11 minutes ago, Dan O said:

I doubt that and if so you're not very knowledgeable about the different levels of the judiciary system and what is allowed to be filed and the weight of the judges rulings

 

did that degree come from Shopee or Lazada?

Doubt all you want, I don't really care.  And, I'm well aware of how the system works.  I know all about the different levels of the judiciary and how it works.  That's pretty basic stuff. 

 

I also know that eventually, the Supreme Court will take the case and make a decision. And if they do take the case, I seriously doubt they will decide that the President of the United States doesn't have a lot of leeway in conducting US foreign policy. 

 

Could they decide that the Alien Enemies Act doesn't apply in this contest?  Perhaps.  But then what?  Throw the country into turmoil? 

 

Fifteen million illegal aliens in the USA and each and every one of those people is entitled to a due process hearing with full appeal rights?  Imagine how silly that is. 

 

I think you must mean well, but you really don't understand the issues.  

 

 

1 hour ago, MicroB said:

 

What do you care, as a Russian? Sort out your own illegal immigration, what with those North Koreans taking the jobs of Russians. I bet none of them have visas.

 

And please define a "legal gang member"; is this a uniquely Russian concept, that in your case you call the President?

HA!  Identified as Russian in this thread... he certainly is a Putin supporter, @MicroB.  Nailed it.

11 minutes ago, jas007 said:

Doubt all you want, I don't really care.  And, I'm well aware of how the system works.  I know all about the different levels of the judiciary and how it works.  That's pretty basic stuff. 

 

I also know that eventually, the Supreme Court will take the case and make a decision. And if they do take the case, I seriously doubt they will decide that the President of the United States doesn't have a lot of leeway in conducting US foreign policy. 

 

Could they decide that the Alien Enemies Act doesn't apply in this contest?  Perhaps.  But then what?  Throw the country into turmoil? 

 

Fifteen million illegal aliens in the USA and each and every one of those people is entitled to a due process hearing with full appeal rights?  Imagine how silly that is. 

 

I think you must mean well, but you really don't understand the issues.  

 

 

You apparent didn't read the article you quoted or don't understand it. Thats a start.

 

The country is already in turmoil and confusion on why Trump would.need to use the Alien Act to deport known illegals. If they are illegal and have the due process afforded by the court system then its legal and a done deal. To play legal twister when its not necessary speak to trumps power grab and project 2025 game plan

 

As for this ruling, if it gets kicked up on appeal an over ruled then its a legal act, if not then its illegal act. Not sure why your panties are in a bunch if your so confident then time will tell. Until then, Trump hit a set back on deportation under his plan. 

1 minute ago, ThreeCardMonte said:

It’s called LAWFARE 2.0

 

The Democrats LAWFARE  1.0 wasn’t successful so now they’ve put the burden on crooked liberal judges to do the dirty work for them.

You need to put on your mister wizard hat if you categorize this a lawfare considering the directions Trump has issue to the doj to go after fbi agents, lawyers and law firms that may have worked on his cases in the past

 

Kinda hard to claim liberal judges when Trump appointed some of them that have ruled against him. You really need to brush up on facts before you weigh in

2 minutes ago, Dan O said:

You apparent didn't read the article you quoted or don't understand it. Thats a start.

 

The country is already in turmoil and confusion on why Trump would.need to use the Alien Act to deport known illegals. If they are illegal and have the due process afforded by the court system then its legal and a done deal. To play legal twister when its not necessary speak to trumps power grab and project 2025 game plan

 

As for this ruling, if it gets kicked up on appeal an over ruled then its a legal act, if not then its illegal act. Not sure why your panties are in a bunch if your so confident then time will tell. Until then, Trump hit a set back on deportation under his plan. 

I wasn't aware that I quoted any article about anything. 

 

As for what's a "done deal"?  It's a done deal until it isn't.  You realize that, right? 

 

As for my "panties" being in a bunch?  Actually, I don't spend much time thinking about any of this.  It's something I can't control, and for me personally, it doesn't much matter.  I'm just making casual observations. 

 

What I do know is that the Supreme Court, if they take the case, will likely be thinking about the bigger picture. Something more than "Get Trump."  

