Started By
Message

re: All this talk about 47 "shredding the constitution" yet no specific examples...

Posted on 4/16/25 at 7:45 am to
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
450286 posts
Posted on 4/16/25 at 7:45 am to
quote:

This is the answer your fishing for, I'll give it to you..... Trump could, if he wanted to.

I don't think anyone acting rational would disagree

quote:

Trump isn't interested in returning an illegal back into our country, he's trying to get em out!

Well then you just answered the question of OP
Posted by Diamondawg
Mississippi
Member since Oct 2006
34876 posts
Posted on 4/16/25 at 7:46 am to
Where were they with 46? Holy hell - that was shredding the constitution. Just pick one!
Posted by mwade91383
Washington DC
Member since Mar 2010
6189 posts
Posted on 4/16/25 at 7:48 am to
Some of the stuff is still being litigated/working its way through the courts.

The 10% blanket tariff is on VERY shaky ground, for example. It’s being challenged currently, likely ends up in SC, likely rules against Trump. But we’ll see!

Posted by FriedEggBowL
MS
Member since Nov 2021
1012 posts
Posted on 4/16/25 at 7:52 am to
quote:

The USSC just had a 9-0 ruling...


show your work there, sport, and cite EXACTLY (not generally) how he's
going against that ruling
Posted by funnystuff
Member since Nov 2012
8773 posts
Posted on 4/16/25 at 7:55 am to
I don’t understand why y’all pretend like this is such a difficult concept to understand


Trump has every right to deport every illegal alien in the country, this guy included. No one here is disputing that. MSNBC is disputing that, but no one here is.


Even still, this guy very directly and very precisely did exactly what Joe Biden told him to do. Even though what Joe Biden told him to do was illegal (making Biden the truly evil one), he followed the process as defined by the president precisely. And the correct punishment for an illegal alien who did exactly what he was instructed to do by the President of the United States is not a literal lifetime of torture. The right punishment is deportation. Deportation and torture are not the same thing. We have chosen the latter. And it’s a fricked up thing to do.


This poisons the well of public support for deportation. It’s the administration shooting themself in the foot.
Posted by lake chuck fan
westlake
Member since Aug 2011
17848 posts
Posted on 4/16/25 at 7:55 am to
quote:


Well then you just answered the question of OP


I don't understand why folks think Trump is not following the ruling of SCOTUS or why this person hasn't received due process.

The "withholding of removal" order given by the judge in 2019 isn't valid. Garcia being a member of a terrorist organization disqualifies him.
SCOTUS's ruling directed Trump to facilitate return, but he can't direct El Salvador to return him. Buceli stated in the press conference he will not return the guy.
It's pretty cut and dry.
We can argue all day about Trumps motive and intent, but under the law, he's covered.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
450286 posts
Posted on 4/16/25 at 7:57 am to
quote:

show your work there, sport, and cite EXACTLY (not generally) how he's
going against that ruling


quote:

The rest of the District Court’s order remains in effect but requires clarification on remand. The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.


Requires the government to facilitate his release. What have they done to do so?
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
450286 posts
Posted on 4/16/25 at 7:59 am to
quote:

SCOTUS's ruling directed Trump to facilitate return, but he can't direct El Salvador to return him. Buceli stated in the press conference he will not return the guy.
It's pretty cut and dry.

Well that's a problem for the admin and, again, answers the question of OP.

The admin engaging intentionally in a scheme to avoid review and the ability to rectify their illegal behavior is "shredding the constitution".
This post was edited on 4/16/25 at 8:00 am
Posted by Smeg
Member since Aug 2018
12224 posts
Posted on 4/16/25 at 7:59 am to
quote:

He is so weak he couldn't negotiate the return

Why should a president negotiate for a country to turn over one of their citizens to be extradited to the United States. Give us a good reason this should be done for this individual.
Posted by Barstools
Atlanta
Member since Jan 2016
10373 posts
Posted on 4/16/25 at 8:00 am to
quote:

He appears to be pretty directly and unequivocally ignoring a 9-0 supreme court order.


You're retarded. The 9-0 ruling was in Trumps favor.
Posted by Flats
Member since Jul 2019
25149 posts
Posted on 4/16/25 at 8:00 am to
quote:

The admin engaging intentionally in a scheme to avoid review and the ability to rectify their illegal behavior is "shredding the constitution".


Is there an administration that hasn't done this?
Posted by SDVTiger
Cabo San Lucas
Member since Nov 2011
86916 posts
Posted on 4/16/25 at 8:00 am to
quote:

Are you really arguing Trump is that much of a powerless pussy? He is so weak he couldn't negotiate the return? Is that really the hill you want to die on?


This is a solid attempt but so pathetic
Posted by rltiger
Metairie
Member since Oct 2004
1356 posts
Posted on 4/16/25 at 8:01 am to
quote:

He appears to be pretty directly and unequivocally ignoring a 9-0 supreme court order. That’s not just norms or standards, that’s something significant. It’s early days since that decision, so this warrants a little more time to see how the situation evolves. But saying there’s absolutely no reason to even be concerned here is asinine.



Someone’s been watching CNN, MSNBC and reading DU.


Don’t be lazy and do some independent research on the subject instead of glossing over democrat talking points.
Posted by Rex Feral
Member since Jan 2014
14605 posts
Posted on 4/16/25 at 8:02 am to
He’s a threat to the bureaucracy, not democracy.
Posted by mwade91383
Washington DC
Member since Mar 2010
6189 posts
Posted on 4/16/25 at 8:03 am to
quote:

The 9-0 ruling was in Trumps favor.


Objectively one of the funniest takes this week.

Just because Steve Miller said it doesn't mean it's true.
Posted by FriedEggBowL
MS
Member since Nov 2021
1012 posts
Posted on 4/16/25 at 8:04 am to
quote:

The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador


you "claim" to be a lawyer, yet are so stupid you don't know that the US Govt cannot require a country to turn over a citizen of another country, only to be brought to the US, attend one more hearing, and be sent directly back to said country? you're a lot dumber than i thought you were. and that's saying a lot
Posted by BurlesonCountyAg
Member since Jan 2014
3780 posts
Posted on 4/16/25 at 8:04 am to
quote:

Requires the government to facilitate his release. What have they done to do so?


SFP:
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
450286 posts
Posted on 4/16/25 at 8:05 am to
quote:

Is there an administration that hasn't done this?


I don't recall one being so bold, but it's always bad.

The last major, similar process is probably Guantanimo with the post-911 WOT silliness (of which I was always against, for the record).
Posted by Barstools
Atlanta
Member since Jan 2016
10373 posts
Posted on 4/16/25 at 8:07 am to
quote:

Just because Steve Miller said it doesn't mean it's true.


Uhm, but if you read the ruling it says exactly what SM said it does. How do you reconcile that?
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
450286 posts
Posted on 4/16/25 at 8:07 am to
quote:

you "claim" to be a lawyer, yet are so stupid you don't know that the US Govt cannot require a country to turn over a citizen of another country, only to be brought to the US, attend one more hearing, and be sent directly back to said country? you're a lot dumber than i thought you were. and that's saying a lot


You realize the quoted language was not from me, but the Supreme Court, right?
first pageprev pagePage 2 of 9Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram