This judge hasn't been paying attention.

[Mac-7]

You don’t get to elect someone to violate the Constitution

He isnt violating the Constitution

Most of the obstruction from these unelected demo judges will be overturned

And when the pipsqueak demigods (aka lower court judges) do manage to find an acorn trump will comply with supreme court decisions

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Most of the obstruction from these unelected demo judges will be overturned

.

It's already starting to happen.

Drip.....drip.....drip...............FLOOD.

It will be delightful to watch.


.

 

[Mac-7]

.

It's already starting to happen.

Drip.....drip.....drip...............FLOOD.

It will be delightful to watch.


.

When they are overturned the bench they sit on should be abolished by congress - putting them out of a job

 

[struth]

Did they send him to Laos? Try again.

Laos wouldn’t take him. Third country deportations are used when that happens

 

[struth]

You don’t get to elect someone to violate the Constitution

What only Dems get to do that.

 

[Mac-7]

Laos wouldn’t take him. Third country deportations are used when that happens

Laos should be punished till it does take them back

“No” is not an acceptable answer

 

[Nobody911]

Judge pleads with Trump administration for “reason over rhetoric” in deportation case​

A federal judge said the Trump administration is falsely blaming him for a crisis of its own making: the rushed deportation of seven men to South Sudan in violation of court orders and constitutional due process.

U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy said Monday the hurried deportations were an overt violation of orders he put in place weeks ago, which required the administration to provide “meaningful” notice before deporting people to countries where they could face torture or death. Even after the violation, Murphy said he exercised restraint by not forcing the administration to bring the seven convicted violent criminals back to the United States.

“It continues to be the court’s hope that reason can get the better of rhetoric,” Murphy wrote in his withering Monday night order rejecting the Trump administration’s demand that he reconsider or delay the effect of his ruling. “The orders put in place here are sensible and conservative.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/27/judge-trump-south-sudan-deportation-case-00369946

Asking the regime for reason is like asking trump to admit he really did molest the 26 women who have accused him of various kinds of sexual assault. It ain't going to happen.

Do you think Trump views himself as the embodiment of the US Constitution? It seems the due process is meaningless to the US president Trump! lol.

Due process is a fundamental legal principle enshrined in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. It guarantees that individuals cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without fair legal procedures. Due process serves to protect citizens from arbitrary and unjust governmental actions.

Both President Donald Trump and U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy have articulated sharply contrasting explanations for their positions on the rushed deportations of seven men to South Sudan( a third-world country )in 2025.

Judge Brian Murphy’s position:

Murphy emphasized that the Trump administration violated his court orders by rushing the deportations without providing the individuals a "meaningful" opportunity to raise fears of persecution or torture in South Sudan, a country with ongoing conflict and human rights concerns. He characterized the administration’s actions as a clear breach of due process and constitutional protections 1.

He explained that while the deportees have criminal histories, this does not negate their right to due process under the law. Murphy insisted that the rule of law must be upheld regardless of the individuals’ backgrounds 1.

Murphy expressed frustration with the administration’s attempts to blame the judiciary for the crisis it created. He urged that reason should prevail over political rhetoric and rejected the administration’s mischaracterizations of his rulings. For example, he clarified that housing the deportees in a U.S. military facility in Djibouti was done at the administration’s request, not a court mandate 1.

The judge’s rulings sought to balance enforcement of immigration laws with constitutional safeguards, requiring that individuals be given adequate notice and opportunity to contest deportation to dangerous third countries 1.

Donald Trump’s position:

Trump publicly criticized Judge Murphy and other federal judges who have ruled against the administration’s expedited deportation policies. He accused them of being uninformed and obstructive, blaming the judiciary for impeding the deportation of what he called "most violent" individuals 1.

Trump and his senior advisors framed the deportees as "monsters" and argued that the administration was fulfilling a strong electoral mandate to remove dangerous criminals from the country without delay or extended legal process 15.

The administration portrayed the judiciary’s insistence on due process as a form of judicial overreach or "judicial coup," claiming courts were interfering with national security and immigration enforcement prerogatives 15.

Trump’s team sought to circumvent judicial restrictions by appealing to the Supreme Court and pushing for broader executive authority to deport migrants rapidly, including to third countries like South Sudan, even if due process was limited or absent 1.

