(04-15-2025 10:05 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

Quote:WOW, EVEN CNN? Chief legal correspondent Paula Reid goes on the news and says Trump is *NOT* violating the Supreme Court ruling by not flying Kilmar Abrego Garcia back to the U.S.

Will Democrats listen now?

"They did NOT order the administration to return him to the United States. They said that they need to facilitate his return. They could have said 'we order him returned,' but they didn't do that."

@StephenM
and
@MarcoRubio
said this yesterday in the Oval Office, and so did AG Bondi.

"The Supreme Court appeared to defer to the executive branch given that this is an international matter, and you see, yes, it does look a little bit like a semantic game, but they are playing within the bounds of what the Supreme Court ruled."

"So no, they are not defying this order."

What do you do now, Democrats, when you lost CNN?

Total embarassment.

Yea, we all knew this was mostly a semantic CYA job by the SC.

But, it still served the same purpose of what the eventual outcome should and WILL be.

Hombre shouldn’t have been here, shouldn’t have been a gang member (confirmed more than once) and deserved his free Spirit flight back home.

I wish him all the best, back in his domicile. He pops up here in McMaryland again?
Off to the Gitmo. Terrorist.

(04-15-2025 10:05 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

Quote:WOW, EVEN CNN? Chief legal correspondent Paula Reid goes on the news and says Trump is *NOT* violating the Supreme Court ruling by not flying Kilmar Abrego Garcia back to the U.S.

Will Democrats listen now?

"They did NOT order the administration to return him to the United States. They said that they need to facilitate his return. They could have said 'we order him returned,' but they didn't do that."

@StephenM
and
@MarcoRubio
said this yesterday in the Oval Office, and so did AG Bondi.

"The Supreme Court appeared to defer to the executive branch given that this is an international matter, and you see, yes, it does look a little bit like a semantic game, but they are playing within the bounds of what the Supreme Court ruled."

"So no, they are not defying this order."

What do you do now, Democrats, when you lost CNN?

Total embarassment.

Derp.

(04-15-2025 10:05 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

Quote:WOW, EVEN CNN? Chief legal correspondent Paula Reid goes on the news and says Trump is *NOT* violating the Supreme Court ruling by not flying Kilmar Abrego Garcia back to the U.S.

Will Democrats listen now?

"They did NOT order the administration to return him to the United States. They said that they need to facilitate his return. They could have said 'we order him returned,' but they didn't do that."

@StephenM
and
@MarcoRubio
said this yesterday in the Oval Office, and so did AG Bondi.

"The Supreme Court appeared to defer to the executive branch given that this is an international matter, and you see, yes, it does look a little bit like a semantic game, but they are playing within the bounds of what the Supreme Court ruled."

"So no, they are not defying this order."

What do you do now, Democrats, when you lost CNN?

Total embarassment.

Derp a Derp

(04-15-2025 10:05 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

Quote:WOW, EVEN CNN? Chief legal correspondent Paula Reid goes on the news and says Trump is *NOT* violating the Supreme Court ruling by not flying Kilmar Abrego Garcia back to the U.S.

Will Democrats listen now?

"They did NOT order the administration to return him to the United States. They said that they need to facilitate his return. They could have said 'we order him returned,' but they didn't do that."

@StephenM
and
@MarcoRubio
said this yesterday in the Oval Office, and so did AG Bondi.

"The Supreme Court appeared to defer to the executive branch given that this is an international matter, and you see, yes, it does look a little bit like a semantic game, but they are playing within the bounds of what the Supreme Court ruled."

"So no, they are not defying this order."

What do you do now, Democrats, when you lost CNN?

Total embarassment.

Derp a
Ah, hell you all know what I was going to say

(04-15-2025 10:05 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

Quote:WOW, EVEN CNN? Chief legal correspondent Paula Reid goes on the news and says Trump is *NOT* violating the Supreme Court ruling by not flying Kilmar Abrego Garcia back to the U.S.

Will Democrats listen now?

"They did NOT order the administration to return him to the United States. They said that they need to facilitate his return. They could have said 'we order him returned,' but they didn't do that."

@StephenM
and
@MarcoRubio
said this yesterday in the Oval Office, and so did AG Bondi.

"The Supreme Court appeared to defer to the executive branch given that this is an international matter, and you see, yes, it does look a little bit like a semantic game, but they are playing within the bounds of what the Supreme Court ruled."

"So no, they are not defying this order."

What do you do now, Democrats, when you lost CNN?

Total embarassment.

Safe travels “Maryland man”.
Hope they lock you up in Baltimore Central. Be quite the cherry on top

Geeeez.

Not intentional, screwy Comcast I guess…

Democrats, activist judges and the MSM pick the weirdest hills to die on.

The guy is a gang member and he has admitted it. He was ordered deported. He's gone and El Salvador doesn't want him released.

Illegal aliens have no rights. They’re criminals. They entered the country illegally. The fact some federal judge in DC says otherwise matters not.

By all rights the American people should be able to bring in these invaders to their nearest ICE office and turn them over to be sent to the prison in Cuba.

It’s likely the only reason that isn’t happening is Leftist scum would figure out a way to use the same process against White, Straight, Christian Conservative men given the opportunity. That’s what the evil SOB’s always do.

(04-15-2025 05:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-15-2025 12:29 PM)450bench Wrote:  Again, take the L dude. You should be used to it by now.
Your interpretation of the ruling(s) is comical.

For the hearing impaired:


The Supreme Court said the district court order was unlawful and its main components were unlawful and reversed 9-0 unanimously, stating clearly that neither the Secretary of State nor the President could be compelled by anybody to forcibly retrieve a citizen of El Salvador from El Salvador who, again, is a member of MS-13, as confirmed by the courts.

For the reading / comprehension impaired:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24...9_lkhn.pdf

Maybe point out *any* of what you regurgitate anywhere in the opinion.

Lolz. Too fing stupid to actually look at the base materials, and too fing stupid to think that what he regurgitates might not be correct. Double lolz.

Bravo.

By the way, the combined votes in Federal Court rulings is 14 judges that his due process rights were violated. 1 Dist. Ct, 3 members of the 4th Circ of Appeals, and 9 members of the SCOTUS.

Take you assbeating and move on, Ace.

I’ve really never seen a person who can’t admit they lost when it’s so plainly obvious.



Maybe the lib idiots planning a trip to pick the MS13 gang banger up need legal representation when get down there. You should apply. They’ve got DEI pilots, so there’s a perk for ya.

Literally one of the dumbest hills libs have picked to die on, ever.

(04-16-2025 02:07 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Illegal aliens have no rights. They’re criminals. They entered the country illegally. The fact some federal judge in DC says otherwise matters not.

By all rights the American people should be able to bring in these invaders to their nearest ICE office and turn them over to be sent to the prison in Cuba.

It’s likely the only reason that isn’t happening is Leftist scum would figure out a way to use the same process against White, Straight, Christian Conservative men given the opportunity. That’s what the evil SOB’s always do.

BuT dUe PrOtHeSs

(04-16-2025 06:23 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(04-16-2025 02:07 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Illegal aliens have no rights. They’re criminals. They entered the country illegally. The fact some federal judge in DC says otherwise matters not.

By all rights the American people should be able to bring in these invaders to their nearest ICE office and turn them over to be sent to the prison in Cuba.

It’s likely the only reason that isn’t happening is Leftist scum would figure out a way to use the same process against White, Straight, Christian Conservative men given the opportunity. That’s what the evil SOB’s always do.

BuT dUe PrOtHeSs

I got curious at exactly what the law says, and what typical court conduct has been recently.

We all certainly realize that due process is in the constitution. It then becomes a matter of how we feel about it, and how it is actually put into practice.

The results to me were a little surprising. Here is one example.

Quote:In the ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote “it is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings.”

How it works in practice: Immigrants have the right to due process. But in reality, says, Andrew Arthur, a resident fellow in law and policy at the conservative Center for Immigration Studies, “courts of law run the gamut.”

In some cases, immigrants are not granted a hearing at all. When asked about the president’s tweet, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders pointed to the process of “expedited removal,” which was created by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

“Just because you don’t see a judge doesn’t mean you aren’t receiving due process,” Sanders said.

Under the expedited removal process, immigrants who have been in the country illegally for less than two years and are apprehended within 100 miles of the border can be deported almost immediately without going through a court hearing.

The exception is asylum seekers, who must be granted a hearing.

Those who are not processed through expedited removal have the right to due process in an immigration court, where the main goal is to decide whether a person has a legal claim to remain in the U.S.

“In immigration court, you have very few rights,” said John Gihon, an immigration attorney who spent six years as a prosecutor for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement before moving into private practice.

Gihon says the bar for what constitutes evidence is lax in immigration court. Documents do not have to be authenticated, and hearsay, a statement made by someone outside of the court, as opposed to on the witness stand, counts as admissible evidence. Hearsay is not allowed in most U.S. courts.

“In the majority of cases, it’s a lock solid 100 percent guaranteed conviction because there is little defense, and most would confess they crossed the border illegally,” Gihon said.

Observations:

1. Scalia said aliens. He did not mention "illegal" aliens.
2. Courts run the gamut in their interpretation of the law.
3. Illegal immigrants here under 2 years and caught within 100 miles of the border can be deported with no hearing, per a 1996 law.
4. The burden of evidence pointing to deportation is lax in immigration court.

And all this was before Biden let in millions of illegals, many with violent criminal records. I would bet that under no circumstances did those who wrote the relevant laws ever envision that we would just drop our borders and allow everybody in with no vetting.

I think in reality, that last line in bold above, where the immigrants entered illegally, pretty much in practicality annuls their due process rights.

So, it's not as cut and dried as one would think.

(04-15-2025 06:29 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(04-15-2025 06:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-15-2025 04:09 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(04-15-2025 04:00 PM)shere khan Wrote:  [b]If an army stormed the border some idiots would scream muh due process. You cant shoot them.

We lived in a country with a great deal of warped stupid people.

We need a war.

Only if they were able to step a single foot on our sovereign soil...

Then muh due process

That's the problem here, these millions of single male invaders were allowed in on purpose and even flown in under the ridiculous guise of muh asylum, no shots fired invasion.

Strawman ******* argument bolded above. Different set of procedures, different rules. But leave it to the terminally ignorant to blather about it as such.

And Ill take it a step further -- if there *was* an actual invasion by a nation, or a war with a nation, the President has almost unfettered power to deport not just the 'invaders', but *any* national of that country we are at war with.

The ignorance and strawman arguments here are just mindboggling.

So 12-15 million in 4 years isn't an invasion?

WTF is it then?

Ohhh nevermind, it was purposeful treason

I guess you missed the phrase 'by a nation'. Perhaps pay bit more attention to the actual words. Or, just make **** up as you do above.

(04-15-2025 07:54 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(04-15-2025 06:07 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-15-2025 06:01 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(04-15-2025 05:48 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-15-2025 12:41 PM)Trojanbybirth Wrote:  I'll trade you "any person" for "shall not be infringed".

Do you think I am an anti- 2A guy? Lolz.

Ill take the literal meaning of both of them. Funny that. Im not politically selective in deciding to **** on one part of the Constitution and support another. Im one of those dudes that think all of it needs to be followed.


But glad to see that you think that you seemingly think the fight that finally won out in Heller, and McDonald, and Bruen is such a chip on the shoulder to ignore the issue of "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Cool cool.

So if they drag his ass back, sit him down at a folding table, let him plead his case, order him deported 5 minutes later, then walk him back across the border where he entered.....

You'll stfu?

Absolutely -- give him the due process. If in the process they decide to ship him out, that is what it is. Within the rules.

They could have done that within the rules for any of the 2 planeloads. Notice, hearing, and if an adverse ruling -- no problem in shipping them out. Ive been crystal clear all along. As have most people criticizing the issue.

Within the rules? Funny, I don't recall you raising hell when Biden let in maybe 20M illegals. Against the rules.

I have. I even posted a link to them when some idiot whined about that same issue earlier.

Classic whadabout above. Brilliant.

(04-15-2025 09:44 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Exactly my point. We ignored immigration laws to let in maybe 20M unvetted illegals, and NOW the Dems are about enforcing immigration laws. Cherry picking. They came in illegally, so I have no issue with them going back the same way.

If a burglar breaks into my home at night, he's not going to get due process. He's going to get shot.

Its called enforcing the precept of law defined in the Constitution.

I am glad you are so vehemently against it.

What other rights in the Constitution do you think should be erased?

(04-16-2025 06:04 AM)450bench Wrote:  

(04-15-2025 05:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-15-2025 12:29 PM)450bench Wrote:  Again, take the L dude. You should be used to it by now.
Your interpretation of the ruling(s) is comical.

For the hearing impaired:


The Supreme Court said the district court order was unlawful and its main components were unlawful and reversed 9-0 unanimously, stating clearly that neither the Secretary of State nor the President could be compelled by anybody to forcibly retrieve a citizen of El Salvador from El Salvador who, again, is a member of MS-13, as confirmed by the courts.

For the reading / comprehension impaired:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24...9_lkhn.pdf

Maybe point out *any* of what you regurgitate anywhere in the opinion.

Lolz. Too fing stupid to actually look at the base materials, and too fing stupid to think that what he regurgitates might not be correct. Double lolz.

Bravo.

By the way, the combined votes in Federal Court rulings is 14 judges that his due process rights were violated. 1 Dist. Ct, 3 members of the 4th Circ of Appeals, and 9 members of the SCOTUS.

Take you assbeating and move on, Ace.

