4 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

The "rogue activist judges" talking point is all over MAGA and I mean everywhere.  All the pro-MAGA social media political types, Fox News, right wing media, tweets from elected GOP officials including several by Trump himself, answers to questions from the press, etc. etc.  This is a coordinated attempt to add power to the executive branch at the expense of the judiciary branch.  Probably one of their top agenda items at this point.

The likes of Norseman, Procus, Diehard, etc. are just parroting that talking point in here and they really don't care one iota about whether something is legal or not.  After all, Trump is saving the country and according to him one doesn't break any laws no matter what one does if one is saving the country.

Can you really still say what I posted above are talking points? Megan Kelly described the SC ruling after WWII, I posted a link to points from it, and I posted a section saying why it doesn't have to be war to use the act. Does that seem like someone who doesn't care? That judge has zero ability to intervene not because I think so, but because SCOTUS has previously ruled on it. So do you care that what the judge is trying to do with that case isn't based on legal grounds and does not have authority to "check" Trump on this matter? He is going rogue and using his position for politics.

So actually, the judiciary is trying to limit the power granted to the executive.

For those playing at home:

AEA: "or predatory incursion"

Ludecke v. Watkins SCOTUS said presidents aren't subject to judicial review

The gang has been declared terrorists. The judge is out of luck....unless he has the power to overrule SCOTUS as well.

7 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

So actually, the judiciary is trying to limit the power granted to the executive.

Yes, yes they are, and that’s their effing job. It’s called separation of powers.

4 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said:

Yes, yes they are, and that’s their effing job. It’s called separation of powers.

Well, you can't read, so again...

AEA: "or predatory incursion"

Ludecke v. Watkins SCOTUS said presidents aren't subject to judicial review in regards to AEA (Alien Enemies Act)

The gang has been declared terrorists. The judge is out of luck....unless he has the power to overrule SCOTUS as well.

SCOTUS said he isn't subject to review.

The matter is settled. What else ya got?

 

6 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

How long until he and the DOJ just completely ignore the judges?

That's already happened.

9 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Well, you can't read, so again...

AEA: "or predatory incursion"

Ludecke v. Watkins SCOTUS said presidents aren't subject to judicial review in regards to AEA (Alien Enemies Act)

The gang has been declared terrorists. The judge is out of luck....unless he has the power to overrule SCOTUS as well.

SCOTUS said he isn't subject to review.

The matter is settled. What else ya got?

 

So, Roe vs Wade was settled?  Please vs. Ferguson?  Marbury vs. Madison established judicial review so I guess that kills all of your arguments. 

14 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said:

Yes, yes they are, and that’s their effing job. It’s called separation of powers.

No it isn't you dolt.  The purpose of the judiciary is to interpret and apply the law with regard to dispute brought before them. 

15 minutes ago, BBE said:

So, Roe vs Wade was settled?  Please vs. Ferguson?  Marbury vs. Madison established judicial review so I guess that kills all of your arguments. 

So in your mind a DC judge can overrule a SCOTUS ruling? Guess that kills what you are trying to say. Now, if someone wants to take the act to SCOTUS, sure, but in the meantime he can't grab power like that.

34 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Can you really still say what I posted above are talking points? Megan Kelly described the SC ruling after WWII, I posted a link to points from it, and I posted a section saying why it doesn't have to be war to use the act. Does that seem like someone who doesn't care? That judge has zero ability to intervene not because I think so, but because SCOTUS has previously ruled on it. So do you care that what the judge is trying to do with that case isn't based on legal grounds and does not have authority to "check" Trump on this matter? He is going rogue and using his position for politics.

So actually, the judiciary is trying to limit the power granted to the executive.

For those playing at home:

AEA: "or predatory incursion"

Ludecke v. Watkins SCOTUS said presidents aren't subject to judicial review

The gang has been declared terrorists. The judge is out of luck....unless he has the power to overrule SCOTUS as well.

