- 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: Supreme Court sides with Trump administration on using AEA to deport Venezuelans.
Posted on 4/7/25 at 8:25 pm to bhtigerfan
Posted on 4/7/25 at 8:25 pm to bhtigerfan
Amy CB voted with the libs. Surprise, surprise.
1
Posted on 4/7/25 at 8:27 pm to Bunk Moreland
quote:
That said, I hope you guys are comfortable with a Dem president making unreviewable decisions on who is a terrorist or gang member.
Thevdetermination is reviewable. SCOTUS has said so and the Administration has consistently said so.
Posted on 4/7/25 at 8:28 pm to bhtigerfan
quote:
Boasberg
Posted on 4/7/25 at 8:28 pm to Bunk Moreland
quote:
That said, I hope you guys are comfortable with a Dem president making unreviewable decisions on who is a terrorist or gang member.
Who made this argument in court?
Posted on 4/7/25 at 8:33 pm to CDawson
quote:
quote:
It also noted there is limited judicial review of AEA
Where does the AEA say it includes limited judicial review?
Not of the AEA, but if whether it is applicable.
For example, it only applies to those 14 and older. A court could conduct an inquiry of the age of the person to determine if he is subject to it. If it is determined the person is only 12, it cannot be applied.
Posted on 4/7/25 at 8:36 pm to udtiger
quote:
For example, it only applies to those 14 and older. A court could conduct an inquiry of the age of the person to determine if he is subject to it. If it is determined the person is only 12, it cannot be applied.
They have argued for weeks this sort of review was not possible.
Posted on 4/7/25 at 8:41 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
quote:
For example, it only applies to those 14 and older. A court could conduct an inquiry of the age of the person to determine if he is subject to it. If it is determined the person is only 12, it cannot be applied.
They have argued for weeks this sort of review was not possible.
The Court noted it is very limited can only be brought via a habeas petition.
They did not hold the AEA itself is subject to review.
Posted on 4/7/25 at 8:48 pm to bhtigerfan
Like an Avalanche, rolling down a mountain
Posted on 4/7/25 at 8:50 pm to udtiger
quote:
The Court noted it is very limited can only be brought via a habeas petition.
They did not hold the AEA itself is subject to review.
No I get it, but they (as in posters not participants in the litigation) argued for weeks that the courts couldn't review anything (even your hypo). They argued once the President/admin made a determination relating to invoking the AEA, that was final. End of story.
Posted on 4/7/25 at 8:53 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This was not a ruling on the merits, scholar
I and we told you DISTRICT court judges didn't have authority to make these rulings on happenings outside their district.
You rebuffed that notion.
But you will never admit you were wrong. Never.
Posted on 4/7/25 at 8:56 pm to Bunk Moreland
quote:you're one abortion I’d have been ok with back in the day
Bunk Moreland
Posted on 4/8/25 at 6:31 am to Bourre
quote:
quote:
SFP isn't going to like this, not one bit.
That stupid bitch is wrong again
"Obviously, this is the worst ruling since Roe v Wade. Congress has not declared war against Vene-Salvado-Xico and the high Court clearly voted on ideological lines... This is a sad day for all Americans. Finally -- This is lawfare..." - SFP probably
Posted on 4/8/25 at 6:34 am to bhtigerfan
It's crazy we live in a time where you need a supreme court ruling to remove foreign illegal thugs from your country.
Posted on 4/8/25 at 6:51 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
No I get it,
quote:Imagine toiling all those years in law school to larp 8 hours a day as a righteous warrior against evil misguided message board posters. Keep fighting the good fight
but they (as in posters
Posted on 4/8/25 at 6:55 am to Bunk Moreland
quote:
That said, I hope you guys are comfortable with a Dem president making unreviewable decisions on who is a terrorist or gang member.
Is this not what happened with the J6ers?
Posted on 4/8/25 at 6:57 am to tgrgrd00
quote:
I and we told you DISTRICT court judges didn't have authority to make these rulings on happenings outside their district.
You rebuffed that notion.
And I'm still right
The USSC didn't change that law. It just ruled the district court was incorrect in some procedural areas.
Posted on 4/8/25 at 6:59 am to UncleFestersLegs
quote:
Imagine toiling all those years in law school
"Toiling" does not describe my time in law school.
Posted on 4/8/25 at 7:05 am to SlowFlowPro
SFP, Gamecockultimate, and IvoryBill. 
Posted on 4/8/25 at 7:10 am to Commander Rabb
All nine members agreed judicial review was available. The 5-4 was on the procedural question of how to access that review
Posted on 4/8/25 at 7:13 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The USSC didn't change that law. It just ruled the district court was incorrect in some procedural areas.
Like not instructing the plaintiffs to file in Texas and then try to get involved in military flight operations involving national security.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News