The question I'd like to put out for discussion is, has the response to the violations of law always been part.....

The court says this country doesn't operate on guilty without your day in court.

Sadly it does too often but on occasion we see our values get upheld in the courts.
Sadly it doesn’t operate on that concept more often. The idea of innocence is a farce and always has been. The American Legal (not Justice) System is a dark, sick joke that harms the citizenry every day by allowing croton roam free.
 
......of the plan or did the pushback catch the admin off guard?

A federal judge on Saturday ordered the Trump administration to cease use of an obscure wartime law to deport Venezuelans without a hearing, saying that any planes that had departed the United States with immigrants under the law needed to return.

As of early Sunday morning, it was unclear whether any such planes had departed or returned.

On Saturday, the administration published an executive order invoking the law, the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, to target Venezuelan gang members in the United States.

But shortly after the announcement, James E. Boasberg, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., said he would issue a temporary order blocking the government from deporting any immigrants under the law.


Put another way, when Russ Vought sat down to write the P 2025 playbook, the one trump knows nothing about ;), was it his desire to see virtually every part of its enactment challenged in court? Did Pam Bondi know what was coming when she incredulously answered a question during her confirmation testimony about how she would handle trump asking her to use the DoJ for illegal acts?

Does the board think the necessity of funneling multiple cases questioning the authority trump is asserting to his friendly SC was eagerly anticipated or an unexpected obstacle?

Is the rule of law being intentionally broken so it can be reshaped to match trump's desires or did they think the fictitious mandate Don has claimed would be enough to steamroll the Constitution?

BTW, Judge Boasberg was originally nominated to be a judge by Shrub.
Of course we all realized demafasict would jump to the aid of drug cartels and challenge their deportation in court

You guys are terrorist
 
The court says this country doesn't operate on guilty without your day in court.

Sadly it does too often but on occasion we see our values get upheld in the courts.
They broke the law when they came here illegally. They have not rights under our law.
 
......of the plan or did the pushback catch the admin off guard?

A federal judge on Saturday ordered the Trump administration to cease use of an obscure wartime law to deport Venezuelans without a hearing, saying that any planes that had departed the United States with immigrants under the law needed to return.

As of early Sunday morning, it was unclear whether any such planes had departed or returned.

On Saturday, the administration published an executive order invoking the law, the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, to target Venezuelan gang members in the United States.

But shortly after the announcement, James E. Boasberg, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., said he would issue a temporary order blocking the government from deporting any immigrants under the law.


Put another way, when Russ Vought sat down to write the P 2025 playbook, the one trump knows nothing about ;), was it his desire to see virtually every part of its enactment challenged in court? Did Pam Bondi know what was coming when she incredulously answered a question during her confirmation testimony about how she would handle trump asking her to use the DoJ for illegal acts?

Does the board think the necessity of funneling multiple cases questioning the authority trump is asserting to his friendly SC was eagerly anticipated or an unexpected obstacle?

Is the rule of law being intentionally broken so it can be reshaped to match trump's desires or did they think the fictitious mandate Don has claimed would be enough to steamroll the Constitution?

BTW, Judge Boasberg was originally nominated to be a judge by Shrub.
Offguard? Trump has had eight years of democrat lawfare and resistance, even as Biden did the very same things Trump did. Democrats even refused to honor Supreme Court decisions.
 
Does any country in the world treat illegal entrants into their borders the way the left expects the U.S. to (and the U.S. did under Biden)?

In what country does their border enforcement agency take an illegal alien to court and say, "This man ran across the border, carrying a backpack of fentenyl and pulling along two children with no proof of any relation to him. He was caught handing the backpack and the children over to a known gang member, also an illegal," only to have the judge say,

"And . . . ?"
 
Offguard? Trump has had eight years of democrat lawfare and resistance, even as Biden did the very same things Trump did. Democrats even refused to honor Supreme Court decisions.
Right?

Of all the fantasies about Trump that the left teases itself with, the idea that Trump was not expecting their latest shenanigans is the silliest.

Trump has been a step ahead of them at nearly every turn. The few times they outsmarted him, like the use of ballot harvestors in 2020, he has learned from and taken steps to prevent it in the future.
 
Right?

Of all the fantasies about Trump that the left teases itself with, the idea that Trump was not expecting their latest shenanigans is the silliest.

Trump has been a step ahead of them at nearly every turn. The few times they outsmarted him, like the use of ballot harvestors in 2020, he has learned from and taken steps to prevent it in the future.
The left will lie about anything. I particularly love it when they claim republicans are in disarray and fragmented, at the very same time the democrat party is disintegrating.
 
President George W. Bush was a huge supporter of Kamala and Sleepy Joe. A real Kamalamaniac.
I think it was less a matter of being a supporter of Dem's and more a case of trump being the nominee, leaving Dubya no choice in who to support. In any event, Dubya governed as a traditional Repub conservative, so my comment about the judge's politics stands.
 

'That's a lie': Judges around US calling out Trump admin for underwhelming defense​

WASHINGTON – Sham documents. Cherry-picked data. Flimsy logic.

Those were the recent condemnations of three federal judges in courtrooms sprawled across the country as they separately critiqued Trump administration explanations for some of the president’s expansive efforts to remake the federal government.

Judges tasked with the initial review of the more than 100 legal challenges to those efforts are not just considering the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s actions. Some are also calling out the administration when they think government lawyers have been playing fast and loose with the facts.

Their criticism could become an issue if any of the challenges reach the Supreme Court. During the first Trump administration, the court blocked the Commerce Department from including a question about citizenship on the 2020 census after finding the agency hadn’t been forthcoming about its motivation.


trumpists don't seem very prepared if they thought there'd be pushback on legal grounds.
 