Now finish the invasion/predatory incursion clause please.  

Follow with me. "By any foreign nation or government." 

Now please explain to me in what universe is the current illegal immigration an invasion or predatory incursion by a foreign nation or government. 

 

I'll wait.

3 minutes ago, BBE said:

Now finish the invasion/predatory incursion clause please.  

Follow with me. "By any foreign nation or government." 

Now please explain to me in what universe is the current illegal immigration an invasion or predatory incursion by a foreign nation or government. 

 

I'll wait.

You mean an organized group of designated terrorists from a foreign country, many of which were released from their prisons by that country in order to come here? Yeah, it's covered. I'll wait.

Not subject to judicial review means not subject to judicial review

2 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

So in your mind a DC judge can overrule a SCOTUS ruling? Guess that kills what you are trying to say. Now, if someone wants to take the act to SCOTUS, sure, but in the meantime he can't grab power like that.

Given this is a separate case with different circumstances, a lower court can find differently.  This is how Roe vs. Wade was overturned. This is not unprecedented. SCOTUS is free to find that the previous ruling applies to this unique case.

Just now, BBE said:

Given this is a separate case with different circumstances, a lower court can find differently.  This is how Roe vs. Wade was overturned. This is not unprecedented. SCOTUS is free to find that the previous ruling applies to this unique case.

BS. SCOTUS said not subject to judicial review. This judge is grabbing power.

Just now, Diehardfan said:

You mean an organized group of designated terrorists from a foreign country, many of which were released from their prisons by that country in order to come here? Yeah, it's covered. I'll wait.

Are they acting on behalf of a foreign government or nation?  Good luck proving that.

5 minutes ago, BBE said:

Are they acting on behalf of a foreign government or nation?  Good luck proving that.

No no....it's on your side to prove that it's not on behalf of the gov of Venezuela. That's how the law works. In the meantime....not subject to judicial review means just that. He does not have to prove anything to a DC judge.

Trump has the act and a SCOTUS ruling on his side that says he isn't subject to review. A rogue judge can not suddenly decide to ignore that and do what he wants and Trump sure as hell isn't subject to it. Who's grabbing power?

1 minute ago, Diehardfan said:

No no....it's on your side to prove that it's not on behalf of the gov of Venezuela. That's how the law works. In the meantime....not subject to judicial review means just that. He does not have to prove anything to a DC judge.

No, actually it doesn't.  The government must prove the President in a time where no warning has been recently declared or that as Black stated hostilities still exist that the AEA can even be applied. 

 

And that fact is reviewable.  Ludecke only stated that the removal order was not.  The likelihood of a challenge prevailing on the grounds of improper application of the AEA merits an injunction. 

10 minutes ago, BBE said:

No, actually it doesn't.  The government must prove the President in a time where no warning has been recently declared or that as Black stated hostilities still exist that the AEA can even be applied. 

 

And that fact is reviewable.  Ludecke only stated that the removal order was not.  The likelihood of a challenge prevailing on the grounds of improper application of the AEA merits an injunction. 

Actually, it does when the president is using his executive power and someone is trying to prove it's being used correctly. It's cute that you are wrong and keep trying. I commend you for this, but tough crap. Again, he has the act and a SCOTUS ruling that a rogue judge can't do crap about. He can try whatever he wants because this is the nightmare Hamilton and Jefferson talked about, but it's going to get shot down. Bottom line is this is a power grab by a rogue judge.

PS a few parts you are forgetting:

"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.”

"These are matters of political judgment for which judges have neither technical competence nor official responsibility.”

By your logic, since we haven't declared war on ISIS, Trump wouldn't have the power to remove them either. He declared TdA an FTO, so there is no legal difference betweeen TdA and ISIS. SCOTUS knew what they were doing to keep presidents from having to deal with this kind of BS.

