It has been a busy 24 hours in the courts. Early this morning, the Supreme Court blocked (for now) the deportations of any Venezuelans held in northern Texas under the Alien Enemies Act, a law only used three times before in our history. At the same time, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the lower court’s order in the case of Abrego Garcia.
Despite the growing counter-constitutional movement, both decisions show how the courts are functioning appropriately and expeditiously in sorting out these difficult cases. Indeed, I wanted to flag a couple of paragraphs in the Fourth Circuit case that I hope everyone will take a second to read and consider from Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, a widely respected conservative judge.
The justices ordered the Trump administration not to remove Venezuelans being held in the Bluebonnet Detention Center “until further order of this court.”
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented from the order. However, this is merely a hold on deportations pending further review of the emergency appeal from the American Civil Liberties Union, which is challenging the use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.
This rarely used and highly controversial law stretches back to the Adams Administration. There are good-faith arguments on both sides of the case that the Court wants to consider. Accordingly, this is not surprising.
The Fourth Circuit also correctly upheld the lower court order in the Garcia case. I remain confused by the administration’s appeal. The Supreme Court already upheld the order requiring the Administration to facilitate Garcia’s return. I have been critical of that opinion, but it clearly recognized the authority of the district court to issue that part of the earlier order.
However, Judge Wilkinson’s opinion contains one passage that I wanted to excerpt. It is a measured and important point that both branches need to show mutual respect in these cases. This sage advice is not coming from a critic or a liberal jurist. It is coming from someone who has been at the heart of conservative jurisprudence for decades:
“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.
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.
Well said, your honor.
One can disagree with the ultimate merits on legal issues. However, as I have previously written, the disagreement on those issues should not trigger demands for impeachment or other extreme measures.
James Comer, Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to Representatives Robert Garcia (D-Cal.) and Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.):
I write in response to your letter of April 15, 2025, requesting that I approve, from the Committee’s budget, official travel for you both to visit El Salvador to meet with a foreign MS-13 gang member whose wife accused him of crimes and who is strongly suspected of human trafficking. It is absurd that you both displayed active hostility for over two years toward the Committee’s oversight of the Biden Border Crisis and the consequences of millions of illegal aliens entering the country, yet now, you are seeking travel at Committee expense to meet with foreign gang members. You may be pleased to know that a Democrat Senator, Chris Van Hollen, was photographed just yesterday in El Salvador enjoying margaritas garnished with cherry slices with the foreign gang member your letter references. If you also wish to meet with him, you can spend your own money. But I will not approve a single dime of taxpayer funds for use on the excursion you have requested.
Your request is denied,
Sincerely,
James Comer
Chairman
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
WINNING!!!
I think it is past time to learn who is financing the ACLU and from what sources they are getting their money and on back to whatever entities may be trying to destroy this country.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/04/outrageous-trump-admin-releases-photos-suspected-venezuelan-tren
Youngf,
The problem is NOT the ACLU.
While they have gone lunatic lefty – they are allowed.
Do not get sucked into the stupidity of the left.
Sorros and other Lefty Billionaires can fund whatever political causes they want – so long as they stay withing the law. There are some rare instances where that MIGHT not be true.
But funding the ACLU is not one of those.
Turley and Judge Wilkerson circle arround the REAL issue, and that is that the courts have become politicized.
That is unbeleivably dangerous.
I am sorry but Turley and Wilkerson are WRONG.
I absolutely do NOT want congress to impeach any judges.
I do not want them to find another way to remove them.
What I WANT is for the courts to recognize the damage they are doing to their own credibility.
Wilkserson is WRONG – Courts are NOT respected – because they have LOST respect.
They did that to themselves.
The BEST solution is for them to fix it themselves.
Judge Wilkerson is making it clear that even the purportted cnservatives on the court mistake respect for the judiciary as something they are entitled to – not something they must continuously earn.
We do NOT respect politicians. We do not need to. We can toss them out every 2-6 years.
