- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: A few interesting details on the SCOTUS rule from yesterday in scotusblog.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:04 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:04 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
No he just rejects the reality
Here is the reality and a 4th grader could decipher this but SCOTUS cannot.
1798 law that gives the president the power to detain or remove citizens of an enemy nation without a hearing or any other review by a court
2
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:05 am to loogaroo
SCOTUS has lost legitimacy with this ruling.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:06 am to CDawson
quote:
1798 law that gives the president the power to detain or remove citizens of an enemy nation
Only in 3 specific instances. Not just "because"
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:06 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
SCOTUS has lost legitimacy with this ruling.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:08 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
No he just rejects the reality of legal systems and the processes needed for a system of laws to work.
1) 808 is supposedly a female.
2) 86 SFP (Whatever that means)
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:09 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Only in 3 specific instances. Not just "because"
Well then meeting the criteria should be the focus. Not all this fluff SCOTUS is doing. It’s obvious they don’t want the heat on this.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:12 am to loogaroo
quote:
Finally, the justices stressed that they were not addressing whether the detainees can actually be removed under the Alien Enemies Act.
Boom!
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:14 am to Bass Tiger
quote:
The 14th Amendment was never intended to allow illegal immigrants jumping the border or arriving by ship or plane to drop an anchor baby, but left leaning legal scholars saw an opportunity to use the 14th amendment as a means to facilitate unfettered immigration/chain migration.
You are, of course, 100% correct.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:14 am to loogaroo
quote:
Does the 14th amendment nullify this?
Does the 4th and 5th amendments of 1791 nullify the Alien Enemies Act of 1798?
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:16 am to KCT
quote:
Why? Because YOU don't understand it?
No. Because it’s just halving a baby. Judges have been loving that shite since before the time of Christ.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:17 am to funnystuff
quote:
Time for Congress to get off their arse, do their jobs, and chance our immigration laws
THIS^^^^ x1000
The USSC doesn’t make laws…and the President shouldn’t have to resort to rarely used laws that Admin is trying to do contortions around to enforce.
It’s the clowns in Congress who need to pass laws giving a 14 day turnaround for all non-criminal detention hearings.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:18 am to loogaroo
quote:
Well then meeting the criteria should be the focus.
That's going to be up next.
Right now we're at general constitutional protections, which were violated. Then once that's resolved, I'm sure the portion I referenced will be up.
Kavabaugh wanted to just get it on and hear that case now, FWIW.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:19 am to GumboPot
quote:
Does the 4th and 5th amendments of 1791 nullify the Alien Enemies Act of 1798?
"nullify"? No.
Restrict? Yes.
Congressional statutes cannot violate the Constitution and any authority granted within such statutes must be executed within the limits of the Constitution.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:22 am to SlowFlowPro
Congressional statutes cannot violate the Constitution and any authority granted within such statutes must be executed within the limits of the Constitution.
There are immigration laws. The leftist have turned immigration illegals into amnesty seekers to circumvent existing law.
There are immigration laws. The leftist have turned immigration illegals into amnesty seekers to circumvent existing law.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:22 am to loogaroo
Attorneys never ending demand for billable hours will eventually destroy this country.
Change my mind.
Change my mind.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:26 am to themunch
quote:
There are immigration laws.
Correct. The Trump admin should have focused on using those instead of aggressive uses of wartime statutes in a novel way.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:27 am to GumboPot
quote:
Does the 4th and 5th amendments of 1791 nullify the Alien Enemies Act of 1798?
No, because they don't apply to illegal aliens at all.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:28 am to SlowFlowPro
he Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The Fourth Amendment, however, is not a guarantee against all searches and seizures, but only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law.
This needs some elaboration for myself as I cannot stretch that far.
This needs some elaboration for myself as I cannot stretch that far.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:28 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Correct. The Trump admin should have focused on using those instead of aggressive uses of wartime statutes in a novel way.
This is a weird way to tell everyone you want this country destroyed by illegal immigration.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:29 am to CDawson
quote:
1798 law that gives the president the power to detain or remove citizens of an enemy nation without a hearing or any other review by a court
We are not at war with anyone, so there are no "enemy nations." The claim by the Steven Miller Administration is that TDA constitutes an invasion by a foreign government.
Novel and probably bullshite, BUT maybe it's a successful legal fiction. The government seems to be conceding that SOME notice is required under AEA...the issue that made it to the Supreme Court was adequacy of notice such that petitioners could have filed for habeas corpus relief.
Does anyone know if the government is arguing that removal under AEA is NOT subject to any judicial review? In other words, the President declares that you are subject to removal under the AEA...and that's that...no legal challenges are allowed?
Page 2 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News