Trump needs to ignore immigration laws and judges like Biden and Mayorkas did.
Just deport them all until the USSC tells them to stop.
 
......of the plan or did the pushback catch the admin off guard?

A federal judge on Saturday ordered the Trump administration to cease use of an obscure wartime law to deport Venezuelans without a hearing, saying that any planes that had departed the United States with immigrants under the law needed to return.

As of early Sunday morning, it was unclear whether any such planes had departed or returned.

On Saturday, the administration published an executive order invoking the law, the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, to target Venezuelan gang members in the United States.

But shortly after the announcement, James E. Boasberg, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., said he would issue a temporary order blocking the government from deporting any immigrants under the law.


Put another way, when Russ Vought sat down to write the P 2025 playbook, the one trump knows nothing about ;), was it his desire to see virtually every part of its enactment challenged in court? Did Pam Bondi know what was coming when she incredulously answered a question during her confirmation testimony about how she would handle trump asking her to use the DoJ for illegal acts?

Does the board think the necessity of funneling multiple cases questioning the authority trump is asserting to his friendly SC was eagerly anticipated or an unexpected obstacle?

Is the rule of law being intentionally broken so it can be reshaped to match trump's desires or did they think the fictitious mandate Don has claimed would be enough to steamroll the Constitution?

BTW, Judge Boasberg was originally nominated to be a judge by Shrub.

Why would you want to stall the process of removing gang members?
With the back log of immigration cases the dems have created, it could the several years to deport these people.

Why are you against this?
 
The court says this country doesn't operate on guilty without your day in court.

Sadly it does too often but on occasion we see our values get upheld in the courts.
The law stopped being relevant when you guys trampled all over our immigration laws by allowing tens of millions of people to flood across our border.

It's like you all want to break all the laws to import them, then expect everyone else to follow the laws to remove them. You'll import 10,000 per day, but the courts are so back logged, it could take years to remove each of them. The result is, theyll never get to a deportation hearing. At some point the dems will pass a blanket citizenship for all of them, and now you have over 30 million new democrat voters
 
Last edited:
......of the plan or did the pushback catch the admin off guard?

A federal judge on Saturday ordered the Trump administration to cease use of an obscure wartime law to deport Venezuelans without a hearing, saying that any planes that had departed the United States with immigrants under the law needed to return.

As of early Sunday morning, it was unclear whether any such planes had departed or returned.

On Saturday, the administration published an executive order invoking the law, the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, to target Venezuelan gang members in the United States.

But shortly after the announcement, James E. Boasberg, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., said he would issue a temporary order blocking the government from deporting any immigrants under the law.


Put another way, when Russ Vought sat down to write the P 2025 playbook, the one trump knows nothing about ;), was it his desire to see virtually every part of its enactment challenged in court? Did Pam Bondi know what was coming when she incredulously answered a question during her confirmation testimony about how she would handle trump asking her to use the DoJ for illegal acts?

Does the board think the necessity of funneling multiple cases questioning the authority trump is asserting to his friendly SC was eagerly anticipated or an unexpected obstacle?

Is the rule of law being intentionally broken so it can be reshaped to match trump's desires or did they think the fictitious mandate Don has claimed would be enough to steamroll the Constitution?

BTW, Judge Boasberg was originally nominated to be a judge by Shrub.
We dIdn't expect you loons to oppose the deportation of illegal criminal gangs. Oh well.
 
Trump thinks he should be able to do whatever he wants with no one ever questioning him.

His "advisors" try and find some sort of justification for his actions but rarely are they actually applicable.

Trump has went his entire life not having to deal with "no".
So you don't think the President has the power to deport criminal illegal aliens? Really?
 
The law stopped being relevant when you guys trampled all over our immigration laws by allowing tens of millions of people to flood across our border.

I did that? Dang, that's something you would think I would remember.
 

'That's a lie': Judges around US calling out Trump admin for underwhelming defense​

WASHINGTON – Sham documents. Cherry-picked data. Flimsy logic.

Those were the recent condemnations of three federal judges in courtrooms sprawled across the country as they separately critiqued Trump administration explanations for some of the president’s expansive efforts to remake the federal government.

Judges tasked with the initial review of the more than 100 legal challenges to those efforts are not just considering the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s actions. Some are also calling out the administration when they think government lawyers have been playing fast and loose with the facts.

Their criticism could become an issue if any of the challenges reach the Supreme Court. During the first Trump administration, the court blocked the Commerce Department from including a question about citizenship on the 2020 census after finding the agency hadn’t been forthcoming about its motivation.


trumpists don't seem very prepared if they thought there'd be pushback on legal grounds.
Now, judges are caught up in accusing Trump of "lying" when they disagree with something he said, or don't get hyperbole or humor? Sad day for the judiciary. It's very unprofessional when "journalists" do that, but extremely unprofessional when Judges do it.

In this case, it is neither hyperbole or humor, it is lawyers making an argument. If this is the new standard, that judges say "that's a lie" when they disagree with an argument an attorney makes on behalf of his or her client, the courts may become the same kind of Jerry Springer circus, the media's talking heads shows have become.

If you want to support this post of yours, show me the proof that the fired employees were not fired for incompetence.
 
Now, judges are caught up in accusing Trump of "lying" when they disagree with something he said, or don't get hyperbole or humor? Sad day for the judiciary. It's very unprofessional when "journalists" do that, but extremely unprofessional when Judges do it.

In this case, it is neither hyperbole or humor, it is lawyers making an argument. If this is the new standard, that judges say "that's a lie" when they disagree with an argument an attorney makes on behalf of his or her client, the courts may become the same kind of Jerry Springer circus, the media's talking heads shows have become.

If you want to support this post of yours, show me the proof that the fired employees were not fired for incompetence.

Trump gets accused of lying because he lies.
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom