TN State Police Say Abrego Garcia Was Stopped Transporting 7 Illegals in Van from Texas to MD, All Released on Orders from Biden's FBI

[struth]

I can't 1 plus 1 for you at this late in your life.

I am not asking you to do math, I am simply asking you to quote the ruling you keep claiming exist.

 

[pknopp]

I am not asking you to do math, I am simply asking you to quote the ruling you keep claiming exist.

The Supreme Court upheld the lower court ruling which was concerning due process. Why does this need explained to you?

Upheld it 9-0.

 

[struth]

You’re either stupid or lying. (Probably both)

The High Court said all deportees had a right to due process.. Garcia included

And as part of that due process, time to mount a defense

You seem to be confusing a couple of cases, they said aliens deported under the Enemies Alien Act, had to have time to file a petition for HC.

But, you are right, other aliens, all have a right to due process, Garcia included, and he did in 2019. What they ruled in his case, was that the order of deportation, that said he couldn't be deported to El Salvador due to credible threats from a rival gang wasn't followed, and thus the Admin had to faciliate his return, and act under that Order. Garcia had time to mount a defense, he had a full hearing in 2019. He admitted he was illegal and lost his asylum claim.

 

[struth]

He appealed that order of deportation and won being granted protection from deportation to the country he was deported to.

There has been no due process since then

No, he didn't appeal it, that was the orginial order, you are right, he was orderd deported to any other country.

What other due process do you think he is entitled to?

 

[Lesh]

No, he didn't appeal it, that was the orginial order, you are right, he was orderd deported to any other country.

What other due process do you think he is entitled to?

So now you are stupidly lying

Called that one

 

[struth]

The Supreme Court upheld the lower court ruling which was concerning due process. Why does this need explained to you?

Upheld it 9-0.

No they didn't....haha

"The application is granted in part and denied in part, subject to the direction of this order. Due to the administrative stay issued by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, the deadline imposed by the District Court has now passed. To that extent, the Government’s emergency application is effectively granted in part and the deadline in the challenged order is no longer effective. The rest of the District Court’s order remains in effect but requires clarification on remand. The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority." https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf

Please quote anything to do with Due Process rights being violated.

 

[struth]

So now you are stupidly lying

Called that one

Wait, what am I lying about? I literally agreed with you.

I then asked a simple question....why can't you answer it?

 

[pknopp]

No they didn't....haha

"The application is granted in part and denied in part, subject to the direction of this order. Due to the administrative stay issued by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, the deadline imposed by the District Court has now passed. To that extent, the Government’s emergency application is effectively granted in part and the deadline in the challenged order is no longer effective. The rest of the District Court’s order remains in effect but requires clarification on remand. The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority." https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf

Please quote anything to do with Due Process rights being violated.

You don't even understand what you read.

"Improperly sent to El Salvador".

Why was it improper?

 

[Lesh]

No they didn't....haha

"The application is granted in part and denied in part, subject to the direction of this order. Due to the administrative stay issued by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, the deadline imposed by the District Court has now passed. To that extent, the Government’s emergency application is effectively granted in part and the deadline in the challenged order is no longer effective. The rest of the District Court’s order remains in effect but requires clarification on remand. The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority." https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf

Please quote anything to do with Due Process rights being violated.

Hey dipshit, a lower court ordered that the Garcia issue be resolved within days and THAT is all the SCOTUS overturned

The timeline.

 

[LeftofLeft]

No, there is no interpretation. You simply bought the lies but all the same, most argue that hundreds were denied due process.

It never happened.

How many posts and you have yet to back this up with independent, validated facts? Prove what I have sited are lies. Your interpretation is just an opinion which, as you know, is just like an asshole.

 

[pknopp]

Hey dipshit, a lower court ordered that the Garcia issue be resolved within days and THAT is all the SCOTUS overturned

The timeline.

Only because the time had already passed.

 

[Lesh]

Only because the time had already passed.

Regardless…that was what the ruling he posted was about

 

[pknopp]

Regardless…that was what the ruling he posted was about

Right, I was just noting the Supreme Court wasn't going to rule that Trump had to go back in time and rectify the ruling which makes it not really all that important in the overall ruling.

 

[Lesh]

Right, I was just noting the Supreme Court wasn't going to rule that Trump had to go back in time and rectify the ruling which makes it not really all that important in the overall ruling.

And I was pointing out that the idiot poster had no idea what the ruling he was crowing about actually meant

 

[Nostra]

It was his boss's car.



He ignore a Court Order....that is breaking the Law.

So he smuggled humans in his “boss’s” car.

 

[pknopp]

And I was pointing out that the idiot poster had no idea what the ruling he was crowing about actually meant

No doubt about that.

 

[Nostra]

Right, I was just noting the Supreme Court wasn't going to rule that Trump had to go back in time and rectify the ruling which makes it not really all that important in the overall ruling.

You thought it was necessary to point out the Supreme Court wouldn’t rule Trump had to time travel?

Your are a legal genius.

 

[pknopp]

You thought it was necessary to point out the Supreme Court wouldn’t rule Trump had to time travel?

Your are a legal genius.

I'm sure Trump would brag he could.

 

[Nostra]

Clearly, there is a sense of entitlement to have their opinions held as fact with no supporting evidence while holding others accountable to provide supporting evidence.

Their entire argument against the multiple police reports of him beating his wife, smuggling humans, and court rulings that he is MS-13 is “Nuh-uh”.

 

[Nostra]

I'm sure Trump would brag he could.

Well, you are a moron so that isn’t surprising.