 

Does the President have a duty to conduct foreign policy?  What kind of latitude does he have?  Or can he be second guessed by federal judges, wherever they may be? 

 

My guess:  the President gets a pass.  He's doing his job.  On balance, that's the constitutional setup. 

1 hour ago, jas007 said:

This is hardly news.  And the issue is far from settled.  The litigation continues. 

 

What you may come to find out is that lower level federal judges will not be allowed to stop the President of the USA from conducting US foreign policy.  Were it otherwise, imagine what that would mean.  Don't like a Presidential policy? No problem, just shop for a judge and file a lawsuit.  You win, the President loses.  That's not going to fly with the Supreme Court.  It's stupid on its face. 

Maybe you buy that it's a question of foreign policy but the judge clearly didn't. If they're abroad it's foreign policy, if not, not.

A troll post with false and misleading allegations toward Trump has been removed:

• Do not post defamatory, offensive, or discriminatory content.

16 minutes ago, ThreeCardMonte said:

It’s called LAWFARE 2.0

 

The Democrats LAWFARE  1.0 wasn’t successful so now they’ve put the burden on crooked liberal judges to do the dirty work for them.

Trump appointed judge in Texas. How liberal can you get!

1 hour ago, jas007 said:

I have a law degree.  I've worked for the Justice Department.  And you? 

Pam Bondie?

9 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Maybe you buy that it's a question of foreign policy but the judge clearly didn't. If they're abroad it's foreign policy, if not, not.

I understand, that will be the argument.  But in Trump's mind and in reality, it can be considered to have a foreign policy connection.  Millions of military age men, all invaded the country.  Mostly men. Not women and children seeking legitimate asylum.  And so Trump sees it as a foreign policy issue with real foreign enemies. Maybe there's no  official "war" and no official foreign enemies, but in Trump's mind, it's a de facto war.  

 

Will the court finally decide that Trump is out of line and that it's all simply a domestic imigration issue and not a matter of foreign policy?  I don't think so.  It may be a little of both, but on balance, I think Trump gets a pass. 

 

17 minutes ago, jas007 said:

I understand, that will be the argument.  But in Trump's mind and in reality, it can be considered to have a foreign policy connection.  Millions of military age men, all invaded the country.  Mostly men. Not women and children seeking legitimate asylum.  And so Trump sees it as a foreign policy issue with real foreign enemies. Maybe there's no  official "war" and no official foreign enemies, but in Trump's mind, it's a de facto war.  

 

Will the court finally decide that Trump is out of line and that it's all simply a domestic imigration issue and not a matter of foreign policy?  I don't think so.  It may be a little of both, but on balance, I think Trump gets a pass. 

Being a foreigner makes you an enemy if you are a military aged male? They invaded themnthe united states? Because crossing a border constitutes invasion? Or is itbBecause they occupy vegetable fields? And have taken control of supply lines because they are delivering meals? Trump invoked this act which is meant to be used during wartime. I think it's dubious that judges will agree that the US is at war.

2 hours ago, bkk6060 said:

A lot do.  Bleeding hearts save the gangs.  Until, a gang rapes or kills a family member then they want then all out. Sick hypocrites.

Gang members and rapists need a day in court too, it says so in the constitution.

10 minutes ago, placeholder said:

 

Being a foreigner makes you an enemy if you are a military aged male? They invaded themnthe united states? Because crossing a border constitutes invasion? Or is itbBecause they occupy vegetable fields? And have taken control of supply lines because they are delivering meals? Trump invoked this act which is meant to be used during wartime. I think it's dubious that judges will agree that the US is at war.

Once again, Trump is the President and he seems to think so.  And it's Trump that has the constitutional duty to conduct foreign policy.  So, what's the outcome?  

 

"Sorry Trump, these pekoe are just picking vegetables or delivering meals."  "You no longer have a say in foreign policy matters."  

 

I don't tho that's the outcome. Like it or not , the issue is not clear cut.   It may be a domestic issue, but it's hard to deny  that there's not a foreign policy element. 

