- 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 11:24 am to Epic Cajun
Posted on 3/19/25 at 11:24 am to Epic Cajun
quote:
This is why I asked earlier if TDA appealed their FTO designation within their 30 day window. I haven’t seen that.
Soros is bankrolling their defense.
1
Posted on 3/19/25 at 11:25 am to Decatur
Holy crap. Boasberg cites CJ Roberts recent public statement saying he said not to disobey them.
Wow this is absurd.
Wow this is absurd.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 11:28 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
They aren't terrorists
This doesnt matter
Posted on 3/19/25 at 11:28 am to SlowFlowPro
So your thoughts on are that no criminal gangs can be considered terrorist ? Do you believe that government has the complete authority to deport criminals ?
Posted on 3/19/25 at 11:29 am to SlowFlowPro
So you are stating that the ability for the executive branch to deport illegal aliens for our country is them acting outside their statutory authority?
Further, the executive branch is subject to judicatory review from a low level partisan judge.
This would be equal to a congressmen telling the Supreme Court that they can not issue a ruling until it has been reviewed by the execute branch.
Further, the executive branch is subject to judicatory review from a low level partisan judge.
This would be equal to a congressmen telling the Supreme Court that they can not issue a ruling until it has been reviewed by the execute branch.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 11:42 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
quote:
the Supreme Court previously ruled that any Alien Enemy Act removals by a US President are not subject to judicial review.
exactly. it's been ruled on. this is just the dems shopping judges and trying to slow down trump.
problem is the general public doesn't understand this. the admin has to do a better job of messaging.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 11:46 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
They aren't terrorists
Says you. Why aren’t they terrorists? Is it because they aren’t little brown men from the Middle East?
quote:
In the United States, terrorism is defined as consisting of activities that "involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State….intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; influence the policy of a government by intimidation; or…affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping."
quote:
Aurora Police Chief Todd Chamberlain backed the closure, saying in a court filing that the complex had become a hub for crime because of a “criminal element that has exerted control and fear” over residents.
quote:
After the hearing, Chamberlain said he believed that members of Tren de Aragua were part of the problem there, noting that federal authorities say seven of the suspects in the kidnapping and assault are members of the gang.
Sit down and shut the frick up! Better yet, log out and do some fricking work instead of spending hours and hours arguing your dumbass talking points.
This post was edited on 3/19/25 at 11:47 am
Posted on 3/19/25 at 12:27 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Who has issues with that description of the admin's stances?
Anyone with a brain.
1. "Unilaterally" was used to pretend it was an overreach when it is the president's authority to designate terrorists
2. He did not invoke those acts to declare them terrorists. They were already declared terrorists.
3. It falsely claims that removing these terrorists sent here by a foreign government, which is proven, should not be a military operation
4. Once again "unilaterally" is used to pretend the executive branch who controls law enforcement needed outside approval to go after criminals
5. He describes basic functions of law enforcement as if they are outrageous actions
6. His final evidence that the admin is out of bounds is to simply reiterate their legal argument as if no counter to the argument was necessary. We should just accept that he is right and his derision is all we need as evidence.
#6 explains why you thought this was a good description. For such a short description, it has many flaws.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 12:30 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
"Unilaterally" was used to pretend it was an overreach when it is the president's authority to designate terrorists
So in terms of government, it was unilateral.
quote:
He did not invoke those acts to declare them terrorists. They were already declared terrorists.
By what authority? I'll add the citation.
quote:
It falsely claims that removing these terrorists sent here by a foreign government, which is proven
It has not been "proven".
quote:
He describes basic functions of law enforcement as if they are outrageous actions
Histrionic and not reflective of what I wrote
quote:
His final evidence that the admin is out of bounds
Those words made no such commentary or judgment.
quote:
For such a short description, it has many flaws.
For your 6 points, only 1 was valid. I'll include the citation upon your posting and edit my post.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 12:31 pm to Seeker
quote:
So you are stating that the ability for the executive branch to deport illegal aliens for our country is them acting outside their statutory authority?
No. I have said the exact opposite.
This situation is not comparable to a normal deportation proceeding.
quote:
Further, the executive branch is subject to judicatory review from a low level partisan judge.
This would be equal to a congressmen telling the Supreme Court that they can not issue a ruling until it has been reviewed by the execute branch.
Not really. Bad analogy.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 12:31 pm to Nosevens
quote:
So your thoughts on are that no criminal gangs can be considered terrorist ?
No. That is a strawman.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 12:32 pm to SlowFlowPro
You're melting
Hard
Hard
Posted on 3/19/25 at 12:33 pm to therick711
quote:
The thing is, it doesn't matter because the president is vested with the authority to proclaim a predatory incursion which was done.
So he can proclaim incursion against citizens domestically and that proclamation (and the actions done in furtherance of that action) are outside of judicial review?
The judiciary has no role in determining if the actions/assessments fall within the statutory authority granted to the President by Congress?
quote:
The "terrorism" argument championed by some is a red herring.
The admin is relying on this. My post includes reference to their argument being a combination of this and the AEA.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 12:33 pm to hogcard1964
quote:
You're melting
Naw. I'm eating lunch.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 12:35 pm to SlowFlowPro
You’re eating a melt
Posted on 3/19/25 at 12:36 pm to SlowFlowPro
You meant to type "I've had my lunch eaten".
Take the L and move on, kid.
Take the L and move on, kid.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 12:36 pm to Madking
quote:
You’re eating a melt
5 posts in a row
Posted on 3/19/25 at 12:37 pm to hogcard1964
quote:
You meant to type "I've had my lunch eaten".
I have not. In fact, I'm still waiting for people to answer pertinent questions to defend the stances.
"having your lunch eaten" is not reflected when the opposing side is too scared to respond.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 12:37 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
The illegitimate O'Biden regime ignored numerous legal challenges to their nation destroying EOs and the Gaslight Media didn't care to cover that story.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 12:37 pm to Bass Tiger
quote:
The illegitimate O'Biden regime ignored numerous legal challenges t
When?
Page 5 of 22
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News