- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
0
Posted on 5/29/25 at 9:57 am to I20goon
quote:
That's pretty damn broad and Congress granted it (except to our current judiciary who said "tariffs aren't included").
The Court did not say "tariffs aren't included". The Court expressly stated that tariffs ARE included in powers granted to POTUS in the IEEPA. The Court also said those tariff powers have limits, and POTUS cannot just impose unbounded tariffs at will.
As for your argument that the judiciary should look to Congress to clawback it's power....instead the judiciary is pointing out the limits to the power Congress granted, so clawing it back is unnecessary.
I already posted this in this same thread. When Congress delegates it's Constitutional authority to POTUS, it must place "intelligible principles" directing POTUS on how to use that authority, or else the grant is unconstitutional and void. If POTUS fails to follow those "intelligible principles", then his actions are unconstitutional and void. The Court is saying POTUS violated those principles.
ANyone really interested in this issue should read the opinion. It is long, and sometimes complicated, but it gives an excellent history of how we got here, both legally and factually.
Pdf from Court website
Posted on 5/29/25 at 10:02 am to BBONDS25
quote:
Then you need to go back to law school. When an order refers to a specific section of law you can reference that section in the petition to determine what the order grants. Very basic stuff. Guess what you will find there….
Your reference to the statute doesn't change things. I literally can't find a shred of legal analysis that difers from this:
"However, his deportation was illegal and unlawful because of an Immigration Judge order issued in 2019 that forbade his deportation to El Salvador. Mr. Abrego Garcia was granted “withholding of removal” under INA § 241(b)(3)."
What is it in 241(b)(3) you think I'm missing???
Posted on 5/29/25 at 10:03 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
Your reference to the statute doesn't change things. I literally can't find a shred of legal analysis that difers from this:
My reference is to the order which references relief granted which listed Guatemala. The remedy here is simple. Why didn’t they do it?
Posted on 5/29/25 at 10:06 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
Wanting the Constitution
Just stop.
Throwing out terms like due process doesn't mean jack shite.
Oh the illegal didn't get due process, that's against the constitution.
No it's not.
Posted on 5/29/25 at 10:06 am to Nosevens
quote:
Obviously it’s moot because he ain’t coming back
I agree it's practically moot, but the case is still pending. If the order applied to GUATEMALA, why wouldn't the DOJ seek to have the case dismissed on those grounds?
Posted on 5/29/25 at 10:09 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
I agree it's practically moot, but the case is still pending. If the order applied to GUATEMALA, why wouldn't the DOJ seek to have the case dismissed on those grounds?
Why leave it to any question? The procedural process to fix it is very simple. Why wasn’t it done?
Posted on 5/29/25 at 10:11 am to BBONDS25
quote:
My reference is to the order which references relief granted which listed Guatemala.
You still have yet to reference a part of the ORDER referencing Guatemala. Again, on 4.3.25, I started an entire thread in hopes that the ORDER related to Guatemala. I did the research, and found I was wrong.
Posted on 5/29/25 at 10:16 am to IvoryBillMatt
I believe he was okayed for deportation to somewhere other than El Salvador because of his MS-13 affiliations and threats death. Guatemala destination had preference for family connections
Posted on 5/29/25 at 10:17 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
You still have yet to reference a part of the ORDER referencing Guatemala. Again, on 4.3.25, I started an entire thread in hopes that the ORDER related to Guatemala.
Post the petition and I’ll walk you through it.
Posted on 5/29/25 at 10:19 am to BBONDS25
I haven't really followed the Garcia case that closely, so I probably shouldn't weigh in at all. Nevertheless.....
At the SCOTUS level, the DOJ "acknowledge[d] 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."
LINK
Doesn't that pretty much put the issue to rest?
At the SCOTUS level, the DOJ "acknowledge[d] 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."
LINK
Doesn't that pretty much put the issue to rest?
Posted on 5/29/25 at 10:21 am to LawTalkingGuy
quote:
the DOJ "acknowledge[d] 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."
Not sure it is relevant, but the DOJ attorney that said that was fired for saying it and higher ranking attorneys stated that statement was not correct.
quote:
Doesn't that pretty much put the issue to rest?
Nope.
Posted on 5/29/25 at 10:25 am to BBONDS25
quote:
My reference is to the order which references relief granted which listed Guatemala.
OK. Enough is enough. This is a thread on tariffs. Someone posted something stupid to show I was wrong in a previous legal analysis.
As shown over and over, there's nothing in an ORDER which references KAG and Guatemala. There is something nonsensical in the OPINION, but it is not referenced in the only part that matters...the ORDER.
Have a nice day.
Posted on 5/29/25 at 10:27 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
As shown over and over, there's nothing in an ORDER which references KAG and Guatemala
Of course there is. The remedy is simple. Why didn’t they utilize it?
quote:
Have a nice day.
You too.
Posted on 5/29/25 at 10:28 am to TerraForma
No kidding. There's zero standing on essentially everything they're trying.
Tarrifs and deportations will not slow down.
Tarrifs and deportations will not slow down.
Posted on 5/29/25 at 10:32 am to cadillacattack
Sundance is digging.
Conservative Treehouse
quote:
The New York trade court literally ignored the 2025 USTR investigation, AND the 2025 Dept of Commerce review and investigation of the same based on the USTR published findings. All of those factual investigative findings underpin the Presidential actions taken pursuant to his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
It looks like the trade court didn’t even review the USTR reports.
Conservative Treehouse
Posted on 5/29/25 at 10:40 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
Bite me. I learned statutory interpretation in law school under Antonin Scalia.
When did Scalia teach at Southern?
Posted on 5/29/25 at 11:56 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
You learned statutory interpretation in law school under Antonin Scalia?
NC, I had some time to go through the thread I started on 4.3.25 proposing that the removal order applied to Guatemala. I apologize for not remembering how involved in that thread you were.
From that thread, I think you would have to agree that I wasn't "pro-KAG" or for KAG getting more due process or for KAG's return to the US, correct?
Posted on 5/29/25 at 12:03 pm to TerraForma
Posted on 5/29/25 at 12:44 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
NC, I had some time to go through the thread I started on 4.3.25 proposing that the removal order applied to Guatemala. I apologize for not remembering how involved in that thread you were.
To answer your question re: why this was never raised on appeal, my understanding (via a DC Federal attorney) is the DOJ attorney (now an ex-DOJ attorney) got walked into "admitting" an administrative error, AND waiving any claim to the contrary in court. That apparently (I'm no attorney, but as it was related to me) screwed the pooch for the DOJ. Without the actual court records, I can't verify, but the source is very good.
Decision was then made to avoid admitting to the blithering legal incompetence involved (portraying weakness), and instead, to tell the Judicial Branch to pound sand (portraying strength), which the EB had every right to do.
Page 8 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News