- 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: Breaking: Supreme Court Blocks Trump’s Use of Alien Enemies Act to Deport Illegals
Posted on 4/19/25 at 2:25 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 4/19/25 at 2:25 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
And removed to a country that was prohibited.
In the general sense? As in like on some list or something?
I’ll reserve judgement and opinion on this pending an opportunity for you to show the actual information on which you base the “prohibited” claim, in any sense, El Salvador specifically. By actual information I mean a link.
1
Posted on 4/19/25 at 2:25 pm to I20goon
quote:
Congress wrote a law. A law saying anyone who enters this country illegally can be deported to their country of origin.
This judge, administrative not criminal judge, then issued a decree preventing deportation to his country of origin (which also confirmed the gang affiliation simultaneously).
So we have now law and a judges order in conflict.
You have a limited understanding of the totality of our immigration and asylum system. There is no conflict because more than 1 law is operating in this fact pattern.
However, even if we accept your argument, there is a solution to that problem: bring him back, have the prior order rescinded properly, and then re-deport him.
Posted on 4/19/25 at 2:25 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Judges can’t simply tell other courts what to do. Do you expect SCOTUS to tell NYs court “hey, you can’t do that!” without an appeal before them? If so.. you asking for advocate judges the like we’ve ever seen before.
Yes, the problem here would have been SCOTUS taking action, not the kangaroo court in NY. Great take. Good thing this is going to be allowed to stand and set precedent for the citizens of New York and whoever else those courts decide reports to them.
This post was edited on 4/19/25 at 2:27 pm
Posted on 4/19/25 at 2:27 pm to jimmy the leg
quote:
How disconnected from reality are you?
His reality is pro illegal immigration and we are the world.
Posted on 4/19/25 at 2:27 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You don't even understand what I just said, I reckon.
Nah, I nailed it.
Posted on 4/19/25 at 2:28 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:Liar.
You're supporting his open border policies, not me.
quote:Teacher, he hit me first
I'm advocating for the Trump admin to be able to reverse that damage in the same way Biden created it.
Biden could have made the same “he did it first” claim for Trump 1.0’s use of covid power to close the border.
This post was edited on 4/19/25 at 2:29 pm
Posted on 4/19/25 at 2:28 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:He never claimed asylum. To claim asylum, by law, you have to do it immediately upon entry into the country and at a point of entry.
You have a limited understanding of the totality of our immigration and asylum system. There is no conflict because more than 1 law is operating in this fact pattern.
However, even if we accept your argument, there is a solution to that problem: bring him back, have the prior order rescinded properly, and then re-deport him.
He sought to seek to prevent deportation to El Salvador, specifically and soley, because of safety reasons due to his gang affiliations. But his advocate knew that by the judge barring deportation specifically to his country of origin he was forestalling deportation completely because the law requires, with few exceptions, deportation only to country of origin.
The judge knew he creating a conflict.
This post was edited on 4/19/25 at 2:32 pm
Posted on 4/19/25 at 2:28 pm to RohanGonzales
quote:
Do you believe Federal judges can never be bought?
I never said nor implied that. One was impeached and removed for such behavior, IIRC.
Posted on 4/19/25 at 2:29 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
SlowFlowPro
Help our fricking limited understanding and tell us how a God damned judge can delay the revoking of visas without even naming who the frick she is talking about.
Why aren't you in that fricking thread? You are in all the other ones.
Posted on 4/19/25 at 2:29 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Teacher, he hit me first
He hit me first? What kind of stupid nonsense is this?
If the executive is allowed to let illegal aliens in unilaterally, the reverse should also be true.
This post was edited on 4/19/25 at 2:30 pm
Posted on 4/19/25 at 2:30 pm to I20goon
He was denied asylum for reason of what you’re describing, basically he didn’t apply for it within time limitations. He did attempt to receive it though.
This post was edited on 4/19/25 at 2:31 pm
Posted on 4/19/25 at 2:30 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:B.. b… but it was “for the good of our nation”.
I was happy when the Supreme Court ruled Biden exceeded his statutory authority with the vax mandate under OSHA and college loan forgiveness under the HEROES Act
Posted on 4/19/25 at 2:31 pm to I20goon
quote:
your "lax policies" are really and truly not enforcing those laws and therefore is equal to breaking laws.
It is not.
Executive discretion is a real thing. I'd educate yourself before dipping into these waters.
quote:
None of these judges took on 1 am filings at 7:30 am to stop Biden from violating the law by using "lax policies" as an excuse to technically break the law by inaction.
Because your theory has no legal merit and no attorney was stupid enough to make that improper argument. Courts cannot compel the Executive to act pursuant to their statutory authority. That would be a violation of the separation of powers.
Posted on 4/19/25 at 2:31 pm to djsdawg
What’s up with those damn libs on the Supreme Court?!
Posted on 4/19/25 at 2:31 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
B.. b… but it was “for the good of our nation”.
But it wasn't. They didn't stop either of those things.
Posted on 4/19/25 at 2:32 pm to AGGIES
quote:
What’s up with those damn libs on the Supreme Court?!
It’s temporary while arguments are being prepared. Don’t get too excited. I do like the floating, though. When y’all are calling the Supreme Court illegitimate again, it will only prove how flippant yall are.
This post was edited on 4/19/25 at 2:33 pm
Posted on 4/19/25 at 2:32 pm to davyjones
quote:
In the general sense? As in like on some list or something?
Read the quoted text from the Supreme Court
quote:
The United States acknowledges that Abrego Garcia was subject to a withholding order forbidding his removal to El Salvador, and that the removal to El Salvador was therefore illegal.
There was a prior order prohibiting the removal that had never been rescinded or removed.
quote:
I’ll reserve judgement and opinion on this pending an opportunity for you to show the actual information on which you base the “prohibited” claim, in any sense, El Salvador specifically. By actual information I mean a link.
I literally linked the Supreme Court ruling discussing it in the post to which you replied.
This post was edited on 4/19/25 at 2:33 pm
Posted on 4/19/25 at 2:33 pm to AGGIES
quote:
What’s up with those damn libs on the Supreme Court?!
Is Clarence Thomas a liberal?
Posted on 4/19/25 at 2:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Courts cannot compel the Executive to act pursuant to their statutory authority. That would be a violation of the separation of powers.
it's amazing to watch someone defend complete lawlessness this vigorously.This post was edited on 4/19/25 at 2:34 pm
Posted on 4/19/25 at 2:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You have a limited understanding of the totality of our immigration and asylum system.
This is rich ! LOL
Page 20 of 32
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News