1 minute ago, Mike31mt said:

It was all fun and games when they were raiding Trump's underwear drawer on national TV and investigating every single person who ever had any dealings with his administration.

But now we have an activist judge being held accountable and it's paragraphs of endless nonsense and tears.

So all 9 jurors on SCOTUS and all the Trump and Republican appointed judges are activists?

1 minute ago, DrPhilly said:

So all 9 jurors on SCOTUS and all the Trump and Republican appointed judges are activists?

We'll see when she's tossed out of her seat and possibly in jail and then you can whine.

TDS has made you reflexively defend a bunch of illegal immigrant criminals and my guess is this judge is the same type of hypocritical LARP liberal like you, where the rules only apply to the other team when you think they should.

Just now, Mike31mt said:

We'll see when she's tossed out of her seat and possibly in jail and then you can whine.

TDS has made you reflexively defend a bunch of illegal immigrant criminals and my guess is this judge is the same type of hypocritical LARP liberal like you, where the rules only apply to the other team when you think they should.

Ok, I see you are only talking about the Wisconsin judge. The evidence is really flimsy and I expect the case to be dropped. Having said that, she sure wasn't helping DHS/ICE.

As for the immigrants, I'm defending the rule of law and the Constitution. I'm not defending the individual immigrants. I'm against any DOJ overreach whether that was applied to lefties or righties, makes no difference to me.

Just now, DrPhilly said:

Ok, I see you are only talking about the Wisconsin judge. The evidence is really flimsy and I expect the case to be dropped. Having said that, she sure wasn't helping DHS/ICE.

As for the immigrants, I'm defending the rule of law and the Constitution. I'm not defending the individual immigrants. I'm against any DOJ overreach whether that was applied to lefties or righties, makes no difference to me.

Bull ish. You never gave two ishs about discussing DOJ overreach during the Biden Administration.

Where were your paragraph long posts sympathizing with all the people the Dems targeted with their lawfare?

Stop LARPing and just tell the truth. You're a Never Trumper, that's all there is to this

2 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

Bull ish. You never gave two ishs about discussing DOJ overreach during the Biden Administration.

Where were your paragraph long posts sympathizing with all the people the Dems targeted with their lawfare?

Stop LARPing and just tell the truth. You're a Never Trumper, that's all there is to this

Yeah, though I've never been a registered Repub I am a Never Trumper, but that doesn't mean I'm not against DOJ and other law enforcement overreach. For example, I was totally against the entire Trump case in Manhattan that he lost. That was a sham. On the other hand, the other cases against Trump had real merit.

1 hour ago, DrPhilly said:

@The Norseman So here we are...

SCOTUS has ruled 9-0 that habeas corpus, i.e. "due process", still applies to all persons even under the AEA act.

Federal courts (several and with Republican appointed judges) have ruled that the invocation of the AEA was unconstitutional.

Stephen Miller has now warned of the need to go to Marshall Law should the courts not "do the right thing".

You've previously said you would accept court decisions. Are you ready to admit that isn't the case now OR are you ready to take a position that is counter to the Trump WH position?

Yes, I accept the court's decisions, especially when they are held up on appeal by SCOTUS. My concern was primarily over the endless temporary injunctions that were being levied. Obviously, I don't support martial law, but we do need to find a way to more quickly rid ourselves of criminal aliens despite the lefties and TDS "libertarians" making that near impossible.

What I find mind numbing is that those that oppose the administration have made it their flagship cause to stand up for the due process rights of illegal aliens who have previously been convicted of crimes.

42 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

Yes, I accept the court's decisions, especially when they are held up on appeal by SCOTUS. My concern was primarily over the endless temporary injunctions that were being levied. Obviously, I don't support martial law, but we do need to find a way to more quickly rid ourselves of criminal aliens despite the lefties and TDS "libertarians" making that near impossible.

What I find mind numbing is that those that oppose the administration have made it their flagship cause to stand up for the due process rights of illegal aliens who have previously been convicted of crimes.

The reason is that mistakes are made as we have already seen AND the Constitution and SCOTUS rulings (several times over the years) require it.

There are other ways of speeding up deportation numbers than violating the Constitution.

On 5/11/2025 at 9:30 AM, DrPhilly said:

The reason is that mistakes are made as we have already seen AND the Constitution and SCOTUS rulings (several times over the years) require it.

There are other ways of speeding up deportation numbers than violating the Constitution.

And activist judges will still do everything in their power to block them. But something tells me that you won't be upset by that.

damn activist judges always getting in the way of Trump by upholding the law and the Constitution

58 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

And activist judges will still do everything in their power to block them. But something tells me that you won't be upset by that.

There are a whole set of judges appointed by Trump and other Repubs that are blocking them. Are they all activists?

It seems to me that the likes of Stephen Miller are the ones with the radical positions at this stage.

20 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

There are a whole set of judges appointed by Trump and other Repubs that are blocking them. Are they all activists?

It seems to me that the likes of Stephen Miller are the ones with the radical positions at this stage.

Stephen Miller is definitely a problem for the country.

1 hour ago, The Norseman said:

And activist judges will still do everything in their power to block them. But something tells me that you won't be upset by that.

So martial law or suspending habeas corpus are options that should even remotely be considered?

6 minutes ago, BBE said:

So martial law or suspending habeas corpus are options that should even remotely be considered?

I mean, it's not that complicated. Hire a bunch of immigration judges. Or use Magistrate Judges in the system already. Have 30 minute hearings where the government claims a person is an illegal immigrant, and they have one shot to show up and provide documents. If they don't show, they are deported. If they show evidence that they are here legally, they stay.

