- 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
re: The elephant in the room regarding boasberg/venezuelan gangs.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 10:46 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 3/18/25 at 10:46 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Objectively false statement.
Only because we have accepted tyranny from politicians, bureaucrats, lawyers and judges for generations. Allowing foreign actors the rights of citizens and limitations to government actions found in the constitution only makes sense to those who think they should also be afforded to an invading army.
1
Posted on 3/18/25 at 10:47 am to Warboo
quote:
Forgiving student loans and national security are not in the same realm.
It's the same analysis.
quote:
The idea that a district judge can with his opinion relegate what is or what is not a matter of national security is absurd.
The authority to do this is the same place where the admin purportedly got their authority to label the plaintiffs terrorists, etc.: Congress
Posted on 3/18/25 at 10:48 am to dinosaur
quote:
and this could turn out to be a very big deal.
Threads like these keep referencing the 80/20 rule, etc., while not realizing that Trump disobeying a valid/legal court order will create another 80/20 analysis rather quickly.
I imagine this is exactly why the dishonest and emotional arguments like OP have begun being circulating in the echo chamber, to try to silence that analysis.
This post was edited on 3/18/25 at 10:49 am
Posted on 3/18/25 at 10:50 am to troyt37
quote:
Only because we have accepted tyranny from politicians, bureaucrats, lawyers and judges for generations.
Limiting the ability of these actors to act is the opposite of tyranny.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 10:50 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I'm saying it's theoretically possible that they are having their rights violated and evaluating that claim makes no evaluation of the underlying nature of the purported criminal.
They can be the literal worst people in the world and that's irrelevant to a discussion over if their rights were violated or if the statutory authority used to impact their lives was wielded properly and legally.
I am going to agree with you on the principle involved.
But now we have to consider the totality of the situation. I think it is of extreme importance to examine the conduct of the judge and the character of the one making the charge. For instance, IF there exists a group that is demanding exact "perfection" from one political group, but advocates for extreme "laxity" from the opposing political group, that whole group should be discounted when attempts 'lawfare'.
It is my contention that the Constitution defends the human rights of individuals, not the corrupt desires of propaganda organizations.
There is a grey area when national interests are being victimized by foreign agents 'gaming the system.' That a becomes a problem when those interests collude with 'corrupt judges.' When you find one judge who goes into 'how many angels can dance on a pinhead' analysis of one issue, but who yawns and demands bloody body parts in his analysis of other issues, I think it is critical that SOMEONE take a forensic review of that judges records.
For instance, in this judges background it has been reported (and I use that phrase to gain the same legitimacy as the journalism trend in the past 20 years) that he has been very lenient in 'applying the law' when the defendant is a liberal cause.
It is time to bring some fairness into the judicial process - this new tactic of 'forum shoppiing' to settle political disputes has got to get stopped.
I'd prefer a return to dueling to settle disputes. - at least both sides would have the same individual motivation.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 10:53 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Just so I’m clear, because I honestly don’t know. What is the factual basis for getting rid of them. Is it written up anywhere I can look at it? I’m guessing some but not all have been convicted?
Posted on 3/18/25 at 10:53 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Limiting the ability of these actors to act is the opposite of tyranny.
How is affording them the rights of citizens, and the limitations of government found in the Constitution, limiting the ability of these actors to act? Putting them on a fricking plane and flying their asses out of the country is limiting the ability of these actors to act, at least against the people of the United States. You know, what every elected official is sworn to do?
This post was edited on 3/18/25 at 10:56 am
Posted on 3/18/25 at 10:56 am to troyt37
quote:
How is affording them the rights of citizens, and the limitations of government found in the Constitution, limiting the ability of these actors to act?
It limits what the government can do to these people, which is a literal limitation on their ability to act. That's liberty, not tyranny.
What you're doing is arguing for more tyranny, but against an out-group, which justifies the increase in tyranny. This isn't necessarily an invalid opinion, but you're mislabeling it.
quote:
putting them on a fricking plane and flying their asses out of the country is limiting the ability of these actors to act,
The limitation is the due process that should be guaranteed to the illegals, which, again, limits the ability of the government to act (purportedly improperly).
I don't want the government able to "fly anyone's arse" out of the country without due process. That's a limitation on government, the opposite of tyranny.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 11:02 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It limits what the government can do to these people, which is a literal limitation on their ability to act. That's liberty, not tyranny.