 

I think the court will take a step back, consider the big picture, and conclude that Trump has acted within the scope of his constitutional authority.  He's the President.  

6 minutes ago, ThreeCardMonte said:

Guess you forgot about Biden’s DOJ going after parents going to school meetings and labeling them as domestic terrorist because they were against drag queens in classrooms and males in women’s sports.

 

 

false:

Posts mischaracterize school board organization’s letter to Biden

he National School Boards Association is asking the Biden administration to label parents who protest school policies domestic terrorists.

AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. The organization — the NSBA, for short — is not asking Biden to label parents who protest at school board meetings as terrorists. The NSBA asked the administration to do an interagency investigation of threats of violence against school board members and said the threats “could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes.” 

https://archive.ph/yTJwR#selection-783.8-789.371

 

The week after the National School Boards Association sent its letter to Biden, Garland issued a memo to the FBI and federal prosecutors. The October memo decried “a disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers and staff,” said the Department of Justice would work to identify such threats “and prosecute them when appropriate,” and directed the FBI and prosecutors to convene meetings with various leaders around the country to “facilitate the discussion of strategies for addressing threats” against education personnel.

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/04/26/politics/fact-check-mccarthy-garland-parents-terrorists-school-board/index.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com

 

 

1 minute ago, ThreeCardMonte said:

Not false.

 

Check some unbiased sources.

Put up or...

11 minutes ago, jas007 said:

Once again, Trump is the President and he seems to think so.  And it's Trump that has the constitutional duty to conduct foreign policy.  So, what's the outcome?  

 

"Sorry Trump, these pekoe are just picking vegetables or delivering meals."  "You no longer have a say in foreign policy matters."  

 

I don't tho that's the outcome. Like it or not , the issue is not clear cut.   It may be a domestic issue, but it's hard to deny  that there's not a foreign policy element. 

 

I think the court will take a step back, consider the big picture, and conclude that Trump has acted within the scope of his constitutional authority.  He's the President.  

And when those 3 leftists on the Supreme Court appointed by Trump  and Roberts as well, joined in a decision to  issue an emergency stay to interfere with foreign policy by stopping  the Feds from deporting those Venezuelans to El Salvador, did that jibe with your expectations as well?

2 minutes ago, ThreeCardMonte said:

The buck stops at AG Garland.

 

 

Usually I don't look at videos because I'm reasonably literate. Still this one was short. And I doubt you listened to it because even the reporter conceded that the Justice Dept hadn't called the parents domestic terrorists.

35 minutes ago, ThreeCardMonte said:

U.S citizens yes.   Illegal aliens no. 
 

They fall under the Expedited Removal process.

 

Not to be confused with Deportation hearings.

It does not say that, The court just reaffirmed that everyone gets due process.

47 minutes ago, ThreeCardMonte said:

Guess you forgot about Biden’s DOJ going after parents going to school meetings and labeling them as domestic terrorist because they were against drag queens in classrooms and males in women’s sports.

 

How convenient.

This thread is about trump and his issue in court and not about what any other president in either party did. Nice try at gaslighting the topic 

45 minutes ago, ThreeCardMonte said:

be more specific 

 

The New Mexico judge harboring illegal alien criminals and the Milwaukee judge who let the illegal out of her courtroom were not Trump appointed.

 

Neither was Boardhead or whatever his name was that wanted to bring back the ms-13 illegal alien gang banger back.

Off topic again. Try to keep up or stop posting on this thread and start your own with a different topic

An activist district court judge. Something tells me this determination is going to be challenged so those of you with the woke virus shouldn't be celebrating just yet.

2 hours ago, jas007 said:

Doubt all you want, I don't really care.  And, I'm well aware of how the system works.  I know all about the different levels of the judiciary and how it works.  That's pretty basic stuff. 

 

I also know that eventually, the Supreme Court will take the case and make a decision. And if they do take the case, I seriously doubt they will decide that the President of the United States doesn't have a lot of leeway in conducting US foreign policy. 

 

Could they decide that the Alien Enemies Act doesn't apply in this contest?  Perhaps.  But then what?  Throw the country into turmoil? 