Judges are for life. That is not by accident. It was supposed to insulate them from politics.
Politics has no place on the courts.
The decisions of the courts MUST be made based on the law and constitution.
Not individual judges conceptions of right and wrong, of good and evil, of what will worl and what won’t.
When the courts move into those areas – things do not work.
We have examples of screwed up – mostly socialist systems throughout the world where lifetime appointed judges have grabbed and held political power.
This is NOT good. Whether it is banana republics or the great democracies. So long as we have something close to free elections and so long as the judiciary sticks to controlling the government SOLELY with respect to law and constitution, we get by.
When the law and constitution are no longer bedrock, and it is the COURTS duty to assure they are,
That is when we see chaos, coups, rising political violence.
I do not give a crap who gives money to the ACLU or what they argue in court.
I do not care if real Nazi’s or real communists represent plantiffs in courts, and do so with limitless money.
Our system will continue to work regardless. It might hobble a bit, but it will no stumble and fall.
When the rule of law is gone – we are SOL.
John– “Sorros and other Lefty Billionaires can fund whatever political causes they want – so long as they stay within the law.”
Yes, “so long as they stay within the law.” That’s the very issue I want investigated. I assumed USAID was legit and doing good. Now I trust very little that has not been confirmed. I used to like the ACLU, made contributions to it, but now it disgusts me and I want it looked over carefully.
But you are right, nothing is destroying respect for the judiciary faster than their own recklessness and arrogance.
I think you said elsewhere that the judges are not kings but, in fact, they do exercise a kingly power, equity.
When the remedies at law were inadequate the king and his people, the curia Regis, could intervene. Edward I grew weary with the petitions and handed the task to his chancellor to act in his name. Chancery became a court of equity and was eventually merged with the law courts but continued to have separate rules and powers. When our district courts liberally issue TROs and injunctions they are, in fact, exercising a kingly power devolved on them. It is intoxicating power for a king and more so for a lowly judge and so our judges are abusing it. Congress or the President or both need to curtail this abusive behavior.
“I assumed USAID was legit and doing good.”
I have NEVER assumed government spending was legit or doing good.
The data on the actual harms of most govenrment spending – even spending purportedly on good things is damning.
But YES, I was shocked to find the incredible corruption in USAID and elsewhere.
But we are backwards with USAID – they problem there is NOT billionaires funding causes.
It is Democrats using the power of govenrment to fund themselves and things they did NOT tell voters they were funding because voters would be furious.
With respect to Sorros – there is some Evidence he was paying TdA members transport to the US – THAT would be a crime. Funding the ACLU to defend TdA members would NOT.
The left always like to rant about the bad influence of money on politics – but NOT only do they receive the most money from billionaires by far, but the USAID and other exposure has shown us myriads more “self licking ice cream cones” – where Democrats in power littlerally fund themselves from public money. That is absolutely Corrupt.
“I think you said elsewhere that the judges are not kings but, in fact, they do exercise a kingly power, equity.”
We PROPERLY give judges a great deal of power.
But we also place significant constraints on it.
Judges can not bring their own cases.
Nor are they supposed to accept cases where the plantiff does not have standing.
Nor are they free to decide what is a good idea and what is a bade idea,
nor are thy free to decide what is moral and what is immoral.
Judges are limited to causes brought by others, and only those who are actually harmed AND have a right infringed, AND they are limited to deciding what the law says AS WRITTEN, and the Constitution says AS WRITTEN.
you can give courts nearly infinite power so long as that power remnains inside those constraints.
With all these cases –
the president has the power – even the duty to remove illegal aliens from the country.
The president has the power to cut wasteful, fraudulent and abusive spending.
The president has the power to fire, layoff, terminate people in the executive branch.
It is POSSIBLE even CERTAIN that SOMETIMES – that presidential power will be excercised without dotting i’s and crossing t’s. Due process is NOT the means to prevent the president from excercising lawful and constitutional powers. It is the means to assure that MOST OF THE TIME, the i’s are dotted and the t’s crossed.
