- 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 3/19/25 at 9:21 am to SlowFlowPro
To avoid strawman allegations, can we all agree on the Trump admin policy position?
What, if anything, do y'all have a problem with using that as the framework for the Trump admin's stance?
quote:
The Trump admin invoked the Aliens Enemies Act and AUMF in order to unilaterally declare a loosely-defined organization as "terrorists", in order to remove their Due Process rights and to frame this as a military operation. They then used this combination of statutory interpretations to unilaterally select individuals located in the US, remove those individuals, and deliver them to a foreign jail (all without oversight). The admin further argues that every decision made cannot be reviewed by the courts, as they're non-justiciable and purely executive functions (military operation during a war/conflict), and the admin can thwart requests for facts upon which they made these decisions (as the admin argues they fall under "national security").
What, if anything, do y'all have a problem with using that as the framework for the Trump admin's stance?
Posted on 3/19/25 at 9:22 am to Flats
quote:
That's what happened.
People are really discussing why that happened, and I suspect you know this.
I stated why in that post, showing how it's a completely different situation to the current one.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 9:23 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Well, you people do not, anyway.
I'll amend it to "people who aren't laughably naive don't believe that any more".
Posted on 3/19/25 at 9:25 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Maybe it is not a "Radical Left Lunatic Judge" acting alone, but rather a duly, Constitutionally appointed and confirmed federal judge, enforcing statutes enacted by the American people acting through their elected representatives in Congress. Just a thought.
Yea, a pants on head fricking retarded thought. Be smart to keep those to yourself.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 9:26 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Maybe it is not a "Radical Left Lunatic Judge" acting alone, but rather a duly, Constitutionally appointed and confirmed federal judge, enforcing statutes enacted by the American people acting through their elected representatives in Congress.
Just a thought.
Dude, is this the best you can do?
Here is a thought. Read the law and cases regarding the law.
The president can throw out who he wants by the alien exclusion act.
As long as they are a united states citizen.
If he feels like they fall under the preview of the law.
I know you don't think the law applies. But here is the kicker. Who decides if the law applies?
The people who fall under this act are decided upon not by some judge. Not even the Supreme Court because they are the ones who decided this. I guess they could override their own precedent but I doubt it.
Not congress.
Not even judge merchant.
The president decides who falls under this act.
Judges have no authority here.
So he had no authority here and it will be overruled on appeal.
So a silly appointed judge has no authority here. Congress has no authority here.
If congress thinks he did an unlawful act regarding this, they should impeach him.
But judges lack authority.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 9:27 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I stated why in that post,
No, you did not, and I'm not comparing it to any other case. You said the case lacked standing, which is a decision a judge made. You didn't explain why, probably because you don't know nor would I expect you to. You just assume it was a good faith decision.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 9:27 am to Fat Bastard
We know that John Roberts replaced Judge Rosemary Collyer on the FISA court with Judge Boasberg in 2016. After Boasberg's appointment by Roberts to the FISA court, FISA warrants to spy on Trump ensued. Rosemary probably asked Roberts to be replaced because she was uncomfortable issuing FISA warrants to spy on a presidential candidate and president.
Are we witnessing Trump playing the long game here?
Trump knows Roberts and Boasberg worked to coup him through the Comey FBI and FISA warrants.
Was Trump's plan all along to allow Roberts and Boasberg to expose themselves? Because it is happening. I mean, Roberts fell for Trump's social media post yesterday and totally outed himself as a partisan.
Are we witnessing Trump playing the long game here?
Trump knows Roberts and Boasberg worked to coup him through the Comey FBI and FISA warrants.
Was Trump's plan all along to allow Roberts and Boasberg to expose themselves? Because it is happening. I mean, Roberts fell for Trump's social media post yesterday and totally outed himself as a partisan.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 9:29 am to Flats
quote:
No, you did not,
quote:
The Obama case was dismissed for standing and justiciability. Standing is an irrelevant point to this Trump matter, as the parties clearly have standing (being physically present in the US and still being alive). The Justiciability issue is the one being debated in the Trump matter, when there was an actual, clear military operation going on in the Obama matter. So, again, nothing alike.
quote:
You said the case lacked standing, which is a decision a judge made.
Correct, and inapplicable to the current case being discussed.
quote:
You didn't explain why,
I did, specifically
quote:
being physically present in the US and still being alive
Posted on 3/19/25 at 9:30 am to AggieHank86
quote:
there would be no problem revising the statutes that are preventing him from acting unilaterally.