I’ve really never seen a person who can’t admit they lost when it’s so plainly obvious.



Maybe the lib idiots planning a trip to pick the MS13 gang banger up need legal representation when get down there. You should apply. They’ve got DEI pilots, so there’s a perk for ya.

Literally one of the dumbest hills libs have picked to die on, ever.

Ill take that as you did not choose to even read the linked opinion. You could have saved us a lot of time and just said that, roidie.

Tanq, you seem to be ignoring Post #452 above.

(04-16-2025 07:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-15-2025 06:29 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(04-15-2025 06:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-15-2025 04:09 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(04-15-2025 04:00 PM)shere khan Wrote:  [b]If an army stormed the border some idiots would scream muh due process. You cant shoot them.

We lived in a country with a great deal of warped stupid people.

We need a war.

Only if they were able to step a single foot on our sovereign soil...

Then muh due process

That's the problem here, these millions of single male invaders were allowed in on purpose and even flown in under the ridiculous guise of muh asylum, no shots fired invasion.

Strawman ******* argument bolded above. Different set of procedures, different rules. But leave it to the terminally ignorant to blather about it as such.

And Ill take it a step further -- if there *was* an actual invasion by a nation, or a war with a nation, the President has almost unfettered power to deport not just the 'invaders', but *any* national of that country we are at war with.

The ignorance and strawman arguments here are just mindboggling.

So 12-15 million in 4 years isn't an invasion?

WTF is it then?

Ohhh nevermind, it was purposeful treason

I guess you missed the phrase 'by a nation'. Perhaps pay bit more attention to the actual words. Or, just make **** up as you do above.

It's actually nation(s). Maybe pay attention to reality

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

(04-16-2025 07:27 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(04-16-2025 06:23 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(04-16-2025 02:07 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Illegal aliens have no rights. They’re criminals. They entered the country illegally. The fact some federal judge in DC says otherwise matters not.

By all rights the American people should be able to bring in these invaders to their nearest ICE office and turn them over to be sent to the prison in Cuba.

It’s likely the only reason that isn’t happening is Leftist scum would figure out a way to use the same process against White, Straight, Christian Conservative men given the opportunity. That’s what the evil SOB’s always do.

BuT dUe PrOtHeSs

I got curious at exactly what the law says, and what typical court conduct has been recently.

We all certainly realize that due process is in the constitution. It then becomes a matter of how we feel about it, and how it is actually put into practice.

The results to me were a little surprising. Here is one example.

Quote:In the ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote “it is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings.”

How it works in practice: Immigrants have the right to due process. But in reality, says, Andrew Arthur, a resident fellow in law and policy at the conservative Center for Immigration Studies, “courts of law run the gamut.”

In some cases, immigrants are not granted a hearing at all. When asked about the president’s tweet, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders pointed to the process of “expedited removal,” which was created by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

“Just because you don’t see a judge doesn’t mean you aren’t receiving due process,” Sanders said.

Under the expedited removal process, immigrants who have been in the country illegally for less than two years and are apprehended within 100 miles of the border can be deported almost immediately without going through a court hearing.

The exception is asylum seekers, who must be granted a hearing.

Those who are not processed through expedited removal have the right to due process in an immigration court, where the main goal is to decide whether a person has a legal claim to remain in the U.S.

“In immigration court, you have very few rights,” said John Gihon, an immigration attorney who spent six years as a prosecutor for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement before moving into private practice.

Gihon says the bar for what constitutes evidence is lax in immigration court. Documents do not have to be authenticated, and hearsay, a statement made by someone outside of the court, as opposed to on the witness stand, counts as admissible evidence. Hearsay is not allowed in most U.S. courts.

“In the majority of cases, it’s a lock solid 100 percent guaranteed conviction because there is little defense, and most would confess they crossed the border illegally,” Gihon said.

Observations:

1. Scalia said aliens. He did not mention "illegal" aliens.

When before the hearing, they are aliens. Once found illegal, they are illegal aliens. Its a time and 'prior to finding the status' thingie.

Its not Scalia leaving a loophole open. Its him being precise.

Quote:2. Courts run the gamut in their interpretation of the law.
3. Illegal immigrants here under 2 years and caught within 100 miles of the border can be deported with no hearing, per a 1996 law.
4. The burden of evidence pointing to deportation is lax in immigration court.

And all this was before Biden let in millions of illegals, many with violent criminal records.

And the bolded doesnt change the items above it.

Quote:I would bet that under no circumstances did those who wrote the relevant laws ever envision that we would just drop our borders and allow everybody in with no vetting.

That isnt the issue, 3A. The issue is the *basic* application of of due process.

