- 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: Federal appeals court maintains temporary block on Trump’s use of Alien Enemies Act
Posted on 3/27/25 at 9:15 pm to David_DJS
Posted on 3/27/25 at 9:15 pm to David_DJS
quote:
You seem to be arguing that these district judges - the conservative ones used to handcuff Dem presidents, and liberal ones used to handcuff Rep presidents - aren't political.
Are you suggesting that?
I'm suggesting that if someone could prove the obvious political and not rooted in law decisions of a rogue judge they could be handled and there are mechanisms to do such.
I'm suggesting that the system is working here and that it's not nearly as politicized as you're making it seem in this one situation where your side is losing ...
1
Posted on 3/27/25 at 9:16 pm to Bunk Moreland
quote:A very reasonable and fair assessment.
The SFP/Boosie response is that DJT is pushing the envelope on a lot of issues and causing penalty flags to be thrown.
And to extend the analogy, we are getting real-time video review of the calls on the field.
Posted on 3/27/25 at 9:16 pm to Mr Cell Phone
quote:
We have laws in this country
Exactly. Trump is using the law to deport people. The judges are trying to prevent that. Nowhere in the law does it say that members of a terrorist organization can't be deported because it would be mean. In fact, the law says that use of this act is not up for judicial review. So, why are the judges breaking the law?
Posted on 3/27/25 at 9:17 pm to oklahogjr
quote:
I'm suggesting that if someone could prove the obvious political and not rooted in law decisions of a rogue judge they could be handled and there are mechanisms to do such.
So, you agree some of these judges are political or you're suggesting they aren't. Be plainspoken.
Posted on 3/27/25 at 9:18 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:Trump is TRYING to use a law that HE says is applicable, while others say that it is not.quote:Exactly. Trump is using the law to deport people.
We have laws in this country
And the judiciary is taking steps to resolve that dispute.
As intended 250 years ago,.
Posted on 3/27/25 at 9:31 pm to David_DJS
quote:
, you agree some of these judges are political or you're suggesting they aren't. Be plainspoken.
I'm unsure. I would need to see a lot more data to comment on every judge.
Based on no one being able to make a direct case to have the judge impeached and removed, and circuit court upholding the decision based on bi partisan lines when this injunction was reviewed that this case and decisions aren't politicized but based on facts.
Posted on 3/27/25 at 9:32 pm to oklahogjr
quote:
Show me one judge who has veto'd a law or has exercised veto power.....
Is this a serious question?
Are you fecklessly trying to draw a distinction between veto and strike down?
Posted on 3/27/25 at 9:32 pm to oklahogjr
quote:
Based on no one being able to make a direct case to have the judge impeached and removed
Wrong.
Posted on 3/27/25 at 9:35 pm to Bunk Moreland
quote:
The SFP/Boosie response is that DJT is pushing the envelope on a lot of issues and causing penalty flags to be thrown.
I know, and they're full of shite.
I've yet to see one of them try to defend the clown who thinks the CINC can't decide issues of military readiness.
Posted on 3/27/25 at 9:40 pm to oklahogjr
quote:
I'm unsure. I would need to see a lot more data to comment on every judge.
Well, I appreciate the honesty but I think you're being pretty naive.
quote:
Based on no one being able to make a direct case to have the judge impeached and removed, and circuit court upholding the decision based on bi partisan lines when this injunction was reviewed that this case and decisions aren't politicized but based on facts.
You're focused on one matter. I'm arguing the big picture.
There are over 500 fed district judges. You really don't think a single one of them is politically bent? Because that's all it takes, right? - just one.
I think there are far more than one or two.
This post was edited on 3/27/25 at 9:41 pm
Posted on 3/27/25 at 9:40 pm to Flats
quote:As I HAVE said, I think the Administration will prevail on this one, as soon as to matter gets past the TRO stage (first couple of weeks) and into the preliminary injunction stage.quote:I've yet to see one of them try to defend the clown who thinks the CINC can't decide issues of military readiness.
The SFP/Boosie response is that DJT is pushing the envelope on a lot of issues and causing penalty flags to be thrown.
But it WOULD appear that the matter was properly-pleaded to get a TRO.
Posted on 3/27/25 at 9:41 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
As I HAVE said, I think the Administration will prevail on this one, as soon as to matter gets past the TRO stage (first couple of weeks) and into the preliminary injunction stage.
How long will that take?
Is it possible it'll take a year? Is it beyond possibility that it could take even longer?
Posted on 3/27/25 at 9:45 pm to David_DJS
quote:Hard to say.quote:How long will that take?
As I HAVE said, I think the Administration will prevail on this one, as soon as to matter gets past the TRO stage (first couple of weeks) and into the preliminary injunction stage.
Is it possible it'll take a year? Is it beyond possibility that it could take even longer?
If the DJ decides properly on the PI, a matter of weeks. If he rules incorrectly, the Administration will almost certainly pursue an expedited appeal, in which case another month or three at the Circuit. If it goes all the way to SCOTUS, longer.
All that also does not address the potential of orders enjoining enforcement during appeals.
This post was edited on 3/27/25 at 9:50 pm
Posted on 3/27/25 at 9:47 pm to David_DJS
quote:
How long will that take?
So long that if the power goes in the other direction it's an insufficient check & balance.
Posted on 3/27/25 at 9:51 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
As I HAVE said, I think the Administration will prevail on this one,
As I HAVE said, that's because it's a nakedly political decision based on the personal desires of the judge. And there will be zero penalty for his shitty opinion that gets overturned so he'll do it again, as will others.
Posted on 3/27/25 at 9:55 pm to Mr Cell Phone
This is incoherent
Posted on 3/27/25 at 10:04 pm to AggieHank86
You are such a disingenuous piece of shite
Posted on 3/27/25 at 11:06 pm to David_DJS
quote:
There are over 500 fed district judges. You really don't think a single one of them is politically bent? Because that's all it takes, right? - just one.
I think there are far more than one or two.
This isn't an unchecked power though. For example the appeals court reviewed the injunction and it stood right? So it wasn't a single activist judge. It was a judge and then a review of the circuit court now that upheld it.
A circuit made of an Obama, bush, and trump judges so if it was straight politically motivated you had to have at least one Republican appointed judge agree it should stand.
Posted on 3/27/25 at 11:42 pm to PUB
quote:
This country is simply beyond repair.
As much as it it bothers me, I'm really starting to feel this way. We (the USA) have gotten so far away from what our founders intended................
Posted on 3/28/25 at 12:49 am to wdhalgren
quote:
When an alien enemy is required by the President, or by order of any court, judge, or justice, to depart and to be removed, it shall be the duty of the marshal of the district in which he shall be apprehended to provide
quote:
by causing a removal of such alien out of the territory of the United States; and for such removal the marshal shall have the warrant of the President,
It says it right there in clear text that the President has the authority to issue a warrant for the removal.
I may not have a law degree, attended law school, or have Honorable in front my name, but that law clearly gives the authority of the president to remove “alien enemies” from the country.
But that could be the semantics in the case in determining “alien enemies.” I have a simple definition “all of them” especially after if anyone commits a crime in this country.
[
This post was edited on 3/28/25 at 4:51 am
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News