If Garcia is miraculously returned – he will still be deported in the end.
he is in the US illegally, and he actually exhausted his appeals – this nonsense now is stuff the courts shoudl have said – “your done” to Garcia had his due process, he had his day in court,
he even had an appeal. He lost and did not continue it.
But we are back to details again.
The details matter very little – though even those are damning to the left.
Garcia is a human trafficer, a gang banger, a drug dealer and a wife beater.
But even if he were not – he is an illegal alien, he can be deported.
What is the left and the courts trying to fix ?
The same is true of the rest – further billions will be wasted as we fight over spending cuts and RIF’ but those WILL eventually happen.
The courts are NOT supposed to grant TRO’s or preliminary injunctions when tghe best the plantiffs will get is some i dotting and t crossing.
John: “We PROPERLY give judges a great deal of power.
But we also place significant constraints on it.”
The problem lately is that far too many of them haven’t been particularly constrained.
I am wondering if it might be an idea for Congress to separate law and equity again, return those roles to two separate court systems. District courts would handle cases and controversies at law but not have the authority to issue injunctions or other remedies in equity. For equity one would have to apply in a chancery court where the rules are strictly defined and limited.
Amen.
John Say,
You’re flipping out over the wrong idea. It’s Trump who is politicizing the courts. He’s the one who has attacked judges from the very beginning. It’s not just him it’s his followers, staff, press secretary, etc. They are all accusing judges that rule against him as activists, biased, Biden judges, radical left judges. all in an effort to discredit the courts and sow distrust just like they did with the elections. Surely you’re not so blind as to not notice this pattern? This is what facsists do and here you are shilling for their accusations.
The courts ARE ruling according to the law. They are ruling according to the Constitution. What you seem upset about is that you don’t understand how courts work. There are legal rules and procedures that make things seem unfair and unjust and that triggers either side to gripe and moan about judges being biased. When right leaning judges rule based on vague doctrines and convenient philosophies like “originalism” and “textualism” and those same philosphies require them to rule in ways that will not align with their views they twist and engage in legal mind benders to arrive at their preferred outcome. That’s not following the law or the Constitution and clearly you given that a pass when it aligns with your views.
Wilkerson was indeed correct and he mentioned that BOTH branches have to respect one another’s decisions within the law. Your babbling about judges needing to earn respect is stupid. Judges are supposed to be treatred with respect because they have immense power over people and organizations within their courts. It’s expected not just earned. It’s that respect earned or not that is required for any court to have legitimacy and Trump is deliberately unermining that legitimacy because he doesn’t like their rulings. He’s throwing a fit like a spoiled child who is not getting his way and you’re enabling it, MAGA is enabling it. This is what ignorance breeds and Trump feeds on the ignorance of his supporters to maintain power.
#. Gaslighting– oh I want to marry Luigi mangione. Oh abrego garcia ms13 is traumatized. — oh it’s only 37 trillion debt.
All of this court crap is costing money if it weren’t just crap. Oh this judge that judge… it’s stupidity and boring. If immigration law had been followed none of this would happen.
In the meantime theft. If these people spent as much time actually working and creating it’d be amazing but they must tear up people, buildings, things and anything they find.
You have no reason to be in a united states. They have, zero to offer except death and destruction.
How entertaining you are. How do yall want separate? At the Mississippi? North South or East West?
Gbye Mr Decker
If you’re interested in understanding the ACLU’s shift over time, Nat Hentoff is an important figure to look into. He was a prominent civil libertarian, known for his work with The Village Voice and other publications, and he served on the ACLU’s national board before stepping down.
I supported the ACLU for many years, especially while reading Hentoff’s writings. But over time, the organization became more ideological and less open to criticism. Hentoff, who always spoke his mind, found himself at odds with this change. Although he supported abortion rights at first, he changed his views after investigating cases where disabilities were a factor in the decision. His outspoken nature, combined with his shifting stance, increasingly put him in conflict with the ACLU’s direction.
