.