Summary:

Judge Murphy defends his rulings as necessary to uphold constitutional due process rights and prevent unlawful deportations to dangerous countries, emphasizing the importance of reasoned judicial oversight.

Trump views the judiciary’s interventions as obstacles to enforcing immigration laws and protecting public safety, advocating for swift deportations of individuals he deems dangerous, even if that means limiting procedural protections.

This fundamental clash reflects the broader conflict between executive immigration enforcement ambitions under Trump and judicial efforts to enforce legal and constitutional safeguards for migrants facing deportation 15.

sources:
1. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/27/judge-trump-south-sudan-deportation-case-00369946
2. Federal judge questions Trump's authority to deport migrants without due process
3. https://www.axios.com/2025/03/16/trump-white-house-defy-judge-deport-venezuelans
4. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/05/09/trump-deportations-abrego-garcia-immigration/
5. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/10/donald-trump-immigration-deportations-due-process-00339319
6. Judge in Alien Enemies Act case chides DOJ lawyer over refusal to answer key questions about deportations
7. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/17/us/politics/trump-el-salvador-deportations-immigrants.html
8. https://www.npr.org/2025/03/24/nx-s1-5338794/appeals-alien-enemies-act-trump

 

[Nostra]

Maybe you're not getting a response because no one has made the claim that Trump has to inform some pissant district judge about his actions. He doesn't have to inform them of jackshit. And the thing is, if none of the deportees, or other interested parties, had filed a grievance with the court, we wouldn't be talking about any of this.

Try reading the OP, stupid. The judge claims the President needs to provide him with “meaningful notice” before deporting them.

You don’t have to be ignorant every day, stupid

 

[Rawley]

Laos wouldn’t take him. Third country deportations are used when that happens

A bit curious what bullshit Winston will come up with next.

 

[Rawley]

Try reading the OP, stupid. The judge claims the President needs to provide him with “meaningful notice” before deporting them.

You don’t have to be ignorant every day, stupid

Seems when the immigration judge issues an order of deportation, you are pretty much on notice that you are going to be deported.

 

[80zephyr]

Even the executive branch has to follow the law.

Who's version?

 

[Lesh]

No dumb ass the executive enforces laws passed by Congress

And courts rule on their legality

 

[struth]

And courts rule on their legality

Correct they don’t enforce the law

 

[Lesh]

Correct they don’t enforce the law

Neither does Congress

And in Trump’s Admon neither does the executive

 

[Winston]

He isnt violating the Constitution

Most of the obstruction from these unelected demo judges will be overturned

And when the pipsqueak demigods (aka lower court judges) do manage to find an acorn trump will comply with supreme court decisions

Trump will comply with SCOTUS decisions?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a931_2c83.pdf

Try again.

 

[struth]

Neither does Congress

And in Trump’s Admon neither does the executive

Correct! You are learning, they make law

Haha yes the trump admin is enforcing the law. You just don’t like it cause yoj are running out of illegally to exploit

 

[airplanemechanic]

Yes, our Constitution does give rights to criminals
Something we like to call the Bill of Rights

Yea, for AMERICANS. Not Illegal aliens.

They have one right, the right to remain silent, anything they say can and will be held against them if their illegal asses ever get to see a courtroom. They have a right to be deported, if they give up their right to be deported, they can be thrown out on their asses.

 

[struth]

Trump will comply with SCOTUS decisions?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a931_2c83.pdf

Try again.

Um you provide a link to a court order vacating the district court ruling? They trump was asking for the court to do.

Do you actually read your links before posting?

 

[Lesh]

Correct! You are learning, they make law

Haha yes the trump admin is enforcing the law. You just don’t like it cause yoj are running out of illegally to exploit

You seem to be missing the fact that SCOTUS defines the law and rules on it’s legality

If the executive fails to enforce the law it is in violation and THAT is determined by the Court

 

[struth]

You seem to be missing the fact that SCOTUS defines the law and rules on it’s legality

If the executive fails to enforce the law it is in violation and THAT is determined by the Court

No I get that when there are case in controversy that the judicial branch hears the case and says what is the law and what isn’t

Never said otherwise

The executive branch of govts role is to enforce the law and congress job is to make law