Eventually, Hentoff felt that the ACLU had strayed from its original purpose of defending civil liberties and was instead pushing a specific ideological agenda, marginalizing members who disagreed. This, I believe, was a key reason for his resignation from the national board.
S. Meyer– Eventually, Hentoff felt that the ACLU had strayed from its original purpose of defending civil liberties and was instead pushing a specific ideological agenda, marginalizing members who disagreed.”
That’s why I stopped my support too.
They have coasted too long on their reputation for defending civil liberties while becoming hostile to them in some cases.
“Well said, your honor.”
***************
Not well-said. Rather haughtily said like a lifetime appointed weilder of unchecked power against the manifest will of the American people. Wilkinson never represented real people and never lived in neighborhood full of crime or strife. He was a private school, Ivy League academic, who was aided mightily as a protege of family friend and fellow Richmonder SCOTUS Justice Lewis Powell. Wilkinson can only faintly imagine what the poor people must go through living with his rulings. His admonishing comments speak of protecting that unchecked power and in so doing maintaining the miserable status quo for the “rabble” that jurists like him always jealously guard. They are the praetorian guard of the managerial class full of masterful high-sounding political poetry but devoid of any appreciation for the havoc wrought by their words. Wilkinson seeks to delay and then deny the will of the people he swore to serve. He is knocking loose the moorings of a society struggling against an existential threat. Truly the blame for any collapse belongs to him.
Mespo,
Perceptive and well said.
Mespo,
I fully agree, but the core is not WHY he is arrogant ?
it is that he is WRONG.
Judge Wilkerson is NOT lamenting that there are calls for impeachment from the fringes.
that is ALWAYS true.
He is chastising people – many with power who are NOT on the fringe for threatening impeachment and other measures.
There are only TWO possible reasons for that.
The majority of the country is suffering from mass psychosis – you can get that thesis from the Gigi, and George and Dennis every day. If true – which of course it is not, then Wilkerson is tilting at windmills, and no one is listening.
The other 10,000 times more likely explanation is that a supermajority have lost respect for the courts. That is a problem the COURTS must fix, or it will be fixed for them. And that is precisely what those threatening are PROPERLY saying.
This is like short selling on the stock market.
There is ALWAYS someone shorting a stock.
But we ALL know there is a problem when the number shorting starts to sky rocket.
The WRONG choice – the Choice Paulson made in 2008, the choice the left makes all the time, the choice Wilkerson is making wrong, is to blame the problems being pointed out by the growing criticism and loss respect for the courts on those whose respect the courts have lost.
That is a recipe for disaster.
The issue here is NOT Trump.
Trump is bombastic, he is chaotic – though I would note that all of these was VERY WELL PLANNED OVER YEARS. But there are only a few things that are truly unusual about him.
He Does what he says he will do. What he promises is NOT that extreme. It is nearly all what politicians on the left AND right have been promising my entire lifetime.
We can debate whether what Trump i doing is a good idea.
But there is no doubt it is constitutional, and legal, and it is only outside the mainstream becomes most every politician ever promises, it but does not deliver.
“Trump is bombastic, he is chaotic – though I would note that all of these was VERY WELL PLANNED OVER YEARS. ”
This was definitely NOT planned. Trump shoots from the hip in nearly everything he does. This is why there are countles “mistakes” and reversals. He has no idea what he’s doing. None.
You’re delusional in thinking Trump is planning all of this as if he were smart. He’s a comlete moron. His back and forth, back and forth on tariffs is one glaring example. He’s not made any deals. He claims 70 countries have sought to make deals with him but never reveals which ones. He’s more likely lying in order to make an excuse to lower tariffs and appease the markets which are tanking and more importantly the bond market.
