By claiming asylum. Too, the 1967 Protocol to the Convention is the document to which the US is signatory, which encompasses and extends the 1952 Convention..
The Supreme Court’s Late-Night Rebuke to Trump Is Extraordinary in More Ways Than One
- Thread starter EvilEyeFleegle
- Start date
M14 Shooter
The Light of Truth
kyzr
Diamond Member
OK, had to do a little research....
We may be conflating two painkillers under "drug death totals"?
I'm not sure how fentanyl (since 2020?) combined death totals from OXY since 2020?
2023 had 105,000 deaths, I'm assuming all fentanlyl?
Purdue Pharma and owners to pay $7.4 billion in settlement of lawsuits over the toll of OxyContin
Members of the Sackler family who own OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma, and the company itself, agreed to pay up to $7.4 billion to settle lawsuits over the toll of the powerful prescription painkiller.
apnews.com
Purdue Pharma and owners to pay $7.4 billion in settlement of lawsuits over the toll of OxyContin
The new settlement could bring to a close a chapter in a long legal saga over the toll of an opioid crisis that some experts assert began after OxyContin hit the market in 1996. Since then, opioids have been linked to hundreds of thousands of deaths in the U.S. The deadliest stretch has been since 2020, when illicit fentanyl has been found as a factor in more than 70,000 deaths annually.Is OxyContin Still Prescribed: Current Usage and Risks Explained
www.centerstoneresearch.org
M14 Shooter
The Light of Truth
pknopp
Diamond Member
- Jul 22, 2019
- 82,206
- 33,318
- 2,250
OK, had to do a little research....
We may be conflating two painkillers under "drug death totals"?
I'm not sure how fentanyl (since 2020?) combined death totals from OXY since 2020?
2023 had 105,000 deaths, I'm assuming all fentanlyl?
Purdue Pharma and owners to pay $7.4 billion in settlement of lawsuits over the toll of OxyContin
Members of the Sackler family who own OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma, and the company itself, agreed to pay up to $7.4 billion to settle lawsuits over the toll of the powerful prescription painkiller.Purdue Pharma and owners to pay $7.4 billion in settlement of lawsuits over the toll of OxyContin
The new settlement could bring to a close a chapter in a long legal saga over the toll of an opioid crisis that some experts assert began after OxyContin hit the market in 1996. Since then, opioids have been linked to hundreds of thousands of deaths in the U.S. The deadliest stretch has been since 2020, when illicit fentanyl has been found as a factor in more than 70,000 deaths annually.
So used properly Oxy is OK. When the Sacklers were running the drug cartel with hookers and other perks (see the movie?) the participating doctors got hammered.Is OxyContin Still Prescribed: Current Usage and Risks Explained
And the Sacklers are living the good life.
The refugee gets to apply for asylum in the territory of the contracting state.
I know MAGAts don't use the Constitution except to wipe their arses so I bolded the relevant bit for you.
Article VI
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
M14 Shooter
The Light of Truth
M14 Shooter
The Light of Truth
BackAgain
Neutronium Member & truth speaker #StopBrandon
As usual, you mistake a temporary order with a SCOTUS “rebuke.”Well..this is bit unusual--the SCOTUS has acted with unprecedented speed to halt the illegal deportations to El Salvador.
What was going on behind the scenes remains somewhat unknown, but apparently Justice Alito attempted an end run around the court....and was slapped down.
The Supreme Court’s Late-Night Rebuke to Trump Is Extraordinary in More Ways Than One
The court didn't even wait to let Alito file his dissent.slate.com
Shortly before 1 a.m. on Saturday, the Supreme Court issued an emergency order halting the Trump administration’s reported efforts to fly Venezuelan migrants to an El Salvador prison before they could challenge their deportation. The court’s late-night intervention is an extraordinary and highly unusual rebuke to the government, one that may well mark a turning point in the majority’s approach to this administration. For months, SCOTUS has given the government every benefit of the doubt, accepting the Justice Department’s dubious assertions and awarding Trump immense deference. On Saturday, however, a majority of justices signaled that they no longer trust the administration to comply with the law, including the court’s own rulings. If that is indeed the case, we are likely careening toward a head-on conflict between the president and the court, with foundational principles of constitutional democracy hanging in the balance.
