1 hour ago, Mike030270 said:

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

the libs

50 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Common Sense.

that too. 

 

1 minute ago, Mike030270 said:

 

This one is due to standing.  

SCOTUS with the 9-0 decision requiring the WH to return the guy deported to El Salvador by mistake.  There is a tiny bit of wiggle room the WH will surely try to leverage in that they may claim they are doing everything they can to get this guy returned but without success.  That would bring its own issue for the WH though if they go that route.

This is the 1st test to see if the WH just goes ahead and openly says "f off" to SCOTUS.  I don't think that will happen for now.  I suspect they just try to stall and say "they are working on things" and then do nothing.

 

@Diehard

@Procus

@lynched1

@The Norseman

@The_Omega

 

I assume you are ready to accept the ruling, right?  SCOTUS has also ruled unanimously that non citizens do get due process and cannot be detained/deported without it even under the AEA.

Anyone interested in this topic can listen to Glenn Greenwald discuss this with a full breakdown below. The bottom line is that SCOTUS dealt Trump/Bondi/Miller a big blow here in a 9-0 decision that the WH cannot deport people without due process AEA or not.  The question as to the Constitutionality of invoking the act itself has not been reviewed to date.

 

 

@BBE

As always, tell me what I missed or got wrong in the posts above. 

The libtard judges have kinda forced the issue here. Either have to start ignoring them or removing them from their positions. Ideally both. Can't have this over-the-top subversion of democracy because dems have stacked the courts with communists. 

23 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

@BBE

As always, tell me what I missed or got wrong in the posts above. 

Pretty much my understanding of the decisions. I think the bigger question is on what grounds will SCOTUS hear a case on the enacting of the AEA.

btw - I have no issue with the WH moving people into Trump friendly districts before starting the deportation due process.  Let's drop the complaining about the Dems starting lawsuits in the districts that are not friendly to Trump.

On 4/11/2025 at 8:13 AM, Kz! said:

The libtard judges have kinda forced the issue here. Either have to start ignoring them or removing them from their positions. Ideally both. Can't have this over-the-top subversion of democracy because dems have stacked the courts with communists. 

Yeah, no good, authoritarian leader would ever let their employees swear an oath to uphold a constitution. They must all swear allegiance to trump!!! Or be removed!!!

2 hours ago, MidMoFo said:

Yeah, no good, authoritarian leader would ever let their employees swear an oath to uphold a constitution. They must all swear allegiance to trump!!! Or be removed!!!

Kz for some reason can’t comprehend that the SCOTUS just beat down the administration on this topic.  Losers gonna lose.

 

Stephen Miller rejecting the SCOTUS decision.  The decision was 9-0.

 

 

Trump taking a shot at SCOTUS.  SCOTUS has ruled that all of those "barbarians" have a right to habeas.

sexy

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca4.178400/gov.uscourts.ca4.178400.8.0.pdf

The attack on the balance of powers is clearly laid out by this Reagan judge in the latest Appeals court defeat for Trump. This one is short and very easy to read, about six pages long and not full of a lot of legal jargon (some of course).

Here are some snippets from the conclusion.

The basic differences between the branches mandate a serious effort at mutual

respect. The respect that courts must accord the Executive must be reciprocated by the

Executive’s respect for the courts. Too often today this has not been the case, as calls for

impeachment of judges for decisions the Executive disfavors and exhortations to disregard

court orders sadly illustrate.

It is in this atmosphere that we are reminded of President Eisenhower’s sage

example. Putting his "personal opinions” aside, President Eisenhower honored his

"inescapable” duty to enforce the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of

Education II to desegregate schools "with all deliberate speed.” Address by the President

of the United States, Delivered from his Office at the White House 1-2 (Sept. 24, 1957);

349 U.S. 294, 301 (1955). This great man expressed his unflagging belief that “[t]he very

basis of our individual rights and freedoms is the certainty that the President and the

Executive Branch of Government will support and [e]nsure the carrying out of the

decisions of the Federal Courts.” Id. at 3. Indeed, in our late Executive’s own words,

“[u]nless the President did so, anarchy would result.” Id.

Now the branches come too close to grinding irrevocably against one another in a

conflict that promises to diminish both. This is a losing proposition all around. The

Judiciary will lose much from the constant intimations of its illegitimacy, to which by dent

of custom and detachment we can only sparingly reply. The Executive will lose much from

a public perception of its lawlessness and all of its attendant contagions. The Executive

may succeed for a time in weakening the courts, but over time history will script the tragic

gap between what was and all that might have been, and law in time will sign its epitaph.

It is, as we have noted, all too possible to see in this case an incipient crisis, but it

may present an opportunity as well. We yet cling to the hope that it is not naïve to believe

our good brethren in the Executive Branch perceive the rule of law as vital to the American

ethos. This case presents their unique chance to vindicate that value and to summon the

best that is within us while there is still time.

In an earlier ruling on a different case Boasberg said this

"The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders – especially by
officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it,” Boasberg, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, wrote in his ruling.

This conflict is heating up.

On 4/13/2025 at 2:45 PM, Procus said:

sexy

Did you get this pic off her facebook page?

Justice Alito in his dissent of the latest SCOTUS ruling

"The Executive must proceed under the terms of our order" - Alito is the Trumpiest justice and he is commanding Trump to obey

In yet another act of defiance of the Judiciary the Trump WH deported four people to the gulag in El Salvador without due process even though the federal court had specifically ordered them not to deport those four individuals without full due process. The WH defended their action by saying the DoD had deported the individuals while the court order had specified DHS.

They are completely playing games here and giving the Judiciary the middle finger. Either Roberts and SCOTUS are going to bend the knee or this is going to get very ugly.

2 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

In yet another act of defiance of the Judiciary the Trump WH deported four people to the gulag in El Salvador without due process even though the federal court had specifically ordered them not to deport those four individuals without full due process. The WH defended their action by saying the DoD had deported the individuals while the court order had specified DHS.

They are completely playing games here and giving the Judiciary the middle finger. Either Roberts and SCOTUS are going to bend the knee or this is going to get very ugly.

This is like SCOTUS arguing with my 8-year-old.

We've ramped up the temperature a notch in this battle today, haven't we?