Trump gets an Deportation Set-back

[Mavideol]

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

[dinsdale]

16 minutes ago, Dan O said:

Might want to check that claim on the judge. 

U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr

[jas007]

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. 

[GroveHillWanderer]

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.

[GroveHillWanderer]

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

[jas007]

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.  

[Dan O]

21 minutes ago, jas007 said:

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. 

I understand exactly what is going on. I posted this.

 

You on the other hand  jumped in claiming you are Perry Mason and know more about the issue when there isn't any more to know yet. Drop the bs about your legal knowledge as it does hold up.  You claim that article 2 supports your claim and it has nothing to do with this issue except in your mind. 

[Peabody]

3 hours ago, jas007 said:

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

Janitorial services don't really count.

[Dan O]

Just now, jas007 said:

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 move. Play a video game.  

No one said its completely settled and I addressed that specifically to you that it will most likely be appealed. Will anything change don't know yet . Go play games somewhere else because it does stand up here

[Dan O]

42 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr

He's a conservative not a liberal or activist and he was appointed by Trump in 2018

[jas007]

2 minutes ago, Dan O said:

I understand exactly what is going on. I posted this.

 

You on the other hand  jumped in claiming you are Perry Mason and know more about the issue when there isn't any more to know yet. Drop the bs about your legal knowledge as it does hold up.  You claim that article 2 supports your claim and it has nothing to do with this issue except in your mind. 

Ok. Think what you want.  There's a foreign policy angle, at least according to Trump, and you'd be hard pressed to say that's a fantasy. Trump is the President.  Remember?  He's trying to do his job.  Or is he not entitled to do just that?  He sees foreign invaders.  He sees alien enemies. And there's a law on the books. 

 

I don't claim to be Perry Mason, and I don't know how this will turn out.  But I'm comfortable in saying this: the US Supreme Court will resolve the issue, and you can bet that they won't obliterate the ability of the US President to conduct foreign policy.  If the court is doing its job, they'll take a step back and look at the big picture.  And the big picture is not "Get Trump."  The big picture will be focused on question of whether a US President can conduct foreign policy, or whether that policy can be neutered any time someone finds a federal judge who has a political agenda. 

 

It's not rocket science, it's common sense.

 

Why not let this run its course?  See if I'm not right.  Maybe I'm naive, but I think the court will do the right thing.  

 

 

 

 

[dinsdale]

15 minutes ago, Dan O said:

He's a conservative not a liberal or activist and he was appointed by Trump in 2018

And Musk, Kennedy and Garbard were Dems. As for 2018 different times mate.

[jas007]

21 minutes ago, Dan O said:

No one said its completely settled and I addressed that specifically to you that it will most likely be appealed. Will anything change don't know yet . Go play games somewhere else because it does stand up here

Cheap shot.  You're responding to a reply I made to someone else.  Try again.

 

I'm not "playing games."  Just trying to shed some light on the situation for the mentally challenged.  "Get Trump."  Really?  is that your mindset?  

 

Leave it alone for now.  And come back later after you realize that "Get trump" is not a winning strategy. The issues are bigger than that. 

 

I can wait. 

[Dan O]

2 hours ago, jas007 said:

Ok. Think what you want.  There's a foreign policy angle, at least according to Trump, and you'd be hard pressed to say that's a fantasy. Trump is the President.  Remember?  He's trying to do his job.  Or is he not entitled to do just that?  He sees foreign invaders.  He sees alien enemies. And there's a law on the books. 

 

I don't claim to be Perry Mason, and I don't know how this will turn out.  But I'm comfortable in saying this: the US Supreme Court will resolve the issue, and you can bet that they won't obliterate the ability of the US President to conduct foreign policy.  If the court is doing its job, they'll take a step back and look at the big picture.  And the big picture is not "Get Trump."  The big picture will be focused on question of whether a US President can conduct foreign policy, or whether that policy can be neutered any time someone finds a federal judge who has a political agenda. 

 

It's not rocket science, it's common sense.

 

Why not let this run its course?  See if I'm not right.  Maybe I'm naive, but I think the court will do the right thing.  

 

 

 

 

If its common sense why do you keep spouting bs about it being foreign policy. He may be president but he's not a king and he answers to the people. He is held in balance by the courts and the constitutuon not what he thinks it says or wants to twist it to be.   

 

The courts are there for a reason and they are doing what they were tasked to do.  Even if you dont like the responses they give to the dumbass approach and blatant disregard for laws Trump is displaying 

[Dan O]

2 hours ago, jas007 said:

Cheap shot.  You're responding to a reply I made to someone else.  Try again.

 

I'm not "playing games."  Just trying to shed some light on the situation for the mentally challenged.  "Get Trump."  Really?  is that your mindset?  

 

Leave it alone for now.  And come back later after you realize that "Get trump" is not a winning strategy. The issues are bigger than that. 

 

I can wait. 

Wait all you want the situation is what it is. You claim to be something your not and its obvious by the replies you make that just your feeble defense of a POS that thinks he can do what he want and ignore laws and protocol that he could use correctly. Go cry your blues to someone that cares. 

[Dan O]

2 hours ago, dinsdale said:

And Musk, Kennedy and Garbard were Dems. As for 2018 different times mate.

They have nothing to do with this issue. Nice try at deflection but no thank you

[jas007]

39 minutes ago, Dan O said:

If its common sense why do you keep spouting bs about it being foreign policy. He may be president but he's not a king and he answers to the people. He is held in balance by the courts and the constitutuon not what he thinks it says or wants to twist it to be.   

 

The courts are there for a reason and they are doing what they were tasked to do.  Even if you dont like the responses they give to the dumbass approach and blatant disregard for laws Trump is displaying 

You really don't get it, do you? He's the President. He was elected by "the people." He's doing his job. It's not a hard concept to understand.  He may be right. He may be wrong.  But he's doing his job. 

 

Yes, there is a constitution. Yes, there are courts. And when this issue is finally adjudicated in the courts, I'm fairly comfortable in stating that the US Supreme Court will allow the duky elected President some leeway in conducting US foreign policy. The alternative would be chaos.  Neuter the US President's ability to conduct foreign policy?  Really? 

 

Is it strictly a matter of foreign policy?  No. But you can't say there are no foreign policy issues. And that's the problem. Where will the court draw the line?  You can bet they'll have a decision and that decision will not be to allow chaos. 

 

In any event, what's your solution?  I have yet to hear that from you, other than some nonsense abbot "the people" and the "constitution."  "The people" spoke when they elected President Trump, and, under the constitution, the Supreme Court will issue a ruling.  Let's see what happens. 

 

Take a step back. Look at the big picture.  Do you think the president should have no say in matters of foreign policy?  Leave it all to any number of federal judges? Imagine the President getting a phone call in the middle of the night about a pressing issue.  What's he supposed to do? Canvas all federal judges? Consult "the people"? Or is he supposed to do something then and there?  

 

Where do you draw the line?  

 

Write us a decision that addresses the issues.  I'll wait. 

 

And always remember, there's more than one way to skin a cat. If the court says the Alien Enemies Act does not apply, do you really think the Trump team won't take a different approach?  

[placeholder]

7 hours ago, jas007 said:

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. 

I'm the one who doesn't understand. You are the party who wrote this:

"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."

In fact, as already pointed out, the issues raised by the Venezuelan deportation have no bearing on the vast majority of illegal aliens. The issue in question concerns the legitmacy of deporting people who were in the US legally and/or deporting people not back to their countries but to a foreign prison where the US has no jurisdiction 

Nothing at all to do with most illegal aliens.