6 minutes ago, Alpha_TATEr said:

crickets

Of course.  I think I tagged them on three or four posts like this one and it was crickets every single time.

Just now, DrPhilly said:

Of course.  I think I tagged them on three or four posts like this one and it was crickets every single time.

cucks gonna cuck. 

 

There were two components in the 5-4 ruling. First, the green light to use the AEA in this specific case. Note: not a Carte Blanche. Second, anyone departed under the AEA must still be given due process. 

The ruling most certainly does not give Trump the ability to round up whoever he wants and to deport them without due process. So he won’t be able to do what he has been doing so far.  A very key part of the ruling.

From a practical perspective, the majority want to see violent gang criminals deported BUT with due process afforded and that is what was ruled.  Now, anyone deported under this AEA declaration will need to be proven to be in the gang in a court of law in order to be deported.

 

btw - I think it is ridiculous to allow the use of the AEA when we are NOT at war.

34 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

There were two components in the 5-4 ruling. First, the green light to use the AEA in this specific case. Note: not a Carte Blanche. Second, anyone departed under the AEA must still be given due process. 

The ruling most certainly does not give Trump the ability to round up whoever he wants and to deport them without due process. So he won’t be able to do what he has been doing so far.  A very key part of the ruling.

From a practical perspective, the majority want to see violent gang criminals deported BUT with due process afforded and that is what was ruled.  Now, anyone deported under this AEA declaration will need to be proven to be in the gang in a court of law in order to be deported.

 

btw - I think it is ridiculous to allow the use of the AEA when we are NOT at war.

It reads to me like they’re giving Trump a guard rail that they know he will (probably) adhere to. 

1 hour ago, Bill said:

It reads to me like they’re giving Trump a guard rail that they know he will (probably) adhere to. 

Yeah, they are trying to balance the decision for sure.  The key it would seem is to neuter him while still allowing him to declare victory with the MAGA optics.  That looks to be what they are trying to achieve.  No doubt the MAGA types will scream victory just as @Diehardfan has done.

Let's see if Trump adheres to the ruling.

4 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

There were two components in the 5-4 ruling. First, the green light to use the AEA in this specific case. Note: not a Carte Blanche. Second, anyone departed under the AEA must still be given due process. 

The ruling most certainly does not give Trump the ability to round up whoever he wants and to deport them without due process. So he won’t be able to do what he has been doing so far.  A very key part of the ruling.

From a practical perspective, the majority want to see violent gang criminals deported BUT with due process afforded and that is what was ruled.  Now, anyone deported under this AEA declaration will need to be proven to be in the gang in a court of law in order to be deported.

 

btw - I think it is ridiculous to allow the use of the AEA when we are NOT at war.

I just read SCOTUS blog and the decision is weird.  The majority found that the challenge by the plantiffs should be a habeas corpus claim against the detainment and thus the suit was filed in the wrong venue. Strange ruling since the language in the law is quite clear.

3 minutes ago, BBE said:

I just read SCOTUS blog and the decision is weird.  The majority found that the challenge by the plantiffs should be a habeas corpus claim against the detainment and thus the suit was filed in the wrong venue. Strange ruling since the language in the law is quite clear.

Yeah, I've read that if the circa 280 prisoners in El Salvador are afforded any chance at a review of their situation then it must happen in Texas since that's were they were collected prior to being put on the plane to El Salvador.

Lots of nuance to flush out it would seem.

2 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Yeah, I've read that if the circa 280 prisoners in El Salvador are afforded any chance at a review of their situation then it must happen in Texas since that's were they were collected prior to being put on the plane to El Salvador.

Lots of nuance to flush out it would seem.

It may be that SCOTUS is looking for a different claim as to the constitutionality of the act and that the detention question needs to be addressed first?  I don't have time to read the decision.

1 minute ago, BBE said:

It may be that SCOTUS is looking for a different claim as to the constitutionality of the act and that the detention question needs to be addressed first?  I don't have time to read the decision.

