re: Stephen Miller- administration considering suspending habeas corpus

quote:

---

Me and basically every court who's ever analyzed it, brother.

---

First, this isn't true. Not every judge ever believes that. If you disagree, then prove it. You are falsely using selective court cases, some of which have dissent, to make an ABSOLUTE legal assertion. Second, the decision of a case does not always reflect the law; RvW is an example, i.e. decisions can be overturned even at the highest level.

This is an evolving situation and court cases are being appealed in a large number. But this is of course, all distraction from the issue.

1. There absolutely has been a predatory incursion. 20 million people in 3 years is essentially unprecedented.
2. The process of removing illegals is being fought in the courts who don't have unilateral power to restrict the executive branch in these matters, i.e. judicial overreach.
3. Even the courts are wrestling with these issues and you're trying to use court decisions from previous instances as a win, which they aren't at this time.
4. Your stupid interpretation of the 14th leads to an absolutely absurd and farcical scenario where every single illegal who has crossed the border gets due process only afforded to citizens by the 14th which completely makes a mockery of the justice system in this country. We have baked in ways to deal with emergencies and this is absolutely one of them that needs to be expedited. We are on an unsustainable path and giving 20 million people a hearing is ludicrous. But I get that you totally can't think that far ahead. You're too busy trying to distract people with inane minutia because you can't admit you're wrong. In fact, you can't even come to terms with the fact that you're wrong in order to get to a place where you can admit it.

quote:

---

Again, I didn't invent that. You're just angry that you don't understand the difference in the use of "person" and "the people" in the Constitution.

---

Every time you make this stupid assertion to me I will keep asking you this same eisegetical question: show me in the plain language of the text "more rights" and "lesser rights." NOT your idiotic invention that you manufactured in your head. From the actual text of the amendment. You can't because it's not there. You made that up in your head.

quote:

---

On a different issue than the due process part. Again, you're really bad at this.

---

Proceed with your evidence, small govt expert. Like when you were asked to provide the equivalent of O'Keefe's latest video but you didn't.

quote:

---

No. Is English your 3rd language?

---

You are again wrong. It was a representative election. Feel free to take that back whenever you like.

Then, you claim to agree with the electorate that illegals need to go. Let's get to a fine point. If you agree that illegals need to be deported and you stupidly don't think it's a predatory incursion, then how are we supposed to address the current crisis of 20 mil illegals who are straining the system, not paying taxes, committing crimes, etc?

quote:

---

It is the factions described in the Federalist Papers to a T

---

That's curious. People who duly elected an official to do something is "factions?"

quote:

---

Incorrect. The Constitution was made to thwart the emotional swings of the mob.[quote]You can't even understand the basics of reality. It's amazing. It's really fascinating to watch mental illness in action. First, that's NOT what the constitution was created for. It was created to establish a system of govt and to preserve rights from being trampled by the govt. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with "emotional swings." Again, you totally made that up in your head. In fact, I would say it was borne out of emotion, the emotion against tyranny. The passion to preserve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (wealth). Second, the structure of the govt is still in place so your characterization of socio-political democracy is wrong. The mob did not do away with the republic. And FTR, the courts aren't really arguing against the removal of illegals, simpliciter. They are weighing in on the PROCESS of removal and the extent to which it includes due process.

[quote]I even quoted Federalist 10 in this thread for people like you who don't understand basic Constitutional history.

---

How about you stop inserting words into the 14th and then we can try to help you understand the Federalist Papers

quote:

---

Depends on the jobs and if this violates the Constituion

---

You were railing against Trump's current approach as being authoritarian yet, here you are admitting him reducing the size of the govt is something you do not totally oppose. Thank you for backtracking yet again.

quote:

---

He hasn't done this

---

So he didn't stop USAID funding? He isn't working on a bill to garnish wages for unpaid student loans? He didn't cut the DOE? What is wrong with you? Was there a singular event that caused you to have brain trauma or was it something you were born with?

quote:

---

The spending he's authorized is still at Biden levels.

