- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: All this talk about 47 "shredding the constitution" yet no specific examples...
Posted on 4/16/25 at 8:51 am to lake chuck fan
Posted on 4/16/25 at 8:51 am to lake chuck fan
quote:
Attempting to strengthen your argument using "what if's"
I didn't. We know the admin's position on this scheme based on their arguments in various cases relating to the scheme.
It's not a what if, when they do it.
You're confused at me expanding the discussion (following the intentional obsfucation by the admin) into the likely future analysis of the entire scheme, which is clearly been created to avoid judicial scrutiny and constitutional limitation.
1
Posted on 4/16/25 at 8:52 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
They've clearly intentionally concocted a scheme to avoid judicial review and even revealing the details of their actions
Good
quote:
They're giving no efforts to follow a direct order from the USSC and are giving lip service at best.
Posted on 4/16/25 at 8:52 am to jimmy the leg
quote:
Your opinion, and totally irrelevant.
Naw, they've argued as much in various cases relating to this scheme.
Posted on 4/16/25 at 8:53 am to jimmy the leg
quote:
So you want to kidnap him, huh?
No. That's absurd.
There's a HUGE gap between "asking once with a wink" and "kidnapping" him.
Posted on 4/16/25 at 8:53 am to funnystuff
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.
No, he is not.
Posted on 4/16/25 at 8:53 am to sidewalkside
Projection that’s it
Posted on 4/16/25 at 8:54 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
They deserve proper due process, as our Constitution mandates.
FTOs (Foreign Terrorist Organizations are not due any due process. Again, he's been deemed an MS-13 gang member by 2 different Federal courts. are you going against what your dear court says?
Here is your favorite President Joe Biden removing a FTO member in Oct of 2022
quote:
OPLA filed a motion to re-calendar his removal proceedings and lodged a national security charge of removal as a noncitizen who has engaged in terrorist activity.
This post was edited on 4/16/25 at 8:56 am
Posted on 4/16/25 at 8:54 am to sidewalkside
If this is the hill democrats choose to die on, die they will.
Posted on 4/16/25 at 8:54 am to SlowFlowPro
Are you really arguing that Trump should return a violent illegal alien to America that never should have been here in the first place?
Isn't it funny that the SCOTUS never told Biden that his flying illegal aliens into America was against the law, but somehow they need to get involved in a POTUS correcting the lawlessness of the previous fraudulently elected president?
Posted on 4/16/25 at 8:54 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
They've clearly intentionally concocted a scheme
NOPE! Your opinions are not facts.
quote:
They're giving no efforts to follow a direct order from the USSC and are giving lip service at best.
Define facilitate! What efforts were defined in the USSC order? Give him $100 to grab a seat on the next cargo ship over?
Posted on 4/16/25 at 8:55 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You're confused at me expanding the discussion (following the intentional obsfucation by the admin) into the likely future analysis of the entire scheme, which is clearly been created to avoid judicial scrutiny and constitutional limitation.
No, I'm not the one confused. I'm just not willing to follow your tangents created by your opinion.
I still don't understand your referencing constitutional issues. Garcia had due process, twice!!
Your issue should be with SCOTUS. They chose to use the term "facilitate ". The reason they chose that word is because they understand the Constitution and the separation of powers. The Judiciary can't rser the Excutive on matters of foreign policy.
This post was edited on 4/16/25 at 8:58 am
Posted on 4/16/25 at 8:55 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
He is so weak he couldn't negotiate the return?
Or maybe SCOTUS is so weak sauce that it uses an ambiguous term like "facilitate".
It knows it doesn't have the authority to order the article 2 branch how to conduct foreign policy but at the same time it wants to save face with the left.
This post was edited on 4/16/25 at 11:29 am
Posted on 4/16/25 at 8:56 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
They've clearly intentionally concocted a scheme to avoid judicial review and even revealing the details of their actions.
Sounds like they are in cahoots with the Supreme Court because the SC only said they should facilitate his return.
You should protest the SC to change the wording of their ruling
Posted on 4/16/25 at 8:56 am to FriedEggBowL
quote:
Here is your favorite President Joe Biden removing a FTO member in Oct of 2022
quote:
Jumaev was convicted of two counts of conspiracy and attempting to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization on July 18, 2018, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.
Posted on 4/16/25 at 8:57 am to riccoar
quote:
Are you really arguing that Trump should return a violent illegal alien to America that never should have been here in the first place?
If that removal violated the law, yes.
The emotional arguments matter not to me.
Posted on 4/16/25 at 8:58 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
SFP
oh, now breaking the law is trivial? i thought it was clearly a black/white issue
This post was edited on 4/16/25 at 8:59 am
Posted on 4/16/25 at 8:59 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
quote:
So you want to kidnap him, huh?
No. That's absurd.
There's a HUGE gap between "asking once with a wink" and "kidnapping" him.
You are going to need to provide evidence of a "wink". I watched the reporting on this and I am certain I never saw a "wink".
Posted on 4/16/25 at 9:01 am to sidewalkside
Congress handed him the shredder .
SCOTUS assisted.
I'm not seeing a shredding, buI am seeing a power play against the judiciary.....and a lack of respect towards it.
Congress doesn't care. So long as they can speechify and continue to shake down individuals and corporations for campaign contributions, they are happy
SCOTUS assisted.
I'm not seeing a shredding, buI am seeing a power play against the judiciary.....and a lack of respect towards it.
Congress doesn't care. So long as they can speechify and continue to shake down individuals and corporations for campaign contributions, they are happy
Posted on 4/16/25 at 9:02 am to FriedEggBowL
quote:
oh, now breaking the law is trivial? i thought it was clearly a black/white issue
You realize that trial was a lot more due process than the due process involved with immigration/expulsion, right?
The heavy lifting had already been done after LOTS of due process was given to him.
If that's your standard, then all of these TDA and MS13 guys need criminal trials for this purported terrorism first.
This post was edited on 4/16/25 at 9:03 am
Posted on 4/16/25 at 9:04 am to geoag58
quote:
You are going to need to provide evidence of a "wink". I watched the reporting on this and I am certain I never saw a "wink".
Has Trump cancelled the agreement with Bukele in response?
Have you seen how Trump handles other defiant actors? China in the tariff scenario? Or how about this resopnse after their moves agains the AP led to another loss in court?
So he's just Bukele's bitch because?
Page 6 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News