- 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: DOJ Again Refuses to Give Judge Boasberg Sensitive Information on National Security
Posted on 3/19/25 at 8:15 pm to Decatur
Posted on 3/19/25 at 8:15 pm to Decatur
quote:
Unless Little Marco says they’re not.
Yeah thats right. Orange is gonna do what he wants and there isnt anything you can do to stop it
0
Posted on 3/19/25 at 8:21 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Who has issues with that description of the admin's stances?
I have more of an issue progs are throwing up roadblocks for deportation at every turn, forcing American's to choose between open boarders and more and more desperate deportation tactics.
This could be solved very easily. But progressives don't want that. They choose Tren de Aragua over American citizens.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 8:36 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I don't think TDA should be ablet o be labeled a terrorist organization
Guess that’s why it is the decision of the POTUS and not mine, yours or a judge.
Separation of powers means just that. The judicial branch has no authority here.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 8:38 pm to CDawson
quote:
The judicial branch has no authority here.
If that's ultimately the ruling, then the judicial branch is no longer equal to the Executive, which is a scary thought when the DEMs take over the Executive next time.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 8:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I don't think TDA should be ablet o be labeled a terrorist organization
I don't think that the AEA should be able to be involved given the facts
This is the interesting angle about the AEA allegedly being insusceptible to judicial review. It was passed in 1798. Marbury was in 1803. AEA is a federal law squarely within the purview of federal court jurisdiction (and ultimately SCOTUS review on constitutionality).
That post-WW2 case is about a declared war with Germany and whether we were still in a state of war when the case was decided in 1948. Understandably SCOTUS punted and deferred to the executive. It’s not squarely on point here.
A federal court will generally not disturb the discretionary decisions of the executive in foreign policy or even national security matters. But these actions of removing people in this country emanate from federal law, not Article II. The Administration even cites the federal law in the EO invoking it.
The disturbing issue here is the disregard for the TRO and the system in general. It’s not outlandish for a TRO to issue. Congress has not declared war on Venezuela. The president declared the condition precedent to invoke the AEA via EO like a week ago. This TRO was to allow the parties time to present arguments.
This post was edited on 3/19/25 at 8:49 pm
Posted on 3/19/25 at 8:48 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
That post-WW2 case is about a declared war with Germany and whether we were still in a state of war when the case was decided in 1948. Understandably SCOTUS punted and deferred to the executive.
yes that's the major issue
Another thing is that this interpretation doesn't involve that clause of the act, anyway.
quote:
Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government,
Was analyzed in the WW2 cases
quote:
or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or governmen
Is what Trump is relying on now, and I don't think has ever been invoked or scrutinized by courts (someone can correct me).
If you read the WW2 cases, the courts 100% analyze the text and don't just auto-defer to the Executive. In the one that keeps getting cited, the court just doesn't spend much time over the fact that WW2 was a declared war and the statute applies, for obvious reasons.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 8:49 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
Where does it say that?
It’s right there in the law:
quote:
the President makes public proclamation of the event,
Posted on 3/19/25 at 8:50 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
It’s not outlandish for a TRO to issue.
Compare current TRO issues vs the last 100 years and get back to the board . You may be shocked at every democrat appointed judge issuing something that is exceedingly rare in the field of law ... or used to be
Posted on 3/19/25 at 8:52 pm to dafif
I posted about that in an earlier thread. There’s a chicken or the egg problem with that statistic. Trump’s upsetting the status quo is a feature, not a bug, to you guys. You can’t applaud him for pushing the boundaries and then cite the judiciary throwing penalty flags for pushing the boundaries as evidence they're out to get him.
This post was edited on 3/19/25 at 8:53 pm
Posted on 3/19/25 at 8:55 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
Yes, that’s what it says.
Before that thought it says:
key word is “and”
meaning there needs to be an invasions and a declaration. 2 separate things. the Declaration doesn’t make it an invasion.
Before that thought it says:
quote:
or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States, by any foreign nation or government, and
key word is “and”
meaning there needs to be an invasions and a declaration. 2 separate things. the Declaration doesn’t make it an invasion.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 8:57 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
I posted about that in an earlier thread. There’s a chicken or the egg problem with that statistic. Trump’s upsetting the status quo is a feature, not a bug, to you guys.
Take this scenario, where his admin is likely using their interpretation of a portion of a statute that's never been invoked before. That's going to disrupt things more than acting like a normal admin following the norms of government.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 8:58 pm to SlowFlowPro
The EB clearly and solely has authority to determine foreign policy, foreign adversaries, security movements and of course labeling of terrorist organizations.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 8:58 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
95/5 issue with only MAGA in the 5, if the admin starts ignoring court orders.
Less than probably 15 percent of Americans even know this is going on. This topic is far too “inside baseball” for the vast majority of the population. To equate this with divisive topics like abortions or trans is dumb.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 8:59 pm to CDawson
quote:
The EB clearly and solely has authority to determine foreign policy, foreign adversaries, security movements and of course labeling of terrorist organizations.
It's still limited to the authority given to it in these area by Congressional statute. That's where the courts come in, to ensure compliance with the limitations of the statute invoked by the EB.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 8:59 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
The average Magat has no
idea what this case is about and has no interest in learning what it’s about beyond what Fox News tells them.
idea what this case is about and has no interest in learning what it’s about beyond what Fox News tells them.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 9:00 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
Less than probably 15 percent of Americans even know this is going on. This topic is far too “inside baseball” for the vast majority of the population.
Trump ignoring a court order will be the top news story of ever major outlet as soon as it happens. It may even be breaking news on networks.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 9:01 pm to CDawson
quote:
The EB clearly and solely has authority to determine foreign policy, foreign adversaries, security movements and of course labeling of terrorist organizations.
Then why does it have to rely on a federal law passed by Congress to do so in this instance?
Sidestepping due process here is a grant of Congress, not something plenary in Article II. Again, the Admin acknowledges that when it cites to the codification of the AEA in the EO.
This post was edited on 3/19/25 at 9:01 pm
Posted on 3/19/25 at 9:02 pm to CDawson
To paraphrase boosie, I would not be comfortable with AOC making designations of terrorist organizations with no review mechanism whatsoever. Also, this board would be screaming from the rooftops if her team ignored court orders.
This post was edited on 3/19/25 at 9:04 pm
Posted on 3/19/25 at 9:40 pm to GamecockUltimate
quote:due process for a criminal alien who's not in the country legally is not the same as due process for a citizen. Due process for someone here illegally is, are you here legally? No? Out you go. Due process doesn't mean you gotta go to the fricking supreme Court to kick out someone who's not even allowed to be here. It's called national sovereignty
please read the 14th amendment slowly and carefully. All persons have the right to due process of the law
This post was edited on 3/19/25 at 9:41 pm
Posted on 3/19/25 at 10:01 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
You can’t applaud him for pushing the boundaries and then cite the judiciary throwing penalty flags for pushing the boundaries as evidence they're out to get him.
bullshite
American Revolution: You can't applaud them for pushing boundaries and then site the British for throwing penalty flags for pushing the boundaries as evidence they are out to get him.
also could be applied to any other conflict, just a meaningless bullshite world salad
Page 19 of 22
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News