No one is saying everyone gets full blown trials. Just a mechanism to contest with proper documentation at a quick hearing.

It's not OK to make mistakes on this.

32 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

There are a whole set of judges appointed by Trump and other Repubs that are blocking them. Are they all activists?

It seems to me that the likes of Stephen Miller are the ones with the radical positions at this stage.

I have no problem with Executive Orders being challenged in the courts when there are clear constitutional concerns (birthright citizenship, Alien Enemies Act, etc). My problem is that there is a clear strategy unfolding where liberal institutions bring suit (DEI groups, blue states, ACLU, etc) in places that they know they'll get a sympathetic judge who then near automatically issues a temporary injunction. In many cases these injunctions are being issued prior to even having a hearing.

I fully support the separation of powers and many of these exec orders SHOULD be challenged all the way up to the supreme court. But to pretend like there are not activist judges out there doing anything in their power to hamstring the administration is disingenuous at best. Just like it is disingenuous to pretend that ALL of the legal challenges to the administration are being levied by activist judges.

13 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

I mean, it's not that complicated. Hire a bunch of immigration judges. Or use Magistrate Judges in the system already. Have 30 minute hearings where the government claims a person is an illegal immigrant, and they have one shot to show up and provide documents. If they don't show, they are deported. If they show evidence that they are here legally, they stay.

No one is saying everyone gets full blown trials. Just a mechanism to contest with proper documentation at a quick hearing.

It's not OK to make mistakes on this.

if only someone came up with a bill designed to expand the immigration infrastructure to be able to process these cases faster....

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4451948-gop-delivers-death-blow-to-bipartisan-border-bill/

13 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

I mean, it's not that complicated. Hire a bunch of immigration judges. Or use Magistrate Judges in the system already. Have 30 minute hearings where the government claims a person is an illegal immigrant, and they have one shot to show up and provide documents. If they don't show, they are deported. If they show evidence that they are here legally, they stay.

No one is saying everyone gets full blown trials. Just a mechanism to contest with proper documentation at a quick hearing.

It's not OK to make mistakes on this.

I have no problem with finding ways to improve and speed up immigration hearings...but don't assume that it wouldn't be endlessly challenged in court once the "rapid deportations" begin.

26 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

I mean, it's not that complicated. Hire a bunch of immigration judges. Or use Magistrate Judges in the system already. Have 30 minute hearings where the government claims a person is an illegal immigrant, and they have one shot to show up and provide documents. If they don't show, they are deported. If they show evidence that they are here legally, they stay.

No one is saying everyone gets full blown trials. Just a mechanism to contest with proper documentation at a quick hearing.

It's not OK to make mistakes on this.

They should coax some the old magistrates from the Veteran's Stadium holding area out of retirement

45 minutes ago, BBE said:

Stephen Miller is definitely a problem for the country.

And humanity.

41 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

I have no problem with Executive Orders being challenged in the courts when there are clear constitutional concerns (birthright citizenship, Alien Enemies Act, etc). My problem is that there is a clear strategy unfolding where liberal institutions bring suit (DEI groups, blue states, ACLU, etc) in places that they know they'll get a sympathetic judge who then near automatically issues a temporary injunction. In many cases these injunctions are being issued prior to even having a hearing.

I fully support the separation of powers and many of these exec orders SHOULD be challenged all the way up to the supreme court. But to pretend like there are not activist judges out there doing anything in their power to hamstring the administration is disingenuous at best. Just like it is disingenuous to pretend that ALL of the legal challenges to the administration are being levied by activist judges.

I’ve never pretended there weren’t some skeptical decisions or that some or even many cases weren’t being brought before judges who are likely to side in a "leftist sympathetic” manner and I don’t see other posters in here doing that either. Having said that, the AEA deportation cases as well as many other types of cases are often being ruled on by conservative judges in places like Texas and other conservative districts. Try getting a more balanced view of the news.

On 5/11/2025 at 6:16 AM, DrPhilly said:

Yeah, though I've never been a registered Repub I am a Never Trumper, but that doesn't mean I'm not against DOJ and other law enforcement overreach. For example, I was totally against the entire Trump case in Manhattan that he lost. That was a sham. On the other hand, the other cases against Trump had real merit.

He's just going to keep calling you a "lib" (although a Liberal in classical, Montesquieuian, Austrian/Misesian sense would take that as a compliment) no matter how nuanced or pointed your argument is. It's way easier to do that than to defend a position. You may as well debate a cactus.

Lindy Booth

1 minute ago, Arthur Jackson said:

He's just going to keep calling you a "lib" (although a Liberal in classical, Montesquieuian, Austrian/Misesian sense would take that as a compliment) no matter how nuanced or pointed your argument is. It's way easier to do that than to defend a position. You may as well debate a cactus.

Lindy Booth

Yes to all of that, of course

2 hours ago, The Norseman said:

I fully support the separation of powers

Alabama federal district court with one Reagan appointee and two Trump appointees rips MAGA a new arsehole

On 5/11/2025 at 7:06 AM, Mike31mt said:

We'll see when she's tossed out of her seat and possibly in jail and then you can whine.

TDS has made you reflexively defend a bunch of illegal immigrant criminals and my guess is this judge is the same type of hypocritical LARP liberal like you, where the rules only apply to the other team when you think they should.

There’s so much irony to unpack here. I’ll come back later.