Most of what he’s doing is NOT constitutional or legal. The tariffs are being invoked under an emergency, what is the emergency? He’s just saying there is one without explaining what exactly it is and Sen. Rand Paul is calling his bluff. The Libertarian is calling Trump’s tariffs unconstitutional.
Trump is the problem. The left is just not doing anything or is largely powerless to do much in Congress because Republicans have become spinelss sycophants.
Brilliant!
DEMOCRATS and JUDGES are just trying to find ways to KEEP these Creeps/Illegals/Criminals to stay in America. They were let in UNVETTED! Was that DUE PROCESS? How about the DUE PROCESS their VICTIMS RECEIVED?????
Seems a tad too kind to George’s commentary.
The problem with Wilkinson’s comments are they assume the actions of the courts are legitimate and the executive should accept them within the judicial process. What if the actions are not legitimate? What if the judges are not legitimate actors? Is the Executive Branch stuck with the decisions of the biased/interested actors? The Executive Branch is a co-equal pillar of our constitutional framework. It has the right to determine the constitutionality of its actions and there is no reason to think the judiciary’s view of a matter is any more correct than that of the Executive. Why can the judiciary order the executive to do anything? Especially a judicial actor less than the Supreme Court, the only judicial entity on-par with the President. Under what circumstances can either of the other branches order the judiciary to do anything? The answer to that is never and the implication is the judiciary is unassailable. Only it can judge its proclamations but no-one else can direct its actions. . That means we don’t have co-equal branches and is a failure of constitutional checks and balances. The idea that the judiciary is protected by process executed on their own timelime, under their own rules is ludicrious. Add to that the political biases of judges and there is no reason for the Executive to comply with their orders.
The Supreme Court established the doctrine of judicial review in Marbury v Madison (1803) and I strongly support that opinion and all the implications that come with it.
So do I. But Judicial review is EXPLICITYLY limited to the law and constitution – NOT politics.
Even Marshall in Marbury after proclaiming the power of the court to decide the meaning of the constitution, was NOT stupid enough to order the president to do something that was ultimatelhy POLITICAL.
Most of us FORGET that while Marbury was one of the most significant supreme court decisions in history. That at the same time the court ordered NOTHING in Marbury.
When was there judicial review of politics instead of the constitution and the law?
Ordering the president to follow the law because a plaintiff who has standing and showed the president violated the law is within the court’s prerogative.
Trump’s ignoring of Supreme Court and lower court orders sets a precedent for anyone else to ignore court orders as well.
I read judicial review nowhere in the US Constitution. I find it the writings of one man – John Marshall. An arch-federalist Marshall loved concentrated power and did his darndest to consolidate judicial power. His contemporary, Thomas Jefferson, understood the risk of judicial overreach. In two letters, the Sage of Monticello laid out the extra-Constitutional nature of “judicial review”:
“Nothing in the Constitution has given them [the federal judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. . . . The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.” (Letter to Abigail Adams, September 11, 1804)
“The original error [was in] establishing a judiciary independent of the nation, and which, from the citadel of the law, can turn its guns on those they were meant to defend, and control and fashion their proceedings to its own will.” (Letter to John Wayles Eppes, 1807)
Jefferson was nothing if not prescient.
As unfortunate as it is in the minds of some, the judicial branch enjoys NO executive power; it must be careful not to usurp and attempt that exercise.
The legislative branch has the legislative power.
The judicial branch has the judicial power.
The executive branch has the executive power.
The legislative branch has the impeachment power.
Legislation and adjudication must occur in the absence of the exercise of executive power.
Marbury established a standard that was/is for the benefit of the judiciary, not the the governent. Or the people. It gave the judiciary a veto over the other elected branches that the the Constutionn did not anticipate. In that regard the decision itself, which has controlled our view of the power of the court since then, was a coup by the judicial branch. It undermined our constitutional arrangements. It is in fact nonsense, that one branch can create its own extraordinary authority vis-a-vis the other branches by mere proclamation in dicta of a case where the the cheif justice himself was a conflicted reviewer in the matter. We are stupid to think such a decision should determine our fidelity to the constitution.
