- 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: The U.S. Supreme Court blocks President Trump from deporting Venezuelan Aliens
Posted on 5/17/25 at 8:06 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 5/17/25 at 8:06 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
These cases aren't about "siding with rapists and murderers".
Correct.
Some more girls have to get raped and killed. It’s the proper application of power within the limits of constitutional and statutory restraints.
Sorry, girls. We’re exploring the limits.
1
Posted on 5/17/25 at 8:09 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
His admin is attempting hyper-aggressive strategies literally never used before. Why are y'all so shocked that these actions are having to be judged by the courts?
Just like border enforcement, the laws and procedures on the books are sufficient to accomplish the task. ADD MORE IMMIGRATION JUDGES...deputize JAG attorneys, etc. to serve our country, NOW.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 8:10 am to RohanGonzales
quote:
That is not "legal" just because you deem it so.
No it's legal because it was done under his executive discretion. The executive has wide discretion in whether and how to execute laws. It's rooted in the "Take Care Clause" (Article II, Section 3) of the Constitution.
Note: this is not my concept and it's existed since prior to the US forming.
Ironically, the Trump admin is currently arguing in several cases that there should be no limits or oversight to this discretion, and Congress can't even put regulatory language or specific standards in the authorizing statute.
So even if you want to associate this with me, you really are criticizing the Trump admin, who wants to have the authority Biden did and more.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 8:11 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
Just like border enforcement, the laws and procedures on the books are sufficient to accomplish the task. ADD MORE IMMIGRATION JUDGES...deputize JAG attorneys, etc. to serve our country, NOW.
Correct. I told MAGA this would be necessary early and often last year.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 8:12 am to the808bass
quote:
Correct.
Some more girls have to get raped and killed. It’s the proper application of power within the limits of constitutional and statutory restraints.
Sorry, girls. We’re exploring the limits.
Already covered
quote:
Our Constitution even has specific amendments and protections for criminals. Those portions of our law are almost only litigated to find their depths/limits with bad hombres (citizen or not is irrelevant). How else could we measure those portions of the Constitution?
Posted on 5/17/25 at 8:12 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
ADD MORE IMMIGRATION JUDGES..
This is only a solution that a lawyer would come up with.
“We have 35,000,000 illegals.”
“We need 1,000,000 immigration judges!!”
Posted on 5/17/25 at 8:13 am to SlowFlowPro
I was agreeing with you.
If some girls gotta get raped and murdered so foreign gang bangers can receive the protections of the Constitution, then that’s what has to happen.
Let’s just revel in it.
If some girls gotta get raped and murdered so foreign gang bangers can receive the protections of the Constitution, then that’s what has to happen.
Let’s just revel in it.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 8:14 am to the808bass
Your nihilism is noted.
This post was edited on 5/17/25 at 8:14 am
Posted on 5/17/25 at 8:14 am to the808bass
quote:
This is only a solution that a lawyer would come up with.
What is your alternative to a society based on laws, exactly? How would you structure that society and what institutions/processes would exist to apply the morality standard you project in these discussions?
Posted on 5/17/25 at 8:15 am to the808bass
quote:
This is only a solution that a lawyer would come up with.
“We have 35,000,000 illegals.”
“We need 1,000,000 immigration judges!!”
Everything is about lawyers milking everything to make more money. That is why "due process" is so selectively important (more time wasted on technicalities means more dollars for lawyers) unless of course democrats are trying to bury their political opponents.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 8:15 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
Just like border enforcement, the laws and procedures on the books are sufficient to accomplish the task. ADD MORE IMMIGRATION JUDGES...deputize JAG attorneys, etc. to serve our country, NOW.
Yep, the fact that the USSC is compromised, will work out in our favor.
More judges, more officials with arrest powers, they'll be held in detention centers without trials...
It's all good.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 8:17 am to SlowFlowPro
I’m making a kind of societal argumentum as absurdum.
The lawyers can play their omphaloskeptic games. And society will adapt or devolve. Life finds a way. Or it doesn’t.
The lawyers can play their omphaloskeptic games. And society will adapt or devolve. Life finds a way. Or it doesn’t.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 8:18 am to RohanGonzales
quote:
Everything is about lawyers milking everything to make more money.
It’s not that brazen to all of them. They’re just trained to think that laws are the solutions for problems. And they rarely are.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 8:19 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
What is your alternative to a society based on laws, exactly?
We’re not a society based on laws. No societies are based on laws. Laws reflect society. Not vice versa.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 8:23 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Correct. I told MAGA this would be necessary early and often last year.
This has been an obvious flaw in the system since the first Trump Administration. Why do you think Trump 2.0 (which has been much better prepared than Trump 1.0) has done nothing to fix the problem?
Unfortunately, since DeSantis had the idea to deputize qualified people to serve as temporary judges, I can't imagine Steven Miller doing that on the federal level.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 8:25 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
This has been an obvious flaw in the system since the first Trump Administration.
If you wait for the lawyers, nothing happens. Every successful endeavor has a lawyer saying “don’t do it.”
Posted on 5/17/25 at 8:27 am to the808bass
quote:
We’re not a society based on laws.
Oh
quote:
No societies are based on laws. Laws reflect society. Not vice versa.
You still didn't answer the question. You're just arguing the language I used.
We can call our actual laws "reality regulations" to avoid the language issue you said.
Can you define what a "law" is in your language/meaning? Or, if you don't believe in a society based on your concept of law, I revert back to the question you didn't answer.
quote:
What is your alternative to a society based on [reality regulations], exactly?
Posted on 5/17/25 at 8:29 am to the808bass
quote:
We’re not a society based on laws. No societies are based on laws. Laws reflect society. Not vice versa.
Bass, I think you have isolated THE issue about which you and I are always arguing. You might be right, but I think it comes down to how big "the society" is. With a country as large as the United States, I just don't see an alternative to the legal system for regulating behavior.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 8:31 am to SlowFlowPro
A society can only be based on laws if everybody agrees that if you don't like what a law says you pass another law or Amendment as the case may be. But when half the country believes that if you don't like what the law says you simply pretend it says something else then you're not really a country of laws in the first place. At that point all laws are meaningless and the only thing that matters is who controls their interpretation.
Now I am sure some a-hole lawyer will step in here and pretend like there's no such thing as plain language. Which is such a fricking stupid argument because if that thought process was really true communication wouldn't even be possible. How would communication even work if we didn't have General agreements upon what the words mean? The answer is people that act like we don't have General agreement are just liars. That's the only way to put it. They're dishonest piece of shite Liars
Now I am sure some a-hole lawyer will step in here and pretend like there's no such thing as plain language. Which is such a fricking stupid argument because if that thought process was really true communication wouldn't even be possible. How would communication even work if we didn't have General agreements upon what the words mean? The answer is people that act like we don't have General agreement are just liars. That's the only way to put it. They're dishonest piece of shite Liars
Posted on 5/17/25 at 8:34 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Can you define what a "law" is in your language/meaning?
The "law" is what our masters in black robes decide it is on any given day. Therefore, it is indirectly decided by majority vote (AKA mob rule).
Roland Freisler exemplified the concept. Everything he did was "the law" when he did it.
Why don't we argue math sometime? Math is either right or wrong, true or false. The law is not. It is anything a lawyer can lie it into being. Math also doesn't change on a whim.
Page 16 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News