What you're doing is arguing for more tyranny, but against an out-group, which justifies the increase in tyranny. This isn't necessarily an invalid opinion, but you're mislabeling it.
An out-group? How about criminal foreign invaders? We afford criminal illegals, even organized criminal gangs of illegals, liberty? Is that not done so at the peril of the liberty of actual citizens? Do their crimes happen in a vacuum?
Posted on 3/18/25 at 11:05 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
You don’t give the WH legal team the benefit of the doubt, but you see a judge (who has a COI problem.. shocker) blocking the deportation of criminal illegal aliens and immediately assume the law is on his side. How many of Obama’s deportations did he try to block?
When there was a hearing scheduled...then yeah the law is on the side of the judge. Alien Enemies act is only for Wartime, so that is not the law on the side of DJT and the DOJ
Posted on 3/18/25 at 11:06 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:Far, far fewer of your Constitutional rights would have been confirmed and strengthened by SCOTUS, if the Judicial Branch were only to address the claims of "good people."
A normal, sane, American would read the news and say “good riddance to the gangs”.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 11:07 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
How many of Obama’s deportations did he try to block?
This.
Every President going back for decades (if not longer) has deported individuals. Now some District Court hack says "wait a minute" and all of a sudden this process is questionable? And per SFP, it's questionable legally, no less?
This is what Slow Fool Pro refuses to accept: he never fails to proclaim OMB bad - other Dem's good. He just won't see his double standard, because he's A) smarter than us, and B) the Arbiter of all things good & honorable on this board.
So there's that.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 11:09 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
hat's why the merits are irrelevant to the legal discussion unfolding (despite this being impossible for certain people to separate due to emotions and partisan-based programming).
Majority of posters are not discussing the violence of the offenders, but the legal right of a district court judge superseding POTUS. But you knew that.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 11:13 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It's the same analysis.
But it's not. Not even close. The purse strings are with Congress, not the President.
quote:
The authority to do this is the same place where the admin purportedly got their authority to label the plaintiffs terrorists, etc.: Congress
Can you state where in our constitution it states that lower court judges enforce national security? Can you state where in our constitution, the judiciary is the determiner of national security status?
This post was edited on 3/18/25 at 11:14 am
Posted on 3/18/25 at 11:15 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This irrationality is like the people who melt when the Supreme Court makes a ruling that the rights of a terrible person who clearly committed terrible crimes were violated.
When courts are discussing the limits of governmental power, the underlying case/merits often include bad people. That's why the merits are irrelevant to the legal discussion unfolding (despite this being impossible for certain people to separate due to emotions and partisan-based programming).
Only a retard would think this is an organic attempt to limit the power of government.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 11:19 am to BugAC
quote:
Majority of posters are not discussing the violence of the offenders, but the legal right of a district court judge superseding POTUS. But you knew that.
Discussions like these are the ones that absolutely slap you in the face with the realization that folks like SFP and Hanky are the exact same people in Atlas Shrugged who insisted that there are no absolutes, no right and wrong, no facts, no conclusions to be drawn. They are the rotters, the destroyers, the looters, the bureaucrats.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 11:19 am to hob
quote:
Maybe it should be called the non-ACLU
They are so concerned about the constitutionality of these deportations but not a peep about Biden’s weaponization against conservatives.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 11:20 am to moneyg
quote:
Only a retard would think this is an organic attempt to limit the power of government.
Same thing when the left starts bitching about spending. Are we to believe that the left now, despite everything that happened during Covid and the past 4 years, is concerned with government overreach? Please...
Posted on 3/18/25 at 11:24 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:This is what I'd like to know.
How many of Obama’s deportations did he try to block?
Posted on 3/18/25 at 11:35 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Trump disobeying
No he didn't, you liar. The judge didn't have Trump served.
But this is typical liberal bullshite. They would rather fight to keep rapist from other countries, than to fight for children and SNAP benefits to get healthier.
That's what you are and those actions are exactly why dems lost EVERYTHING and have the lowest approval in 50 years.
Man, yall don't fight for the people, yall fight for criminals, perverts, and all the bad things people hate. You aren't for your base, which is moderate dems...thats why they hate being democrats.
You lose rights when you're a violent criminal. You lose rights when you're an illegal alien. And when your own country of origin has you convicted of equal or worse crimes, who fricking cares if they get sent there to face justice?
You're a pathetic human who identifies with a group who want guys with cocks and balls, in the showers with my high school daughter.
That's you
Page 4 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News