- 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 10:09 am to ole man
Posted on 5/17/25 at 10:09 am to ole man
Congress is not any better. They pass laws that they then turn around and refuse to force compliance.
The end result of a liberal society is total anarchy as all results are determined by arbitrary interpretation and compliance.
Soon the libs will be saying only white peoples can be jailed for anything. We’re already allowing illegals to commit serious crimes without consequences ( teen killers out without consequences like the CO auto crash)
The end result of a liberal society is total anarchy as all results are determined by arbitrary interpretation and compliance.
Soon the libs will be saying only white peoples can be jailed for anything. We’re already allowing illegals to commit serious crimes without consequences ( teen killers out without consequences like the CO auto crash)
0
Posted on 5/17/25 at 10:10 am to Lg
quote:
So what you’re saying is an administration can break the law by EO
No. The Biden admin didn't "break the law" in this specific instance.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 10:13 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
No. The Biden admin didn't "break the law" in this specific instance.
So they processed 20 million illegals through the ports of entry like every legal immigrant has done? News to me. You’re not a serious person.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 10:13 am to Lg
quote:
So they processed 20 million illegals through the ports of entry like every legal immigrant has done? News to me. You’re not a serious person.
They have the executive discretion to make those changes and those changes not be illegal.
As I said, they made a political choice and it hurt them politically which is the proper recourse for political decisions. Those choices were not illegal and fall under executive discretion.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 10:18 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
They have the executive discretion to make those changes and those changes not be illegal.
But the current President can’t use executive discretion and remove them in the same way?
Posted on 5/17/25 at 10:23 am to Lg
quote:
But the current President can’t use executive discretion and remove them in the same way?
He can't use executive discretion that violates either the statutory authority from Congress giving him that power or the Constitutional limits of executive action. It's an entirely different conversation, which is why the comparison is silly and illogical.
It's like saying that since one prosecutor declined to prosecute an alleged thief, that a later prosecutor can try give a different alleged thief the death penalty.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 10:27 am to SlowFlowPro
The due process clause of the 5A was not written or intended to apply to illegal aliens. "No person" is what it says, which was understood to mean citizen in the parlance of the time and its antecedent, the Magna Carta. The 14A is proof of this interpretation as it was intended to extend due process to freed slaves whose citizenship was being established/protected by that very law. Due process as to the legality of their presence on US soil as non-citizens was not the issue. That would have been a separate issue.
This post was edited on 5/17/25 at 10:31 am
Posted on 5/17/25 at 10:29 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
1. The court rules they to not have the authority to review this sort of executive decision-making. 2. The court rules that the basic "questions of interpretation and constitutionality" permit review of the facts relied upon in the invocation by the government.
Pretty slick of Trump to use AEA to force the issue.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 10:31 am to Tall Tiger
quote:
The due process clause of the 5A was not written or intended to apply to illegal aliens. "No man..." is what it says, which was understood to mean citizen in the parlance of the time
This is not the historical or contemporary interpretation
"The people" denotes citizens
Person denotes everyone
quote:
The 14A is proof of this interpretation as it was intended to extend due process to freed slaves whose citizenship was being established/protected by that very law.
The 14A explicitly uses citizen and person. The distinction is intentional.
quote:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
See? Use of both to denote the distinction.
"Persons" do not get ALL of our rights as citizens.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 10:32 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I don't think there has ever been a time in our modern immigration system (which is a little over 100 years) where some form of due process wasn't guaranteed to illegals.
So China could theatrically just overwhelm us by sending a couple hundred million people that we would have to give due process to.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 10:32 am to loogaroo
quote:
So China could theatrically just overwhelm us by sending a couple hundred million people that we would have to give due process to.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 10:33 am to loogaroo
quote:
Pretty slick of Trump to use AEA to force the issue.
To analyze an obscure law that is almost never relied upon and likely will never be relied upon outside of a war? Where we already have settled case law?
Posted on 5/17/25 at 10:34 am to loogaroo
quote:
So China could theatrically just overwhelm us by sending a couple hundred million people that we would have to give due process to.
In theory, yes.
If they did that, I don't really think that use of the aea is going to help much in that absurd scenario, just the same
Posted on 5/17/25 at 10:37 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
In theory, yes.
The glorious intent of our brilliant founders to write in our constitution a massive loophole for letting our enemies destroy the nation. Brilliant
Posted on 5/17/25 at 10:44 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
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?
In court, the government has never argued that there is no judicial review.
From the first case before biasberg they have said habeas is the review allowed.
Everyone agrees with that. The arguments are over what notice is required, whether there are other forms of relief available (close to certain there are none, but it is still an issue), and whether class certification is appropriate for habeas.
Then there is the issue of whether Trump's Proclamation appropriately invoked the AEA - a judge has ruled it does not.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 10:44 am to loogaroo
Basically, there’s evidently nothing that can be done about the Biden admin having feverishly worked to entice and bring all these people in as fast as possible…..but in order to get them out and back to their respective homelands, it’ll be a slow, grinding slog at best.
Would seem to greatly be advantageous to only one side in this political showdown that will profoundly shape and impact the future of this republic.
“We’ll look the other way as they pour in but you damn well better be dotting all those I’s and crossing every one of those T’s if you try to remove them!”
Would seem to greatly be advantageous to only one side in this political showdown that will profoundly shape and impact the future of this republic.
“We’ll look the other way as they pour in but you damn well better be dotting all those I’s and crossing every one of those T’s if you try to remove them!”
Posted on 5/17/25 at 10:46 am to Great Plains Drifter
quote:Which is why this country is doomed.
Would seem to greatly be advantageous to only one side in this political showdown that will profoundly shape and impact the future of this republic.
“We’ll look the other way as they pour in but you damn well better be dotting all those I’s and crossing every one of those T’s if you try to remove them!”
Posted on 5/17/25 at 10:51 am to Jbird
quote:
Which is why this country is doomed.
It’s not looking promising in the long run for sure.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 10:58 am to JimEverett
quote:
In court, the government has never argued that there is no judicial review.
From the first case before biasberg they have said habeas is the review allowed.
Thanks. That's what I thought. From all the bloodthirsty "Judges are scummy traitors!" I thought I was missing something.
This seems like another case of feeding red meat politically, and taking another (sworn) position in court.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 11:07 am to SlowFlowPro
See this is your problem.
You continue to mask your liberal opinions behind your legal larping.
And people like you are the reason we are fricked.
Let that sink in.
You continue to mask your liberal opinions behind your legal larping.
And people like you are the reason we are fricked.
Let that sink in.
Page 4 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News