I've seen a couple different legal experts talk about it and it doesn't seem to be totally clear when I listen to them.  Having said that, they definitely discussed the aspect of the constitutionality of invoking the act as being unaddressed in this ruling, i.e. it needs to be addressed thru a separate claim.  The way I understood the analysis was that the ruling in this case was all and only about whether the act could be used to deport people in this specific case (yes) and whether habeas corpus must still be followed in any case (yes).

Plenty left to be sorted out here.

9 minutes ago, BBE said:

I don't have time to read the decision.

Please give us your analysis once you find the time to review it.

1 minute ago, DrPhilly said:

Please give us your analysis once you find the time to review it.

I just read it and they stated that the habeus corpus claim is the most appropriate which the plantiffs dismissed/withdrew to keep the DC venue.  

Court was essentially split due to process related issues.  The main theme of the dissent had to do with the motive of SCOTUS to review/act so early.  This means they expect a constitutionality review of the AEA in the future (Barrett was very clear about this in her dissent.  Sotomayor did Sotomayor things in her 14 page dissent which makes her opinions hard to read).  Majority basically said we can't come to your argument regarding AEA. I will need to read plantiff filing to see how their AEA claim was worded.

TLDR: SCOTUS held AEA removals are still not subject to judicial review and did not address whether the AEA can be enacted in such a way, therefore standard review procedures apply and thus filing should have been in Texas.

6 minutes ago, BBE said:

I just read it and they stated that the habeus corpus claim is the most appropriate which the plantiffs dismissed/withdrew to keep the DC venue.  

Court was essentially split due to process related issues.  The main theme of the dissent had to do with the motive of SCOTUS to review/act so early.  This means they expect a constitutionality review of the AEA in the future (Barrett was very clear about this in her dissent.  Sotomayor did Sotomayor things in her 14 page dissent which makes her opinions hard to read).  Majority basically said we can't come to your argument regarding AEA. I will need to read plantiff filing to see how their AEA claim was worded.

TLDR: SCOTUS held AEA removals are still not subject to judicial review and did not address whether the AEA can be enacted in such a way, therefore standard review procedures apply and thus filing should have been in Texas.

Thanks!

 

 

40 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Yeah, I've read that if the circa 280 prisoners in El Salvador are afforded any chance at a review of their situation then it must happen in Texas since that's were they were collected prior to being put on the plane to El Salvador.

Lots of nuance to flush out it would seem.

Gannan is right.  As usual you’re focused on the wrong thing.  The problem is that they were sent to a labor camp in another country not that they weren’t given a hearing.  And now they can’t even get the guy back that they accidentally sent there…

1 minute ago, Dave Moss said:

Gannan is right.  As usual you’re focused on the wrong thing.  The problem is that they were sent to a labor camp in another country not that they weren’t given a hearing.  And now they can’t even get the guy back that they accidentally sent there…

I'm focused on that part as well.  Both are wrong.

Gannan didn't care about either of those.

@Dave Moss What's up with the NC state supreme court vote?  Sounds like something fishy may be going on there.

Just now, DrPhilly said:

I'm focused on that part as well.  Both are wrong.

If a U.S. citizen was accidentally deported do you think it would be easier to get him back if he wasn’t in a prison camp?

Just now, DrPhilly said:

@Dave Moss What's up with the NC state supreme court vote?  Sounds like something fishy may be going on there.

They want the Republican justice to win the election

1 minute ago, Dave Moss said:

If a U.S. citizen was accidentally deported do you think it would be easier to get him back if he wasn’t in a prison camp?

Were paying for the guy to be kept there.  I'm not buying for one moment that Trump can't get the guy back if he wants to.

 

All Nets fans’ votes are being thrown out

1 minute ago, Dave Moss said:

They want the Republican justice to win the election

No sheet.  Sounds like a lot of hogwash to me.

It’s quite odd.  Trump rolled in NC then Republicans lost all the state races.  And they are big mad about it.

31 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

All Nets fans’ votes are being thrown out

Duke fans’ votes are good to go?

I'll ask here. Who are we at war with?

37 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

I'll ask here. Who are we at war with?

Common Sense.