Trump gets an Deportation Set-back

[Dan O]

Seems trump got a set back in his deportation plans. Extraction from the Miami Herald article below:

 

 

A federal judge in Texas ruled on Thursday that the Trump administration cannot use an 18th Century law — meant to be deployed against members of a hostile foreign nation during a declared war or military invasion — as a basis to deport undocumented immigrants in the U.S. who supposedly belong to a violent Venezuelan gang known as Tren de Aragua.

 

The judge’s ruling permanently prohibits the Department of Homeland Security from removing immigrants detained under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act in the Southern District of Texas, which includes Houston. His decision represents a major setback for the Trump administration’s effort to deport suspected members of the Venezuelan gang under the archaic law to a notorious mega prison in El Salvador.

U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. found that the “plain ordinary meaning” of the act’s language, like “invasion” and “predatory incursion” by “military forces,” does not jibe with President Donald Trump’s claims about the activities of Tren de Aragua in a March 14 proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act. Trump declared that gang members must be booted out of the country because they were “conducting irregular warfare” against the United States at the direction of Venezuela’s leader, Nicolas Maduro.

[frank83628]

So you support lillegal gang members in the US?

[Dan O]

Just now, frank83628 said:

So you support lillegal gang members in the US?

See this is the problem with you cultist and why you are so sad and mislead. You try to twist everything posted about trump you don't like as a claim that the poster encourages and approves of whatever the issue is. WRONG

[frank83628]

3 minutes ago, Dan O said:

See this is the problem with you cultist and why you are so sad and mislead. You try to twist everything posted about trump you don't like as a claim that the poster encourages and approves of whatever the issue is. WRONG

So why post this with such excitement?

You posted it because you like the fact these judges are tryin to stop Trump from doing what he said he'd do, did you post here or says a single word when Obama deported 3million? Many without due process... as you can see below

 

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/18rwd9adkP/

[jas007]

23 minutes ago, Dan O said:

Seems trump got a set back in his deportation plans. Extraction from the Miami Herald article below:

 

 

A federal judge in Texas ruled on Thursday that the Trump administration cannot use an 18th Century law — meant to be deployed against members of a hostile foreign nation during a declared war or military invasion — as a basis to deport undocumented immigrants in the U.S. who supposedly belong to a violent Venezuelan gang known as Tren de Aragua.

 

The judge’s ruling permanently prohibits the Department of Homeland Security from removing immigrants detained under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act in the Southern District of Texas, which includes Houston. His decision represents a major setback for the Trump administration’s effort to deport suspected members of the Venezuelan gang under the archaic law to a notorious mega prison in El Salvador.

U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. found that the “plain ordinary meaning” of the act’s language, like “invasion” and “predatory incursion” by “military forces,” does not jibe with President Donald Trump’s claims about the activities of Tren de Aragua in a March 14 proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act. Trump declared that gang members must be booted out of the country because they were “conducting irregular warfare” against the United States at the direction of Venezuela’s leader, Nicolas Maduro.

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. 

[BLMFem]

3 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

So why post this with such excitement?

You posted it because you like the fact these judges are tryin to stop Trump from doing what he said he'd do, did you post here or says a single word when Obama deported 3million? Many without due process... as you can see below

 

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/18rwd9adkP/

Dmitri, can you please stop posting drivel from Facebook? It's not a recognized source of hard facts, just like RT.

[Dan O]

3 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

So why post this with such excitement?

You posted it because you like the fact these judges are tryin to stop Trump from doing what he said he'd do, did you post here or says a single word when Obama deported 3million? Many without due process... as you can see below

 

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/18rwd9adkP/

Not sure about the "such excitment". It seems your easily stimulated not me. I just posted a article. 

 

Judges are doing their job that they were put on the bunch to do. They follow the law and precedent. Trump is trying to do anything he can by a backdoor route as he feels even if he loses nothing happens to him since he's president.  He can accomplish the same goals by following the normal legal path. It will be slower but he needs to realise he is not a king nor does he hold the power over the country that his idols putin, Kim, Xi.

[Dan O]

9 minutes 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. 

Only thing stupid is your analysis..

 

What you will find out is this issue isn't completely foreign policy and may not be at all. The Judiciary is an equal power to the president and has the constitution to uphold. 

[frank83628]

27 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

Dmitri, can you please stop posting drivel from Facebook? It's not a recognized source of hard facts, just like RT.

The content doesn't change though does it, Obama still deported millions and you said nothing

[MicroB]

29 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

So you support lillegal gang members in the US?

 

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?

[Dan O]

4 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

The content doesn't change those does it, Obama still deported millions and you said nothing

How do you know what anyone said in the past about any presidents policies. That just illustrate your failure to think and have coherent debate with anyone. 

 

The topic is Trump not anyone else so stay on topic or go back to the basement

[placeholder]

12 minutes 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. 

 

12 minutes 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. 

Right. They went shopping for a leftist judge. One that was appointed by Trump..

[jas007]

Just now, placeholder said:

 

Right. They went shopping for a leftist judge. One that was appointed by Trump..

And that's beside the point, right?  The issue is not who appointed the judge.  The issue is whether a low level federal judge can negate the power of the US President to conduct foreign policy.  And, as I've said, such a policy would be stupid on its face.  No matter what a President does, there will always be people who disagree with him.  Why should those people be able to simply file a law suit to stop the President? The net result would be a paralysis of foreign policy.  Nobody running the show.  

[Dan O]

2 minutes ago, jas007 said:

And that's beside the point, right?  The issue is not who appointed the judge.  The issue is whether a low level federal judge can negate the power of the US President to conduct foreign policy.  And, as I've said, such a policy would be stupid on its face.  No matter what a President does, there will always be people who disagree with him.  Why should those people be able to simply file a law suit to stop the President? The net result would be a paralysis of foreign policy.  Nobody running the show.  

