and Chrissy with the most predictable response of all. Bored asks to cite sources. Sources are cited. Bored melts down and throws insults instead of reading.
what part of that are you not understanding? Seems pretty simple.
Trump wants to round people up and ignore due process. He needs a valid and constitutional reason to do so. The law he’s citing has never been used in this context. And his logic isn’t valid - he’s hoping it falls in a gray area. Good luck convincing SCOTUS.
Get the fucking Venezuelan gang members the fuck out of here before they kill any more US citizens. The ones who are deserving of liberty, the pursuit of happiness and life.
what part of that are you not understanding? Seems pretty simple.
Trump wants to round people up and ignore due process. He needs a valid and constitutional reason to do so. The law he’s citing has never been used in this context. And his logic isn’t valid - he’s hoping it falls in a gray area. Good luck convincing SCOTUS
I disagree. Oh well. This ruling will rightfully be overturned and then you hysterical women-like men will be in to the next outrage and never revisit this one.
Get the fucking Venezuelan gang members the fuck out of here before they kill any more US citizens. The ones who are deserving of liberty, the pursuit of happiness and life.
I’ve skimmed that bullshit post of his twice and it’s all emotion and opinion, yet he says he’s giving “sources.”
I’m sure at this point SoccerDork doesn’t know the difference between his opinion and fact.
DorksFC shilling for Venezuelan terrorists is a fun look.
The Supreme Court explicitly ruled in the 1948 Ludecke v. Watkins case that Alien Enemy Act removals by the president are non-justiciable.
Here are some key excerpts from the ruling, lest anyone think the SCOTUS opinion was in any way unclear: “The Alien Enemy Act precludes judicial review of the removal order.”
That line is literally the first sentence of the SCOTUS holding.
“The very nature of the President's power to order the removal of all enemy aliens rejects the notion that courts may pass judgment upon the exercise of his discretion.”
“[E]very judge before whom the question has since come has held that the statute barred judicial review.”
“A war power of the President not subject to judicial review is not transmuted into a judicially reviewable action because the President chooses to have that power exercised within narrower limits than Congress authorized.”
“These are matters of political judgment for which judges have neither technical competence nor official responsibility.”
“The Act is almost as old as the Constitution, and it would savor of doctrinaire audacity now to find the statute offensive to some emanation of the Bill of Rights.”
“Accordingly, we hold that full responsibility for the just exercise of this great power may validly be left where the Congress has constitutionally placed it -- on the President of the United States. The Founders, in their wisdom, made him not only the Commander in Chief, but also the guiding organ in the conduct of our foreign affairs.”
There is no gray area or uncertainty here.
As the Supreme Court has made abundantly and explicitly clear, removals under the Alien Removal Act are non-justiciable. Because of this, it is the inferior and unelected district judge who is violating the law and the Constitution today by purporting to have the authority to review what the Supreme Court—his superior—has prohibited him from reviewing.
The proper form for this case to take, based on the Constitution, federal statutes, and 250 years of case law in this country, is for the judge to dismiss the plaintiffs’ case for lack of jurisdiction and standing. Plaintiffs can of course appeal that dismissal, at which point the appellate court would be required to reject the appeal. And if plaintiffs wished to do so at that point, they could apply for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, which would then decide whether it wished to overturn its own precedents. Only the Supreme Court has the authority to undertake such an action. And even if that were to happen, the president still retains inherent Article II authority, independent of federal statute, to remove foreign enemies from the United States.
That is how the legal system in this country actually works. It does not in any way empower an inferior trial court judge to unilaterally overturn controlling federal law or Supreme Court precedents.
Dem strategy seems to be getting Trump to ignore these rulings and set him up for another impeachment.
It’s all about power for these authoritarians, and they always use the courts to consolidate power. The lawfare is just beginning Part 2. They don’t care about this country’s citizens succeeding.
didn’t ignore it. Ludecke argued that the question of when a war terminates and wartime authorities expire is too “political” for judicial resolution. That’s why the Supreme Court upheld it in regards to Japanese internment. Because we were just at war with Japan. And yet, in 1988, during Reagan’s era, Congress apologized and provided reparations for Japanese internment. It acknowledged that the policy was rooted in “racial prejudice” and “wartime hysteria,” not valid security concerns.
So again, my question is the same: who are we at war with? When did we declare war on Venezuela? The 1798 law makes no reference to this law being applicable in situations outside of declarations of war, and against specific entities such as a gang. Not to mention sending them to another country’s prison instead of just back home. This is why it’s going to have a hard time in court. Ludecke doesn’t apply here because we aren’t currently and haven’t been at war with Venezuela, and we’re also not even sending them back there. I am sure SCOTUS will say the same thing.
