- 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: All this talk about 47 "shredding the constitution" yet no specific examples...
Posted on 4/16/25 at 9:48 am to sidewalkside
Posted on 4/16/25 at 9:48 am to sidewalkside
I asked AI "if a person is going against a Supreme Court ruling are they Shredding the constitution?"
The response....
The response....
quote:
No, disagreeing with a Supreme Court decision or refusing to comply with it does not inherently mean a person is "shredding the Constitution." While the Supreme Court's decisions are considered the law of the land, especially on matters of constitutional interpretation, the Constitution itself does not prevent individuals or groups from challenging or disagreeing with those decisions. The power to enforce these decisions ultimately rests with the executive branch, and individuals can still voice their disagreement or challenge the ruling through legal means.
quote:
Supreme Court's Role:
The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of constitutional issues, and its decisions are generally considered binding. However, its power is limited to issuing opinions; it does not have the authority to enforce them directly.
Enforcement:
The executive branch (the President) is responsible for enforcing Supreme Court decisions, and while it is expected to do so, it can also refuse to enforce a ruling it disagrees with.
Disagreement and Challenge:
Individuals and groups can disagree with a Supreme Court decision and challenge it through legal avenues, such as seeking a new ruling from the Court or attempting to overturn the decision through a constitutional amendment.
No Automatic "Shredding":
Disagreeing with a Supreme Court decision does not automatically mean someone is undermining the Constitution. People can respectfully disagree and still uphold the principles of the Constitution.
Importance of Discourse:
Open debate and discussion about Supreme Court decisions are important for ensuring that the government remains accountable and responsive to the needs of the people.
Examples of Disagreement:
Throughout history, individuals and groups have disagreed with Supreme Court rulings and challenged them through various means, including legal appeals, political action, and peaceful protest.
0
Posted on 4/16/25 at 9:53 am to FriedEggBowL
quote:
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.
To my knowledge they didn't do this with Kilmar. All they had to do was do it while he was in ICE custody and then remove him once his WH was revoked, and they could have avoided this whole ordeal.
Trump needs someone on his team to tell him to stop taking a sledgehammer approach and use a scapel, and it will save them a ton of headaches later on.
Posted on 4/16/25 at 9:55 am to KiwiHead
quote:
I'm not seeing a shredding, buI am seeing a power play against the judiciary.....and a lack of respect towards it.
Oh come on now!!!! A lack of respect towards the Judiciary???? That comment is the height of hypocrisy, considering all the ridiculous rulings from progressive judges against Trump lately.
SMH
Posted on 4/16/25 at 9:56 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Well that raises the question of the actual facilitation, especially given the agreements made between the admin and Bukele.
Not really. SCOTUS addressed that by directing the government to share information on steps taken to facilitate the release. This means explaining how whatever actions taken are operating within agreement frameworks.
quote:
Then, it raises the question of legality of the scheme itself, if the admin admits it's feckless and without any power to negotiate a simple return.
Completely wrong. That stance is nothing more than an attempt to perform linguistic gymnastics back into "effectuate", which SCOTUS has already on.
quote:
Again, creating a scheme to permit illegality and avoid judicial review is exactly the example of "shredding the Constitution" asked by OP.
The "shredding the Constitution" and "creating a scheme to permit illegality" rhetoric are ridiculously hyperbolic and that level of dramatic pearl-clutching is what distracts from productive discourse.
Posted on 4/16/25 at 9:56 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Improper = not following the law = illegal.
Wrong on so many levels! Really weak argument/attempt. Do better
Posted on 4/16/25 at 9:56 am to SlowFlowPro
I haven't read the whole thread
but did the SCOTUS (or anyone) define "facilitate" in this context?
but did the SCOTUS (or anyone) define "facilitate" in this context?
Posted on 4/16/25 at 9:58 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That can all be true and still doesn't absolve the admin of their illegal beahivor
You have yet to provide any illegal behavior by the admin
Posted on 4/16/25 at 9:59 am to Flats
quote:
I'm more concerned with judicial overreach and have been for some time. I'm not concerned about about a president ignoring them, I'm glad it's happening.
“he’s ignoring the constitution but in ways I like“
Posted on 4/16/25 at 10:01 am to TigersnJeeps
I did earlier. Here ya go again.
Ill say this again also, his issue should be with SCOTUS's language in the order.
quote:
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages
verb
make (an action or process) easy or easier
Posted on 4/16/25 at 10:02 am to TigersnJeeps
quote:
but did the SCOTUS (or anyone) define "facilitate" in this context
In no way shape or form has it been defined, and I have a hunch that word was put in there by SCOTUS for purposes of vagueness.
Posted on 4/16/25 at 10:04 am to Dock Holiday
quote:
In no way shape or form has it been defined, and I have a hunch that word was put in there by SCOTUS for purposes of vagueness.
Or because SCOTUS understands they have no authority or power to dictate foreign policy to the Executive.
Posted on 4/16/25 at 10:05 am to funnystuff
quote:
He appears to be pretty directly and unequivocally ignoring a 9-0 supreme court order.
The source or sources you get your information from are deliberately lying to you.
Posted on 4/16/25 at 10:10 am to KiwiHead
quote:
buI am seeing a power play against the judiciary.....and a lack of respect towards it.
They created the lack of respect just as surely as the medical community created the distrust people now have in it.
Posted on 4/16/25 at 10:11 am to SlowFlowPro
The USSC 9-0 ruling was in favor of the administration.
How has it been spun that they are somehow "defying" it?
How has it been spun that they are somehow "defying" it?
Posted on 4/16/25 at 10:11 am to sidewalkside
This why i always ask for specific examples of what they are accusing. They can never back up their claims.
Posted on 4/16/25 at 10:31 am to CastleBravo
quote:
The USSC 9-0 ruling was in favor of the administration.
Sort of. Unlike the district court ruling, SCOTUS recognized that the Judicial cannot force the Executive into making specific deals with foreign powers.
But... it also recognized that Garcia was denied Due Process in his being sent to El Savador. This meant that Garcia should have gone before an immigration judge before Justice tried deporting him.
What the ruling basically says is that the Executive has to allow Due Process to take place before expelling an illegal for those instances where a Withholding was already in place (which should ideally mean that anyone ICE picks up from prison -for having been convicted of committing a violent crime- does not get this).
This aspect is a bit of a loss as it slows down the progress in mass deportations.
quote:
How has it been spun that they are somehow "defying" it?
Because those making that claim either don't understand the difference between "effectuating" something (making it happen) and "facilitating" something (helping something that is already going to happen or is already happening) or they simply don't care to understand it because OMB.
Posted on 4/16/25 at 10:37 am to funnystuff
quote:
He appears to be pretty directly and unequivocally ignoring a 9-0 supreme court order.
amazing that you guys call us brainwashed, yet all you do is repeat MSM talking points that are filled with outright lies, or partial truths as if all is True. You might try using your god given brain and maybe see you are actively rooting for us to become Europe.
Posted on 4/16/25 at 11:09 am to funnystuff
Stop with the garden variety illegal bullshite.
TWO courts found him connected to MS13. TWO.
And in tip of that he’s illegal with deportation orders so frick off. He’s NOT A GOOD PERSON
TWO courts found him connected to MS13. TWO.
And in tip of that he’s illegal with deportation orders so frick off. He’s NOT A GOOD PERSON
Posted on 4/16/25 at 11:09 am to funnystuff
quote:
even be concerned here is asinine.
quote:
Article II of the United States Constitution vests the power to conduct foreign policy in the President of the United States.
Posted on 4/16/25 at 11:31 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:It is
I don't think that is nearly as clear as you're projecting
Page 8 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News