- 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
1
Posted on 4/11/25 at 10:22 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
The inconsistency of your argument falls apart when applied to cherry-picked district judges issuing nationwide injunctions or injunctions essentially shutting down wide swaths of EB Departments.
You state it's an inconsistency of my argument, and then create a ton of framing to achieve....something.
quote:
JB wants to insert itself, essentially seizing assigned power from the EB
Naw. It's ensuring the EB follows the law granting them specific, limited authority, which is the role and authority of the courts.
quote:
. The JB has a history of ignoring the written law
And there's the attempt to invalidate their role and authority with framing to attack the legitimacy with the framing.
quote:
Nonetheless, during questioning the government argued vehemently that the mandate-penalty DID NOT constitute a tax, and fell outside of Commerce Clause restraints. NFIB agreed ACA penalties did not constitute a tax, so there was zero disagreement between parties on that fact throughout the entire evolution of the case. NFIB argued that the mandate enforced by a penalty was a breach of the Commerce Clause .... as it clearly was in the majority SCOTUS opinion.
In an unprecedented, audacious ruling, Roberts ignored Congressional language and intent, ignored the government's vehement insistence that the language was as intended, ignored the plaintiff's concordance with those arguments and instead claimed the ACA penalties were not the penalties they actually were.
The court is not beholden to arguments from counsel, if those arguments are not legally correct.
That seems to be your disconnect with that example.
Posted on 4/11/25 at 11:24 am to Pandy Fackler
Spackled Panties citing AP pinko figs.
Posted on 4/11/25 at 11:28 am to 19
quote:
Spackled Panties citing AP pinko figs.
The names Fackler. Pandy Fackler.
Posted on 4/11/25 at 12:12 pm to Pandy Fackler
quote:
But the government has not produced any evidence linking Khalil to Hamas, and made no reference to the group in their most recent filing.
I am 100% positive the memo does not say this. AP is editorializing, so they can cause a ruckus, once the judge sides with the SoS, who legally can do this. Without a crime being required
Posted on 4/11/25 at 12:14 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
I am 100% positive the memo does not say this. AP is editorializing, so they can cause a ruckus, once the judge sides with the SoS, who legally can do this. Without a crime being required
Ok.
Posted on 4/11/25 at 12:19 pm to Pandy Fackler
quote:
he's a permanent US Resident
Posted on 4/11/25 at 12:28 pm to Pandy Fackler
quote:
Ok.
The More You Know
quote:
The REAL ID Act of 2005 amended the INA to expand terrorism-related grounds for deportation. Specifically, it revised INA to align deportability criteria with the broader inadmissibility provisions already established. Prior to the amendment, an alien legally present in the United States could only be deported for directly engaging in terrorist activity. The REAL ID Act broadened this scope to include material support to terrorism
Like endorsing campus riots targeting students of a particular religion
quote:
Khalil, who helped lead Columbia’s student protest movement demanding a ceasefire in Gaza, was arrested Saturday night by federal immigration authorities who said they were acting on a State Department order to revoke his green card
Posted on 4/11/25 at 12:39 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Mamoud Khalil met those.
No one else seems to think so, including the Secretary of State.
quote:
Secretary of State Marco Rubio responded Wednesday evening in a memo obtained by NBC News. In a one-and-a-half-page memo, he cited an obscure provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 to justify Khalil’s removal from the U.S.
Rubio said that while Khalil's “past, current or expected beliefs, statements, or associations that are otherwise lawful," the provision allows the secretary of state alone to “personally determine” whether he should remain in the country.
He said that allowing Khalil to stay in the U.S. would create a "hostile environment for Jewish students in the United States.”
He’s deporting him not for violating terms of his Green Card. He’s deporting him for being antisemitic by protesting the actions of Israel.
LINK
Posted on 4/11/25 at 12:39 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
The REAL ID Act of 2005 amended the INA to expand terrorism-related grounds for deportation. Specifically, it revised INA to align deportability criteria with the broader inadmissibility provisions already established. Prior to the amendment, an alien legally present in the United States could only be deported for directly engaging in terrorist activity. The REAL ID Act broadened this scope to include material support to terrorism
quote:
Like endorsing campus riots targeting students of a particular religion
quote:
Khalil, who helped lead Columbia’s student protest movement demanding a ceasefire in Gaza, was arrested Saturday night by federal immigration authorities who said they were acting on a State Department order to revoke his green card
I'm aware of the first part and in Khalil’s case, that would be a crime. The Government has provided no assertion that he's broken the law.
To the second part, yes that's correct.
Posted on 4/11/25 at 12:53 pm to Pandy Fackler
quote:
I'm aware of the first part and in Khalil’s case, that would be a crime.
How is providing support for terrorism a crime? You can be denied entry into the US because of it. And it doesnt require a conviction, in order to deny your entry
And since he was a leader of a "terrorist action" on campus. And yes they were terrorizing Jews and anyone in support of them. Then hes known to be supporting terrorism
quote:
Protesters broke into and occupied Hamilton Hall. Several antisemitic incidents took place near the protests. On May 6, the school administration canceled the university-wide graduation ceremony. Shafik announced her resignation from the presidency on August 14. The encampments at Columbia led to the proliferation of Palestine solidarity encampments at over 180 universities around the world.
It aint rocket surgery
Posted on 4/11/25 at 12:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The court is not beholden to arguments from counsel, if those arguments are not legally correct.
CONGRESS DID NOT PASS THE PENALTY AS A TAX.
Congress was VERY specific about that.
Not 1 other judge in the entire trial and appeal process was inclined to interpret the penalty as a tax. Likewise, none of the 4 libs were inclined that way until they were certain Roberts would not pass the ACA as compatible with the Commerce Clause. Robert's contrivance holding that he could legislate for Congress and litigate for the Administration was what they were left with, and so the ACA non-tax was labeled a tax.
Posted on 4/11/25 at 12:56 pm to 4cubbies
quote:False.
He’s deporting him not for violating terms of his Green Card.
Posted on 4/11/25 at 1:00 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
He’s deporting him for being antisemitic by protesting the actions of
He’s deporting him for providing support for terrorism
Word for word from the REAL ID update to the Immigration Naturalization Act
Posted on 4/11/25 at 1:21 pm to Pandy Fackler
Does anyone know what procedural rules apply in this hearing?
The only evidence being offered by the Government is an undated memorandum supposedly from Marco Rubio who won't be there to testify. Why isn't that inadmissible hearsay?
The only evidence being offered by the Government is an undated memorandum supposedly from Marco Rubio who won't be there to testify. Why isn't that inadmissible hearsay?
Posted on 4/11/25 at 1:37 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
He’s deporting him for providing support for terrorism
That’s what YOU say, not what the Secretary of State says.
Posted on 4/11/25 at 3:11 pm to Pandy Fackler
quote:
The Immigration Judge has found Mahmoud Khalil removable.
We have an update!
Posted on 4/11/25 at 3:14 pm to Pandy Fackler
All that BS Pandy laid out nothing more than hot gaslighting…
Trump’s your deddy fruit cakes!
Trump’s your deddy fruit cakes!
Posted on 4/11/25 at 3:16 pm to BarberitosDawg
This thread will live in infamy. A testament to idiocy and severe TDS.
Posted on 4/11/25 at 3:16 pm to BarberitosDawg
Pandy lacks the self awareness to see his TDS and can only argue against him. But he’s not the only one
Page 9 of 23
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News