Picking someone up off the street, ignoring the finding of a previous court with no notice, hearing, or oppty to defend isnt anything *any* person with a 3rd grade level knowledge of basic civics would say is due process. In fact -- it is the sin qua non of ignoring due process. No matter what happened in the interim.

Quote:I think in reality, that last line in bold above, where the immigrants entered illegally, pretty much in practicality annuls their due process rights.

Low bar to due process doesnt equal -- Picking someone up off the street, ignoring the finding of a previous court with no notice, hearing, or oppty to defend,

Quote:So, it's not as cut and dried as one would think.

In the current cases it is.

Again -- Low bar to due process doesnt equal -- Picking someone up off the street, ignoring the finding of a previous court with no notice, hearing, or oppty to defend,

No matter how much one screams that it is.

(04-16-2025 08:02 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-16-2025 07:27 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(04-16-2025 06:23 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(04-16-2025 02:07 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Illegal aliens have no rights. They’re criminals. They entered the country illegally. The fact some federal judge in DC says otherwise matters not.

By all rights the American people should be able to bring in these invaders to their nearest ICE office and turn them over to be sent to the prison in Cuba.

It’s likely the only reason that isn’t happening is Leftist scum would figure out a way to use the same process against White, Straight, Christian Conservative men given the opportunity. That’s what the evil SOB’s always do.

BuT dUe PrOtHeSs

I got curious at exactly what the law says, and what typical court conduct has been recently.

We all certainly realize that due process is in the constitution. It then becomes a matter of how we feel about it, and how it is actually put into practice.

The results to me were a little surprising. Here is one example.

Quote:In the ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote “it is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings.”

How it works in practice: Immigrants have the right to due process. But in reality, says, Andrew Arthur, a resident fellow in law and policy at the conservative Center for Immigration Studies, “courts of law run the gamut.”

In some cases, immigrants are not granted a hearing at all. When asked about the president’s tweet, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders pointed to the process of “expedited removal,” which was created by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

“Just because you don’t see a judge doesn’t mean you aren’t receiving due process,” Sanders said.

Under the expedited removal process, immigrants who have been in the country illegally for less than two years and are apprehended within 100 miles of the border can be deported almost immediately without going through a court hearing.

The exception is asylum seekers, who must be granted a hearing.

Those who are not processed through expedited removal have the right to due process in an immigration court, where the main goal is to decide whether a person has a legal claim to remain in the U.S.

“In immigration court, you have very few rights,” said John Gihon, an immigration attorney who spent six years as a prosecutor for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement before moving into private practice.

Gihon says the bar for what constitutes evidence is lax in immigration court. Documents do not have to be authenticated, and hearsay, a statement made by someone outside of the court, as opposed to on the witness stand, counts as admissible evidence. Hearsay is not allowed in most U.S. courts.

“In the majority of cases, it’s a lock solid 100 percent guaranteed conviction because there is little defense, and most would confess they crossed the border illegally,” Gihon said.

Observations:

1. Scalia said aliens. He did not mention "illegal" aliens.

When before the hearing, they are aliens. Once found illegal, they are illegal aliens. Its a time and 'prior to finding the status' thingie.

Its not Scalia leaving a loophole open. Its him being precise.

Quote:2. Courts run the gamut in their interpretation of the law.
3. Illegal immigrants here under 2 years and caught within 100 miles of the border can be deported with no hearing, per a 1996 law.
4. The burden of evidence pointing to deportation is lax in immigration court.

And all this was before Biden let in millions of illegals, many with violent criminal records.

And the bolded doesnt change the items above it.

Quote:I would bet that under no circumstances did those who wrote the relevant laws ever envision that we would just drop our borders and allow everybody in with no vetting.

That isnt the issue, 3A. The issue is the *basic* application of of due process.

Picking someone up off the street, ignoring the finding of a previous court with no notice, hearing, or oppty to defend isnt anything *any* person with a 3rd grade level knowledge of basic civics would say is due process. In fact -- it is the sin qua non of ignoring due process. No matter what happened in the interim.

Quote:I think in reality, that last line in bold above, where the immigrants entered illegally, pretty much in practicality annuls their due process rights.

Low bar to due process doesnt equal -- Picking someone up off the street, ignoring the finding of a previous court with no notice, hearing, or oppty to defend,

Quote:So, it's not as cut and dried as one would think.

In the current cases it is.

Again -- Low bar to due process doesnt equal -- Picking someone up off the street, ignoring the finding of a previous court with no notice, hearing, or oppty to defend,

No matter how much one screams that it is.

Bwahahaha

You got wrecked. Accept it