15 minutes ago, mogandave said:

But not the same legal process. 

 

All of the sudden, the left cares about the law, too funny. 

Wrong again! There may be different outcomes but it is the same process.

31 minutes ago, mogandave said:

Yes, that most people no longer trust the lying mainstream media is one of the main reasons Trump was able to beat that weak,  lying POC Harris. 

 

I don't want to cause anybody's head to explode but mistrust of so called "main stream media" was sowed by Trump and all kinds of easily mislead people watching outrageous fake news posted on Facebook and all the other crappy social media. Anybody with a minimum of common sense can understand what is just outrageous BS and actual journalism. Hint: Fox News and News Max is, for the most part, not actual journalism. I don't even pay attention to USA news any longer. Better to watch International New's Outlets and see consistency between them to get some kind of idea about what is really happening.

What is actually very disturbing is Trumps attempts to control access by certain news organization to regular press briefings etc. He obviously prefers the ones that are "friendly". Don't critizize fragile Donnie and bruise his Ego. This is unique to Trump and very disturbing. People should really pay attention to this. Why would Trump want to control the media? .. think for yourself.

39 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Mr. Trump has so far almost exclusively attempted to do the will-of-the-people via executive order.

Per Wikipedia:
Like both legislative statutes and the regulations promulgated by government agencies, executive orders are subject to judicial review and may be overturned if the orders lack support by statute or the Constitution.

 

The people of the United States elected a President. Not a dictator.

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

The people of the United States elected a President. Not a dictator.

They elected a criminal and his gang of thieves has moved to DC.

1 hour ago, jas007 said:

Let me get this straight:  you seriously believe that if and when the courts finally settle the matter, there will have been no discussion of US foreign policy and the president's power under Article II?  That the issue will not be addressed? 

 

It will be an issue. I promise you that.

 

Normally, I don't come back and tell people "I told you so."  I don't waste my time. But for you, I may well make an exception.

 I will say this:  it is possible that the court narrowly addresses the issue of the applicability of the Alien Enemies Act with respect to Trump's deportation efforts.  If so, they won't reach the issue of his conduct of US foreign policy.  So yes, the court could do that, but then what?  That sounds to me like the easy way out of a bad situation. 

 

Normal judicial restraint, to be sure, but I think they would want to settle the issue for the sake of the country. The political system is broken.  Leaving the matter alone as a "political question" would be too bad for the country.  

22 hours ago, jas007 said:

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

I have read the posts and I beieve you are lying

6 minutes ago, sharot724 said:

I have read the posts and I beieve you are lying

If gambling wasn't illegal here, I'd like to make some money on a bet about that. 

 

Anyway, I'm pretty sure I know what schools I've attended, what degrees I have, and where I've worked.  

 

If I had to do any of it over again, I'd probably figure out something else to do, but I can't go back.  

56 minutes ago, jas007 said:

If gambling wasn't illegal here, I'd like to make some money on a bet about that. 

 

Anyway, I'm pretty sure I know what schools I've attended, what degrees I have, and where I've worked.  

 

If I had to do any of it over again, I'd probably figure out something else to do, but I can't go back.  

How did you pass the BAR without understanding due process for prisoners? The constitutional violation occurred before any one was deported.

2 hours ago, cjinchiangrai said:

Wrong again! There may be different outcomes but it is the same process.

Don't forget the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRAIRA), signed by Bill Clinton.  A streamlined legal process for some people, to be sure. 

3 minutes ago, ThreeCardMonte said:

Another misinformed leftist.

 

Even the Tesla Torchers?  Or are they exempt from prosecution?

They should be charged with arson. Not misinformed at all. A judge said Trump violated the constitution. A Trump judge from Texas.

On 5/2/2025 at 2:08 AM, frank83628 said:

So you support lillegal gang members in the US?

 

Cute. It's all about respecting the law. The Trump administration tried to apply a law outside of what it stated. They can appeal the ruling. Respecting the rule of law does not mean that someone  is supporting gangs.

 

On 5/2/2025 at 2:29 AM, 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. 

 

US foreign policy? This is a domestic issue, not a foreign policy issue.  Funny that you mention shopping for a judge and jurisdiction, because that is exactly what the Trump administration is doing. When it arrests and detains people, it immediately sends them to a detention center in another jurisdiction like Louisiana where the  detainee cannot access legal counsel or family. Why are  people  being arrested in NY, VT being sent to  LA or TX? There are  immigration detention centers in the states where people are arrested.

4 minutes ago, jas007 said:

Don't forget the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRAIRA), signed by Bill Clinton.  A streamlined legal process for some people, to be sure. 

But still a process, upheld by the courts, that offers a dialog about what is being alleged.

8 minutes ago, cjinchiangrai said:

But still a process, upheld by the courts, that offers a dialog about what is being alleged.

Just a few posts ago, you were claiming that people always received the same process:

 

"There may be different outcomes but it is the same process."

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, ThreeCardMonte said:

“A Trump judge from Texas “

 

Another RINO.  Just like Liz Cheney.  Free to interpret as they see fit.

Trump appointed a RINO? Only the best people.