Defending the rule of law isn’t the same as defending TDA, to which yet again I noticed you girls instantly went there because it’s your crutch whenever you read something you don’t like. It’s for protecting against abuse of power in the future against people who are not in gangs, say, political dissidents for example. In this case I just prefer Throbber’s explanation that he doesn’t give a fuck, because at least he’s honest. I know that’s what it really boils down to in the end. Just admit you don’t care because I can respect that a lot more than trying to legally justify this.
Criminal illegal allien invaders don't have due process. The acr was written and used by FOUNDING FATHERS! They knew what they were doing. If a country can't protect it's borders or repel invaders we don't have a country!
Holy crap you actually are this stupid. Man you Ducks work hard on dumb. Credit where credit is due.
Comments
and Chrissy with the most predictable response of all. Bored asks to cite sources. Sources are cited. Bored melts down and throws insults instead of reading.
Did you actually read the bullshit you posted. One of my favorite crybaby parts of it. You’re a very emotional woman.
Trump wants to ignore them and just round people up.
what part of that are you not understanding? Seems pretty simple.
Trump wants to round people up and ignore due process. He needs a valid and constitutional reason to do so. The law he’s citing has never been used in this context. And his logic isn’t valid - he’s hoping it falls in a gray area. Good luck convincing SCOTUS.
You’re right. I don’t.
Get the fucking Venezuelan gang members the fuck out of here before they kill any more US citizens. The ones who are deserving of liberty, the pursuit of happiness and life.
what part of that are you not understanding? Seems pretty simple.
Trump wants to round people up and ignore due process. He needs a valid and constitutional reason to do so. The law he’s citing has never been used in this context. And his logic isn’t valid - he’s hoping it falls in a gray area. Good luck convincing SCOTUS
I disagree. Oh well. This ruling will rightfully be overturned and then you hysterical women-like men will be in to the next outrage and never revisit this one.
What about EGG PRICES??!!
You’re right. I don’t.
Get the fucking Venezuelan gang members the fuck out of here before they kill any more US citizens. The ones who are deserving of liberty, the pursuit of happiness and life.
I’ve skimmed that bullshit post of his twice and it’s all emotion and opinion, yet he says he’s giving “sources.”
I’m sure at this point SoccerDork doesn’t know the difference between his opinion and fact.
@PurpleThrobber at least you admit it. I’ll give you props on this. Most on here are in denial.
You're in denial of the post above yours that destroyed your due process comedy
Keep working on that messaging
Democrats support keeping illegal criminals in your community America
The Venezuelan gang members can play all the legal due process bulkshit they want.
From a prison in El Salvador.
More due process
The Supreme Court needs to stop all this judicial overreach
Dem strategy seems to be getting Trump to ignore these rulings and set him up for another impeachment.
It’s all about power for these authoritarians, and they always use the courts to consolidate power. The lawfare is just beginning Part 2. They don’t care about this country’s citizens succeeding.
100% it's the same.shit they did last term...
didn’t ignore it. Ludecke argued that the question of when a war terminates and wartime authorities expire is too “political” for judicial resolution. That’s why the Supreme Court upheld it in regards to Japanese internment. Because we were just at war with Japan. And yet, in 1988, during Reagan’s era, Congress apologized and provided reparations for Japanese internment. It acknowledged that the policy was rooted in “racial prejudice” and “wartime hysteria,” not valid security concerns.
So again, my question is the same: who are we at war with? When did we declare war on Venezuela? The 1798 law makes no reference to this law being applicable in situations outside of declarations of war, and against specific entities such as a gang. Not to mention sending them to another country’s prison instead of just back home. This is why it’s going to have a hard time in court. Ludecke doesn’t apply here because we aren’t currently and haven’t been at war with Venezuela, and we’re also not even sending them back there. I am sure SCOTUS will say the same thing.
Defending the rule of law isn’t the same as defending TDA, to which yet again I noticed you girls instantly went there because it’s your crutch whenever you read something you don’t like. It’s for protecting against abuse of power in the future against people who are not in gangs, say, political dissidents for example. In this case I just prefer Throbber’s explanation that he doesn’t give a fuck, because at least he’s honest. I know that’s what it really boils down to in the end. Just admit you don’t care because I can respect that a lot more than trying to legally justify this.
You can't possibly be suggesting that more than 20 million illegal aliens, all criminals, are not a threat to our nation. Are you really this stupid?
I'm betting you are.
@Sledog and there it is again. citation needed. please point to where I said that. Which you won’t because you can’t read.
we have due process for a reason. It applies to everyone. Even if they’re horrible people. Without it, our entire system would collapse.
All those words just to not understand that the third part is what applies, as has already been pointed out.
How embarrassing for you, SoccerDork.
Criminal illegal allien invaders don't have due process. The acr was written and used by FOUNDING FATHERS! They knew what they were doing. If a country can't protect it's borders or repel invaders we don't have a country!
Holy crap you actually are this stupid. Man you Ducks work hard on dumb. Credit where credit is due.