SCOTUS’s emergency order in A.A.R.P. v. Trump arose out of the government’s unlawful efforts to ship Venezuelan migrants to a Salvadoran prison by invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. On Thursday, lawyers for these individuals told a federal court that the government was preparing to summarily deport them to El Salvador, where they would be indefinitely confined at a notorious detention center. A federal judge in the Southern District of Texas had already blocked their removal—but the government sought to evade this order by busing the migrants into the Northern District of Texas, where the restraining order would not apply. It then gave these migrants “notices,” in English only, declaring that they would be deported immediately, without stating that they could contest their deportations in court. (Officials refused to give these notices, or any other information, to the migrants’ lawyers.) The government intended to fly them out of the country within 24 hours, according to court filings.
The ACLU then begged the Supreme Court for help. And the court obliged. The majority directed the government “not to remove” any of the individuals seeking relief “until further order of this court.” As a result, the government was unable to deport the migrants to El Salvador—as it appeared about to do—and they remain in U.S. custody. Only Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas noted their dissents.
There are three remarkable aspects of the court’s decision. First, it acted with startling speed—so quickly, in fact, that it published the order before Alito could finish writing his dissent; he was forced to note only that a “statement” would “follow.” It is a major breach of protocol for the Supreme Court to publish an order or opinion before a dissenting justice finishes writing their opinion, one that reflects the profound urgency of the situation. Relatedly, awkward phrasing in court’s order may imply that Alito—who first received the plaintiffs’ request—failed to refer it to the full court, as is custom, compelling the other justices to rip the case away from him. No matter what, exactly, happened behind the scenes, it’s clear that a majority would not let Alito hold up speedy action. It also acted before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit had a chance to step in, and before the Department of Justice had an opportunity to respond to the plaintiffs. These highly abnormal moves also reveal a desire to act fast.
Second, it is plain as day that the Supreme Court simply did not trust the Trump administration’s claims that it would not deport migrants over the weekend without due process.
Finally, and perhaps most obviously, it’s critical that only Thomas and Alito noted their dissents. When the court takes emergency action, justices don’t have to note their votes, but they usually do; we can probably assume that this order was 7–2. That would mean that Chief Justice John Roberts—along Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—joined this rebuke to the Trump administration. Until now, all of these justices have, to varying degrees, treated the president with kid gloves, handing him a series of narrow wins on procedural grounds that avoided direct collision between the branches. That accommodation came to an abrupt stop on Saturday
Yea, they did nothing for four years while Biden let 10-20 million illegals skip “due process” to get into the US.Well..this is bit unusual--the SCOTUS has acted with unprecedented speed to halt the illegal deportations to El Salvador.
What was going on behind the scenes remains somewhat unknown, but apparently Justice Alito attempted an end run around the court....and was slapped down.
The Supreme Court’s Late-Night Rebuke to Trump Is Extraordinary in More Ways Than One
The court didn't even wait to let Alito file his dissent.
Shortly before 1 a.m. on Saturday, the Supreme Court issued an emergency order halting the Trump administration’s reported efforts to fly Venezuelan migrants to an El Salvador prison before they could challenge their deportation. The court’s late-night intervention is an extraordinary and highly unusual rebuke to the government, one that may well mark a turning point in the majority’s approach to this administration. For months, SCOTUS has given the government every benefit of the doubt, accepting the Justice Department’s dubious assertions and awarding Trump immense deference. On Saturday, however, a majority of justices signaled that they no longer trust the administration to comply with the law, including the court’s own rulings. If that is indeed the case, we are likely careening toward a head-on conflict between the president and the court, with foundational principles of constitutional democracy hanging in the balance.