 

Why not give the Tesla Torchers a free pass like you do illegal alien killers, rapists, human smugglers and fentanyl smugglers. The illegals need to be tried and processed per the law. Deporting them to third country prisons is illegal.

 

Can you quote where the constitution claims illegal aliens are protected by the constitution?

 

1 minute ago, jas007 said:

Just a few posts ago, you were claiming that people always received the same process:

 

"There may be different outcomes but it is the same process."

RIF

15 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

US foreign policy? This is a domestic issue, not a foreign policy issue.

The Trump team seems to think it can be a foreign policy issue.  

 

We'll see how the court eventually addresses it all.   Remember, the Supreme Court allowed Trump to proceed under the Alien Exclusion Act, while recognizing a due process right.  Deportations under the Act could continue with procedural safeguards.  So, when the issue comes up in the cases currently on appeal,  the court may well buy the argument that the president has some latitude in conducting foreign policy. 

9 minutes ago, jas007 said:

Just a few posts ago, you were claiming that people always received the same process:

 

"There may be different outcomes but it is the same process."

Do you need a flow chart to understand how different results come prom a single process? I thought you were educated.

Just now, cjinchiangrai said:

Do you need a flow chart to understand how different results come prom a single process? I thought you were educated.

Go ahead.  Make us a flowchart.

 

Did you ever hear the term "variable due process"?   Or do you want to twist logic and contend that all due process is the same because it's called due process?  

36 minutes ago, jas007 said:

Don't forget the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRAIRA), signed by Bill Clinton.  A streamlined legal process for some people, to be sure. 

Correct me if I'm wrong but that Act was created following normal protocol not as an executive order or just deciding in a whim, right?

3 minutes ago, Dan O said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but that Act was created following normal protocol not as an executive order or just deciding in a whim, right?

An actual law, not an executive order.  Of course, so was the Alien Exclusion Act. 

34 minutes ago, jas007 said:

Go ahead.  Make us a flowchart.

 

Did you ever hear the term "variable due process"?   Or do you want to twist logic and contend that all due process is the same because it's called due process?  

It is all the same with various decision points.

16 minutes ago, cjinchiangrai said:

It is all the same with various decision points.

Not exactly.  Due process may mean "whatever process is due" under the circumstances, but sometimes, it's not just that a decision is made at a certain point, but that it's all you get under that particular setup.  For example, under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996, hearing rights may be limited, or, a person's formal appeal process may be curtailed.   In other words, the process stops, not because a decision has been made, but because that's all the process available. 

1 minute ago, jas007 said:

Not exactly.  Due process may mean "whatever process is due" under the circumstances, but sometimes, it's not just that a decision is made at a certain point, but that it's all you get under that particular setup.  For example, under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996, hearing rights may be limited, or, a person's formal appeal process may be curtailed.   In other words, the process stops, not because a decision has been made, but because that's all the process available. 

And multiple processes can be layered into a larger process.

4 minutes ago, ThreeCardMonte said:

You’ve proven nothing except stating your opinion.

And you have not read the judgements of the district and Supreme Court. Stop hiding behind deliberate ignorance.

5 hours ago, mogandave said:

But not the same legal process. 

 

All of the sudden, the left cares about the law, too funny. 

 

Yes, the same legal process. As the Supreme Court said, in one of their recent rulings on the Abrego Garcia case:

 

Quote

“It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law” 

 

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

2 hours ago, ThreeCardMonte said:

Another misinformed leftist.

 

Even the Tesla Torchers?  Or are they exempt from prosecution?

You don't appear to understand what "due process" means. Due process doesn't mean being immune from prosecution, it means that a person's legal rights are respected and that the government must follow a prescribed process when taking actions that could affect their rights, such as (for instance) when prosecuting them for a crime.

3 minutes ago, ThreeCardMonte said:

He got his!  That’s why he’s back home in El Salvador.

 

 

Not charged, not adjudicated, no hearing, no due process. The video is a misdirection.

6 minutes ago, ThreeCardMonte said:

According to you.  I get it.

 

Not for the vast majority that voted Trump in office for this specific purpose, amongst others.

What vast majority would that be? Trump didn't even win a majority of the votes, much less a vast one.

10 minutes ago, ThreeCardMonte said:

Oh, I completely understand.  For U.S. Citizens.

 

No go for illegal aliens.

 

What confuses you?  Illegal or alien?

It's a pretty good bet that the Supreme Court feels differently. They took the unusual step of intervening to stop the deportation of those Venezuelans to El Salvador.

32 minutes ago, ThreeCardMonte said:

Oh, I completely understand.  For U.S. Citizens.

 

No go for illegal aliens.

 

What confuses you?  Illegal or alien?

You're the one who's confused. As the extract from the Supreme Court ruling I quoted earlier states, even illegal aliens must be afforded due process.

 

In case that wasn't clear enough for you, the following law journal article also states it, quite unequivocally.

 

https://www.lawshelf.com/blogentryview/the-due-process-rights-of-illegal-entrants-to-the-united-states

 

Quote

Two Supreme Court cases dating back to the late nineteenth century have established that non-citizens, even those who are in the United States illegally, are also guaranteed due process of the law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

(Emphasis mine).