Seems the low level judge can. Sure it will get an appeal by trumps lawyers but if the language is as clear as it appears the appeals may be hard pressed to decide otherwise. 

 

As for why "those people can file a lawsuit" well its because they feel he's broken the law in some fashion, phrase it any way you want. Thats why we have a legal system, think about it

[TheAppletons]

9 minutes ago, Dan O said:

Seems the low level judge can. Sure it will get an appeal by trumps lawyers but if the language is as clear as it appears the appeals may be hard pressed to decide otherwise. 

 

As for why "those people can file a lawsuit" well its because they feel he's broken the law in some fashion, phrase it any way you want. Thats why we have a legal system, think about it

 

  When one realizes that Trump's Project 2025 playbook outlines the destruction of institutions (like the independent judiciary) in order to perpetuate the consolidation of authoritarian power, then you realize why the administration wants to kneecap/impeach any judge who disagrees with their lawlessness.

[bkk6060]

56 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

So you support lillegal gang members in the US?

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.

[jas007]

15 minutes ago, Dan O said:

Only thing stupid is your analysis..

 

What you will find out is this issue isn't completely foreign policy and may not be at all. The Judiciary is an equal power to the president and has the constitution to uphold. 

Sure, so long as you want to pretend Article II of the US Constitution doesn't exist.  

 

This isn't simply a separation of powers issue.  We all know how that works, or we should.  Marbury v. Madison.  Perhaps you don't? 

 

You imply the judiciary is an "equal power."  Yes and no.  By design, the power is there for the courts to rule on the law.  But don't forget where that power came from. That power is derived from the US Constitution, which also, in the case of foreign policy, gives the President to power to conduct such foreign policy, within certain limits.  

 

So, the issue is not as simple as you seem to think it is. 

 

You can't have it both ways.  You seem to like the judicial review established by the constitutional set-up and recognized by the Supreme Court, any yet when the Constitution gives the president a power, somehow that power no longer matters?  That it's a matter for any federal judge to rule upon?  

 

Nice try, but no cigar. 

 

In my opinion, the Supreme Court will have no choice but to determine that the president does indeed have the authority to conduct US foreign policy, with the advice and consent of the senate as set out in Article II.  Were it otherwise, the US might as well forget about having a foreign policy.  You think that's a good idea? 

 

Remember, some day the shoe may be on the other foot and you'll be screaming to high heaven for the President to take hold of the situation and do something. 

 

 

[Dan O]

3 minutes 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.

The only "bleeding hearts" I've seen on this forum are the trump cultists that refuse to believe facts about what how Trump is conducting  himself.  He doesn't need to backdoor everything or burn everything to the ground, just follow a normal legal path and go after your goals with a little planning

[bubblegum]

24 minutes ago, jas007 said:

Why should those people be able to simply file a law suit to stop the President?

Because that's the law?

[jas007]

Just now, bubblegum said:

Because that's the law?

Until the Supreme Court puts a stop to the nonsense.  

[TheAppletons]

Just now, bubblegum said:

Because that's the law?

 

  There you go again, being sensible.  

[bubblegum]

Just now, TheAppletons said:

 

  There you go again, being sensible.  

Sorry, my bad.

[Dan O]

6 minutes ago, jas007 said:

Sure, so long as you want to pretend Article II of the US Constitution doesn't exist.  

 

This isn't simply a separation of powers issue.  We all know how that works, or we should.  Marbury v. Madison.  Perhaps you don't? 

 

You imply the judiciary is an "equal power."  Yes and no.  By design, the power is there for the courts to rule on the law.  But don't forget where that power came from. That power is derived from the US Constitution, which also, in the case of foreign policy, gives the President to power to conduct such foreign policy, within certain limits.  

 

So, the issue is not as simple as you seem to think it is. 

 

You can't have it both ways.  You seem to like the judicial review established by the constitutional set-up and recognized by the Supreme Court, any yet when the Constitution gives the president a power, somehow that power no longer matters?  That it's a matter for any federal judge to rule upon?  

 

Nice try, but no cigar. 

 

In my opinion, the Supreme Court will have no choice but to determine that the president does indeed have the authority to conduct US foreign policy, with the advice and consent of the senate as set out in Article II.  Were it otherwise, the US might as well forget about having a foreign policy.  You think that's a good idea? 

 

Remember, some day the shoe may be on the other foot and you'll be screaming to high heaven for the President to take hold of the situation and do something. 

 

 

Thats the most moronic explanation and so off base it doesnt warrant any further rebuttal. Go try it on a different thread. Oh and renew your Google law degree. Who classified this as foreign policy? 

[jas007]

Just now, Dan O said:

Thats the most moronic explanation and so off base it does warrant any further rebuttal. Go try it on a different thread. Oh and renew your Google law degree. Who classified this as foreign policy? 

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

[impulse]

Trump didn't get a setback.  The people in that district of Texas did.

 

Except, of course, the TdA members.  They're pleased.

 

[BLMFem]

8 minutes ago, jas007 said:

Until the Supreme Court puts a stop to the nonsense.  

There ya' go. Tomorrow's headlines;

 

Supreme Court puts a stop to the law.

[BLMFem]

7 minutes ago, jas007 said:

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

I'm a professor of law. I was an AAG.

[jas007]

1 minute ago, BLMFem said:

There ya' go. Tomorrow's headlines;

 

Supreme Court puts a stop to the law.

The Supreme Court is the law.  Fixed it for you. 

[BLMFem]

Just now, jas007 said:

The Supreme Court is the law.  Fixed it for you. 

You sure you have a law degree? Where did you get it - Trump U?

[Dan O]

16 minutes ago, jas007 said:

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

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?