---

Why don't you break down that spending for us? Go grab a Fred graph and make your case

quote:

---

He hasn't done this, either. EOs can't do this. Only legislation can.

---

You're being misleading again. "The order says the education secretary will, 'to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law, take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return authority over education to the States and local communities.'"

quote:

---

Or, you know, the word in use at the time of drafting.

---

Your take on that has been noted and disagreed with

quote:

---

Which courts have already done

---

Has there ever been a ruling you disagreed with? Be honest. Let's start with RvW.

You're in a pickle here. Answer yes and you totally undermine EVERY appeal to rulings you've ever made and it confirms to everyone how biased they know you are that you pick and choose which rulings you like to score a "win" in your rube goldberg mind. Answer no and it confirms to everyone the liar they know you to be and that you are agreeing to contradictory rulings. It would not at all surprise me if someone could get you to agree to a ruling and then in the same thread agree to it's reversal all without you even knowing it happened and you would claim a win on both sides.

quote:

---

such as invasion has to be one country/foreign power/officially recognized govt making a federal attempt to create incursion into the US.

---

You conveniently omit "predatory incursion" but I totally understand why you would do that. Just like you insert words into the 14th

quote:

---

Show me the proof of the coordianted efforts of the governments of Honduras, Guatamala, El Salvador, and Mexico to show this invasion, please.

---

A predatory incursion does not have to be conducted by a formally recognized govt. But you knew that already, didn't you

quote:

---

Mass migration =/= invasion.

---

And here we see SFP implying that 20mil illegals in 3 years is somehow organic. Care to comment on the midnight flights that were bringing in illegals from all over the world. That's just "migration"

quote:

---

Just because you don't understand something and can write words confirming that ignorance doesn't mean it's refuting anything in reality.

---

Let me know when you have an actual, grown up response to my refutations. Not this typical SFP trash

quote:

---

evil, dishonest brokers keep repeating these lies

---

Wait, you think it's a lie that the Biden admin was complicit in facilitating illegal immigration?

quote:

---

neophytes

---

Be honest, did you know what this word meant before you used it? Do you know what it means in the context of this conversation?

quote:

---

Does that mean they lose all rights" No

---

But they also aren't necessarily guaranteed "due process" in being deported. Unless you make up words in the 14th from your claptrap imagination

quote:

---

DJT has been elevated to God Emperor status where any dissent and checks are illegitimate

---

Still pushing this easily refuted lie

Meanwhile, gays and women are STILL crapping all over everything in support of HAMAS

quote:

---

“What determines they are here illegally?” Are you serious lol

---

Are you going to argue that the government has never falsely or erroneously arrested someone? Are you serious lol?

quote:

---

A judge just struck down Trump admin's argument of invasion and wartime powers.

---

"A judge" that doesn't have the jurisdiction to do so and will be overruled. Sit back and watch junior!

quote:

---

Just like your hero Lincoln.

---

yeah lots of similarities there - Trump, Lincoln, Civil War, hero...loads.

Must be 3 illegal downvoting

quote:

---

We're in a period of mass expansion of emotional thinking and shedding rationality, correct.

---

Which is no way to operate a legal system. Law schools have shite out far too many emotionally-driven attorneys and they've started to make their way into the judiciary. This is why the American legal system is losing credibility so fast.

quote:

---

they either know the law or they don't

---

And?

quote:

---

the judiciary being "emotional" is a MAGA construct to try and destroy the institution when they don't get what they want (which is exactly what's happening today.)

---

Speaking of emotions, what does MAGA have to do with it? Can you form an argument that isn't a braindead construct of "MAGA bad!"?

My observation is pretty simple. Every f'n thing is more emotional than it used to be. Did you know Reagan was the first president to acknowledge a sympathetic figure in attendance for a state of the union? Now we can't get through one of those things without a half dozen standing ovations for someone that suffered a hardship or played hero. There's a reason for that. Our culture is trending to100% emotions 100% of the time.

So what are the chances the judiciary is the one institution in all of America immune to, as SPF labeled it, the massive expansion of emotional thinking?