14 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

I'm with Jefferson

When the Supreme Court blocks something the other party tried to do:

Lefties/righties: The Supreme Court decides what’s constitutional! Their ruling is the law of the land! Respect their decision!

When the Supreme Court blocks something their party tries to do:

Lefties/righties: the Supreme Court’s ruling was terrible! They are not the final say on what’s constitutional!

1 hour ago, DrPhilly said:

Don’t think we disagree that there can be an overstep by some Judges. However, in the end of the day the WH and POTUS can’t defy the courts and certainly not SCOTUS. Do you agree with that?

They absolutely can and do, especially when SCOTUS makes a ruling which explicitly orders the executive to exercise power which is solely delegated to POTUS by the constitution itself, like in this ruling.

This idea that SCOTUS has no limit on its own authority is simply laughable. SCOTUS has absolutely no authority to order POTUS to "facilitate” anything to do with foreign relations. That power is solely delegated to POTUS. Even more resounding to this point, the constitution explicitly states that the check on this power resides with Congress.

Since Congress has made no law prescribing the facilitation of Garcia, the court is simply out of bounds.

To wit:

(1) That the President, as the Chief Executive, has the sole and

unlimited power—that his designation in the Constitution as the

depositary of the Executive Power is, in itself, a source of power.

(2) That while the President as the Chief Executive is the sole spokesman of the nation in the field of foreign relations, the Congress as the law-making body may prescribe the policy to be followed, and the President in dealing with foreign nations must keep within that policy.

3 minutes ago, TEW said:

They absolutely can and do, especially when SCOTUS makes a ruling which explicitly orders the executive to exercise power which is solely delegated to POTUS by the constitution itself, like in this ruling.

This idea that SCOTUS has no limit on its own authority is simply laughable. SCOTUS has absolutely no authority to order POTUS to "facilitate” anything to do with foreign relations. That power is solely delegated to POTUS. Even more resounding to this point, the constitution explicitly states that the check on this power resides with Congress.

Since Congress has made no law prescribing the facilitation of Garcia, the court is simply out of bounds.

To wit:

(1) That the President, as the Chief Executive, has the sole and

unlimited power—that his designation in the Constitution as the

depositary of the Executive Power is, in itself, a source of power.

(2) That while the President as the Chief Executive is the sole spokesman of the nation in the field of foreign relations, the Congress as the law-making body may prescribe the policy to be followed, and the President in dealing with foreign nations must keep within that policy.

Where did anyone say that SCOTUS "has no limit"?

SCOTUS has ruled within their full rights that the Executive has violated policy as set by Congress in this particular case and has instructed the Executive to remedy the problem. The Executive is fully within their rights to argue in court as to why the problem cannot be remedied and in fact we are now at this very juncture in the process.

1 minute ago, DrPhilly said:

Where did anyone say that SCOTUS "has no limit"?

SCOTUS has ruled within their full rights that the Executive has violated policy as set by Congress in this particular case and has instructed the Executive to remedy the problem. The Executive is fully within their rights to argue in court as to why the problem cannot be remedied and in fact we are now at this very juncture in the process.

SCOTUS has no authority to instruct the president to facilitate anything to do with foreign affairs. Zero. None.

14 hours ago, lynched1 said:

Looks like they grabbed a photo and used the same font as the title to edit the MS13 onto it. At least change the font if you're going to do that

It looks horribly edited. Do they show up in that video he did with the senator?

2 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

Looks like they grabbed a photo and used the same font as the title to edit the MS13 onto it. At least change the font if you're going to do that

It looks horribly edited. Do they show up in that video he did with the senator?

Yes. His wife put a heart emoji over one of him hugging him as well.

2 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

Looks like they grabbed a photo and used the same font as the title to edit the MS13 onto it. At least change the font if you're going to do that

It looks horribly edited. Do they show up in that video he did with the senator?

Here comes more conspiracy cope. 😂

4 minutes ago, TEW said:

SCOTUS has no authority to instruct the president to facilitate anything to do with foreign affairs. Zero. None.