SCOTUS’s emergency order in A.A.R.P. v. Trump arose out of the government’s unlawful efforts to ship Venezuelan migrants to a Salvadoran prison by invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. On Thursday, lawyers for these individuals told a federal court that the government was preparing to summarily deport them to El Salvador, where they would be indefinitely confined at a notorious detention center. A federal judge in the Southern District of Texas had already blocked their removal—but the government sought to evade this order by busing the migrants into the Northern District of Texas, where the restraining order would not apply. It then gave these migrants “notices,” in English only, declaring that they would be deported immediately, without stating that they could contest their deportations in court. (Officials refused to give these notices, or any other information, to the migrants’ lawyers.) The government intended to fly them out of the country within 24 hours, according to court filings.
The ACLU then begged the Supreme Court for help. And the court obliged. The majority directed the government “not to remove” any of the individuals seeking relief “until further order of this court.” As a result, the government was unable to deport the migrants to El Salvador—as it appeared about to do—and they remain in U.S. custody. Only Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas noted their dissents.
There are three remarkable aspects of the court’s decision. First, it acted with startling speed—so quickly, in fact, that it published the order before Alito could finish writing his dissent; he was forced to note only that a “statement” would “follow.” It is a major breach of protocol for the Supreme Court to publish an order or opinion before a dissenting justice finishes writing their opinion, one that reflects the profound urgency of the situation. Relatedly, awkward phrasing in court’s order may imply that Alito—who first received the plaintiffs’ request—failed to refer it to the full court, as is custom, compelling the other justices to rip the case away from him. No matter what, exactly, happened behind the scenes, it’s clear that a majority would not let Alito hold up speedy action. It also acted before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit had a chance to step in, and before the Department of Justice had an opportunity to respond to the plaintiffs. These highly abnormal moves also reveal a desire to act fast.
Second, it is plain as day that the Supreme Court simply did not trust the Trump administration’s claims that it would not deport migrants over the weekend without due process.
Finally, and perhaps most obviously, it’s critical that only Thomas and Alito noted their dissents. When the court takes emergency action, justices don’t have to note their votes, but they usually do; we can probably assume that this order was 7–2. That would mean that Chief Justice John Roberts—along Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—joined this rebuke to the Trump administration. Until now, all of these justices have, to varying degrees, treated the president with kid gloves, handing him a series of narrow wins on procedural grounds that avoided direct collision between the branches. That accommodation came to an abrupt stop on Saturday
Now they care about “due process” to ship millions of illegals out? They can go pound sand. If the last Executive Branch had the power to skip due process to import, President Trump doesn’t need due process to deport them.
M14 Shooter
The Light of Truth
They don't give a hoot in hell about due process - they want to delay Trump in making good on his campaign promise.
Vrenn
Platinum Member
- Feb 24, 2021
- 8,655
- 4,565
- 938
When you MAGAts start staying within the confines of the US Constitution then I might give you a listen. Just not right now, cupcake.
- Thread starter
- #118
SCOTUS literally caused them to turn the busses around on their way to the airport. They felt it was important enough to react with unprecedented speed to prevent Trump's illegal attempt to ignore earlier rulings.
They did so with only two dissenting Justices.
Yeah....rebuked.
Godboy
Diamond Member
- Dec 29, 2008
- 39,801
- 22,842
- 1,905
Nah, just build a detention camp at Marthas Vinyard. Apparently thats what gets them moving quickly.
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 153,038
- 78,246
- 2,645
Trump is a huge disappointment for not charging Mayorkas & Company with sedition and treason
Similar threads
New Topics
-
The video of Israel slaughtering its own citizens on Oct 7 is trending again on X- Started by Street Juice
- Replies: 1
-
Watch and react to polls or commit to the long-term mission?- Started by BrokeLoser
- Replies: 1
-
Jack Posobiec confronts Jamie Raskin, gets ASSAULTED by Democrat union workers at Union Station- Started by DonGlock26
- Replies: 17
-