7 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Actually, it does when the president is using his executive power and someone is trying to prove it's being used correctly. It's cute that you are wrong and keep trying. I commend you for this, but tough crap. Again, he has the act and a SCOTUS ruling that a rogue judge can't do crap about. He can try whatever he wants because this is the nightmare Hamilton and Jefferson talked about, but it's going to get shot down. Bottom line is this is a power grab by a rogue judge.

PS a few parts you are forgetting:

"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.”

"These are matters of political judgment for which judges have neither technical competence nor official responsibility.”

And once again, the removal order is in the opinion not subject to judicial review.  Certain clear circumstances trigger the AEA and there is no warning with Venezuela.   There has been no warning with Venezuela.   And Tren is not a government or foreign nation.  Therefore the improper application of the AEA is absolutely challengable and since that is the authority referenced, the removal order may be unlawful.  But you can't think past parroting pundit speak.

This is another case where instead of invoking a Stephen Miller fever dream of a novel legal theory, existing law works just fine.  Unfortunately, this administration is all about shortcuts.

9 minutes ago, BBE said:

And once again, the removal order is in the opinion not subject to judicial review.  Certain clear circumstances trigger the AEA and there is no warning with Venezuela.   There has been no warning with Venezuela.   And Tren is not a government or foreign nation.  Therefore the improper application of the AEA is absolutely challengable and since that is the authority referenced, the removal order may be unlawful.  But you can't think past parroting pundit speak.

Again, what they are is an FTO the same as ISIS, which you like ignoring. Megan is an attorney, but I'm guessing she is wrong as well, so is anyone who doesn't agree with you. This will play out, but in the end we are going to be right back here where it's his right and not subject to judicial review. The law is crystal clear on this.

 

Just now, Diehardfan said:

Again, what they are is an FTO, which you like ignoring. Megan is an attorney, but I'm guessing she is wrong as well, so is anyone who doesn't agree with you. This will play out, but in the end we are going to be right back here where it's his right and not subject to judicial review. The law is crystal clear on this.

 

AEA makes no mention of an FTO.  Try again.

Megan has a law degree.  When did she last practice law? She's been media since 2003.

5 minutes ago, BBE said:

AEA makes no mention of an FTO.  Try again.

Megan has a law degree.  When did she last practice law? She's been media since 2003.

Actually, it covers the predatory incursion. But riddle me this....in your wonderful mind if this was a plane of ISIS what would your argument be? What was it for all the years we put terrorists on planes and took them to other countries to hold them like Egypt and others? So you would be more comfortable if he used the Patriot Act? We never declared war on ISIS, right? They couldn't use AEA according to your logic. You have nothing, dude. Hopes and dreams and lollipops. This is the absolute power and right of a president as SCOTUS ruled. Probably with this BS in mind.

By a foreign nation or government.  All stop.  FTO is by definition non-governmental. 

2 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Actually, it covers the predatory incursion. But riddle me this....in your wonderful mind if this was a plane of ISIS what would your argument be? What was it for all the years we put terrorists on planes and took them to other countries to hold them like Egypt and others? So you would be more comfortable if he used the Patriot Act? We never declared war on ISIS, right? You have nothing, dude.

You are reaching and never once was the AEA used.  Next non-sequitur, please.

7 minutes ago, BBE said:

By a foreign nation or government.  All stop.  FTO is by definition non-governmental. 

FTOs are usually state sponsored in one way or another, so you can throw that BS out the window as well. You aren't very good at this if you are an attorney.

I will say it would not shock me if it makes it to SCOTUS because other rogue judges ignore the law as well.

44 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

No no....it's on your side to prove that it's not on behalf of the gov of Venezuela. That's how the law works. I

No it isn’t. That’s not how it works at all. 

1 minute ago, Diehardfan said:

FTOs are usually state sponsored, so you can throw that BS out the window as well. You aren't very good at this if you are an attorney.

I will say it would not shock me if it makes it to SCOTUS because other rogue judges ignore the law as well.

Your argument depends on a lot of supposition.  Prove Tren is state sponsored.   I'll wait.