No one has said that they do

I can't stand Lee but he is right

10 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

I can't stand Lee but he is right

In a nutshell, all he said was "wah”

36 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

I did a google search and set the parameters for 1970-2024 and didn't come across those symbols with those descriptions

But as I said before it's like talking to a wall

8 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

I did a google search and set the parameters for 1970-2024 and didn't come across those symbols with those descriptions

But as I said before it's like talking to a wall

I'm not terribly focused on them but you asked

28 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

In a nutshell, all he said was "wah”

troll harder

5 hours ago, TEW said:

As if the plan isn’t amnesty. As if tens of thousands of illegals haven’t been found registered to vote.

You aren’t fooling anyone.

Oh when is it those dastardly Dems going to give them all amnesty? Biden had 4 years.

3 hours ago, Diehardfan said:

Yes. His wife put a heart emoji over one of him hugging him as well.

Just a coincidence........

🤣

12 minutes ago, toolg said:

Oh when is it those dastardly Dems going to give them all amnesty? Biden had 4 years.

And encouraged record numbers of illegals into the country

3 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

No one has said that they do

Then you agree the SCOTUS ruling was unconstitutional. Thanks for playing.

14 minutes ago, toolg said:

Oh when is it those dastardly Dems going to give them all amnesty? Biden had 4 years.

He didn’t have the legislative votes. As soon as they can is when they will, and we all know it because it’s literally in their party platform.

3 minutes ago, TEW said:

He didn’t have the legislative votes. As soon as they can is when they will, and we all know it because it’s literally in their party platform.

Great. So they get amnesty. They are not citizens and they still cannot vote.

15 minutes ago, TEW said:

Then you agree the SCOTUS ruling was unconstitutional. Thanks for playing.

SCOTUS didn't tell Trump to bring Garcia back to the US. You haven't read the ruling have you?

6 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

SCOTUS didn't tell Trump to bring Garcia back to the US. You haven't read the ruling have you?

Holy crap. I argued just that with you and quite a few others saying he was defying the court not bringing him back. You are spinning the wheels going backwards. I literally said multiple times it said release him.

1 minute ago, Diehardfan said:

Holy crap. I argued just that with you and quite a few others sayinghe was defyingthe court not bringinghim back. You are spinning the wheels going backwards.

You can go back and look. I've never once said the court ruled that Trump had to bring Garcia back. I did say that the court ruled that Trump had to facilitate Garcia's release though which the court did rule and which is something different and in which there is no wiggle room for Trump. The Trump WH must be active in facilitating and must also give evidence to that effect to the court. The Trump WH must also find a way to give Garcia the due process he would have received had he not been erroneously deported directly into the El Salvadoran prison. That might be tricky to do if Garcia is in El Salvador but that is an option and there is no order to bring Garcia back to the US.

36 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

You can go back and look. I've never once said the court ruled that Trump had to bring Garcia back. I did say that the court ruled that Trump had to facilitate Garcia's release though which the court did rule and which is something different and in which there is no wiggle room for Trump. The Trump WH must be active in facilitating and must also give evidence to that effect to the court. The Trump WH must also find a way to give Garcia the due process he would have received had he not been erroneously deported directly into the El Salvadoran prison. That might be tricky to do if Garcia is in El Salvador but that is an option and there is no order to bring Garcia back to the US.

I literally said release and wiggle room and was told no and caught crap. I'm getting gaslit.

7 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

I literally said release and wiggle room and was told no and caught crap. I'm getting gaslit.

The ruling is what it is dude. Trump is trying to "wiggle" right now with the term "facilitate" but that's not going so well for him so far. It doesn't mean passively sitting by and saying you will facilitate if Garcia shows up at a US port. Trump needs to show actual activity to facilitate. There isn't any wiggle room there.

What's happening here is that Trump doesn't want to say he "can't get Garcia back" because that would mean he is weak and can't get "a deal". On the other hand, he doesn't actually want him back and so doesn't want to actively facilitate anything. He's simply trying to get the courts to shut up and F off but they aren't bending the knee. Not yet anyway though SCOTUS will be forced to rule a couple more times on this one it would seem before all is said and done and we see if Trump ultimately obeys or not OR if SCOTUS just backs down entirely.