The president decides who he can deport using this law.
It falls under his authority. The Supreme Court would have to change precedent to allow judges to do this.
Congress can not override his decision here.
But they could impeach him.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 9:31 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Correct, and inapplicable to the current case being discussed.
fricking hell, can you read? I just said I'm not applying it to any other case.
If the judge wanted to he could have said they have standing and heard the case. He didn't do that.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 9:32 am to SlowFlowPro
Biden definitely ignored the laws on immigration for four years.
Biden was rebuked on the student loan debacle. Then he tried to do it again.
People are tired of the illegals. They definitely violated the law. Trump is trying to uphold the law. If you’re here without a visa, you’re subject to being deported at anytime. Illegals should have “No standing” as far the courts go. They are not a citizen.
Biden was rebuked on the student loan debacle. Then he tried to do it again.
People are tired of the illegals. They definitely violated the law. Trump is trying to uphold the law. If you’re here without a visa, you’re subject to being deported at anytime. Illegals should have “No standing” as far the courts go. They are not a citizen.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 9:35 am to Flats
quote:
If the judge wanted to he could have said they have standing and heard the case. He didn't do that.
The law was pretty clear there was no standing, though, based on precedent and statutory authority.
Or are you arguing the Nihilistic approach about judicial decisions?
Posted on 3/19/25 at 9:37 am to Catahoula20LSU
quote:
Biden definitely ignored the laws on immigration for four years.
Per the Trump's admin's own arguments, that's valid exercise of Executive power that can't be reviewed by courts.
quote:
Biden was rebuked on the student loan debacle. Then he tried to do it again.
Yes, and? He followed the court's order and attempted to use Executive power through other statutory authority. What, exactly, is your issue?
Again, the Trump admin has argued that Biden should have been able to use the CARES Act, FWIW, and courts lack the power to review these decisions. Biden's admin made no such argument.
quote:
People are tired of the illegals. They definitely violated the law.
Sure. We have laws on the books. As people have continuously asked ITT, why couldn't we just deport these TDA assholes via normal means?
quote:
If you’re here without a visa, you’re subject to being deported at anytime. Illegals should have “No standing” as far the courts go.
Well that's just authoritarianism
Posted on 3/19/25 at 9:38 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The law was pretty clear
So? Another judge claimed Trump is wrong for shutting down an executive branch agency because he didn't ask an "official" of that agency pretty please.
What pretty clear law is that judge referencing here?
Or did he just make his decision then backfill his justification with whatever the hell he felt like? Can you even admit that judges do this? Because if you can't I'll not waste any more bandwidth.
This post was edited on 3/19/25 at 9:39 am
Posted on 3/19/25 at 9:40 am to Flats
quote:
So? Another judge claimed Trump is wrong for shutting down an executive branch agency because he didn't ask an "official" of that agency pretty please.
So the Nihilism approach. Got it.
quote:
What pretty clear law is that judge referencing here?
The statutes invoked by the admin. There is little jurisprudence because the Trump admin is arguing novel theories and interpretations of existing law. .
No admin has ever tried something like this before.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 9:42 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
So the Nihilism approach. Got it.
And you're taking the "look at the fine golden threads the emperor is wearing" approach. Got it.
Can you answer my question?
Posted on 3/19/25 at 9:44 am to eddieray
You go both ways or the wrong way, right?
Posted on 3/19/25 at 9:46 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
As I kept asking yesterday, if these decisions are not reviewable for their legality, what happens when the admin makes a mistake? What i the recourse?
Who checks the judge that oversteps his boundaries? Should a District Court judge be able to "check" the Commander-in-Chief? How were previous President's decisions reviewed? Congressional review, perhaps...but not by district courts in real time.
See, this is where you have a chance to show that you're truly impartial as you claim... you know damn well the chaos that would ensue if this judge isn't reprimanded for attempting to intervene here. But you'll make some word salad excuse and drive your image down even further, if that's possible.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 9:47 am to Bunk Moreland
quote:
Let's say Trump did everything right with the Tren de Aragua gang.
Well he had the authority to unilaterally decide who to deport under that act.
Without judicial oversight.
Judges have no authority to question the president's opinion. According to a previous Supreme Court decision.
Remedy is impeachment if they feel he is abusing his authority.
When it comes to the president and many of his powers, this is the remedy. It's not judges.
Page 9 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News