 

Fifteen million illegal aliens in the USA and each and every one of those people is entitled to a due process hearing with full appeal rights?  Imagine how silly that is. 

 

I think you must mean well, but you really don't understand the issues.  

 

 

Actually, it's you who clearly doesn't understand the issues. This is not about deportations say of Mexicans or Guatemalans back to their home country, It's about violating the law protecting certain immigrants who are legally and about the right to send immigrants not back to their country but to a foreign country  and life imprisonment under brutal conditions. That does not amount to 15 million or anything like it.

1 hour ago, jas007 said:

I wasn't aware that I quoted any article about anything. 

 

As for what's a "done deal"?  It's a done deal until it isn't.  You realize that, right? 

 

As for my "panties" being in a bunch?  Actually, I don't spend much time thinking about any of this.  It's something I can't control, and for me personally, it doesn't much matter.  I'm just making casual observations. 

 

What I do know is that the Supreme Court, if they take the case, will likely be thinking about the bigger picture. Something more than "Get Trump."  

 

Does the President have a duty to conduct foreign policy?  What kind of latitude does he have?  Or can he be second guessed by federal judges, wherever they may be? 

 

My guess:  the President gets a pass.  He's doing his job.  On balance, that's the constitutional setup. 

You quoted multiple time I should read article 2 of the constitution as I didn't understand it. Well I think you are the one that clearly didn't understand  the article your repeatedly told me to read. Try again as your position arguement has no standing

8 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

An activist district court judge. Something tells me this determination is going to be challenged so those of you with the woke virus shouldn't be celebrating just yet.

Might want to check that claim on the judge. 

3 hours ago, jas007 said:

Until the Supreme Court puts a stop to the nonsense.  

did you mean the "biased" Supreme Court with the corrupted judges receiving gifts ??? I thought so

16 minutes ago, Dan O said:

Might want to check that claim on the judge. 

U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

And when those 3 leftists on the Supreme Court appointed by Trump  and Roberts as well, joined in a decision to  issue an emergency stay to interfere with foreign policy by stopping  the Feds from deporting those Venezuelans to El Salvador, did that jibe with your expectations as well?

Off the top of my head, my guess is that you don't understand the nature of a temporary injunction or why such an order would be issued.  

 

And yes, what the court did was not out of line with what anyone would expect, including me.   Go do your homework and come back when you understand why that is so. 

 

You keep getting in over your head on topics you don't really understand. 

4 hours ago, frank83628 said:

So you support lillegal gang members in the US?

Who is that directed at - the judge? I doubt if he reads this forum.

4 hours ago, jas007 said:

This is hardly news.  And the issue is far from settled.  The litigation continues. 

 

What you may come to find out is that lower level federal judges will not be allowed to stop the President of the USA from conducting US foreign policy.  Were it otherwise, imagine what that would mean.  Don't like a Presidential policy? No problem, just shop for a judge and file a lawsuit.  You win, the President loses.  That's not going to fly with the Supreme Court.  It's stupid on its face. 

This ruling doesn't say the President cannot conduct foreign policy. It says that the President does not get to interpret Congressional statutes and decide what they mean - that's the job of the courts.

 

The judge was very clear about this in his ruling.

 

Quote

"Allowing the President to unilaterally define the conditions when he may invoke the AEA, and then summarily declare that those conditions exist, would remove all limitations to the Executive Branch's authority under the AEA, and would strip the courts of their traditional role of interpreting Congressional statutes to determine whether a government official has exceeded the statute's scope. The law does not support such a position."

 

https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-blocks-alien-enemies-act-deport-venezuelans-texas/story?id=121364022

6 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

This ruling doesn't say the President cannot conduct foreign policy. It says that the President does not get to interpret Congressional statutes and decide what they mean - that's the job of the courts.

 

The judge was very clear about this in his ruling.

 

 

https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-blocks-alien-enemies-act-deport-venezuelans-texas/story?id=121364022

As I said, the matter is not settled.  What part of that do you not understand?  I'm sure the ruling says whatever it says.  So what?  That's not the last word.   

 

People who do not understand how the judicial system functions should probably go do something else.  Watch a movie. Play a video game.