Do you really? In Marbury the court said we have an unassailable voice. Why do you support an unelected oligarch of legal politicians telling what to do?
I totally disagree with the premise of this article. that the President of the United States does not have plenary power to execute FAITHFULLY HIS DUTY TO PROTECT AGAINST BOTH ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC is central to this issue. That courts, that do not have standing, are not immigration judges, who question the legal basis of the Aliens ACT demonstrates a lawless weaponized nature that must be put in its proper place. NO PLACE. Furthermore, it is perfectly legal, constitutional to impeach judges who have demonstrated lawless reckless ruling to stymie the authority of a President in this specific case of NATIONAL SECURITY is wildly exotic and an affront to the effort to protect citizens against lawless criminals who have invaded this country. That is perfectly acceptable circumstance and reason to impeach said JUDGES.
at the very LEAST given BoasTURD and Judge Roberts not only permitted lawless FISA WARRANTS, NOT ONCE, BUT SEVERAL TIMES KNOWING THE BASIS PREDICATE WAS BASELESS AND ROOTED IN POLITICAL OPPOSITION EFFORTS AND IT RESULTED IN CLIMBING THE LADDER IN A WEAPONIZED FBI AND DOJ POLITICAL CHARADE aggravates the crimes. That neither of these two so called judges referred a single FBI Prosecutor who served up those lies and then signed on them, should be at a minimum a reason to recuse themselves from ANY CASES THEREAFTER INVOLVING THIS PRESIDENT. That they remain not coincidentally at the very center of every single major dispute and court ruling thereafter involving this President shows a conspiracy not to merely disrupt this President and the people whom voted for him but to use their so called branches of power to continue to involve themselves with the obvious goal of throttling his powers.
Yes, impeach them BOTH. They have earned such rewards.
Have we really forgotten so soon these two were instrumental in abusing the most powerful surveillance tools that exist to persecute a candidate for Presidency, and also to influence elections? Seriously, these are the two people we want to debate about the balance of power that should be respected. They have given NONE THAT. Instead, the two have taken a rancid dump on fairness and they rewards must be accountability.
recusal should have already happened. but that requires men of honor, integrity, objective fairness. You find none of those qualities about these vermin. They are scofflaws, reprobates, low life hack toxic waste black robes in disguise.
Remove both of their classified clearances immediately, begin investigations and form grand juries to indict them both for the documentated and proven crimes they have committed.
and do it quickly without hesitation. They certainly took no time at all considering the consequences and the impact of their lawless conniving deceit operating the FISA court and surveillance state as club members to neo stazi freakazoids.
It’s time to go Robert and Boasturd. Time’s up, Start packing your shit. The reckoning…it’s coming.
you got this one very wrong Jonathon. I usually respect your opinions, but you could be not more wrong in this one. It’s just so obvious. Have you been asleep, or poor memory issues. starting eating right, do some excercise…work outside your bubble. What ever it takes, because what you are doing right now isn’t healthy nor is it correct. Do better man!
God Bless America
We need to remove about a million illegals per month for the next eighteen months. Something needs to change. Planes, trains, automobiles, ships, buses, covered wagons, camel convoys, bicycles, tricycles, and Nikes. Just do it.
Why do courts have no place in political questions ?
Why do they have no place in policy ?
Because they are unelected and appointed for life.
They are deliberately and correctly insulated from the political process – though clearly not well enough.
In return for their divorce from politics, they are required to STAY OUT OF POLITICS.
They do NOT get to decide if laws or govenrment actions are good or bad.
Only if the are constitutional and legal.
We see in banana republics and south america what happens when Courts increasingly become political. When they start making policy. When they start deciding what is right or wrong, rether than what is legal or constitutional.
We should not want the mess that other parts of the world have where courts assume the power of the executive.
And if impeaching a few judges is necescary to avoid the mess Brazil has with De Moreas – that is a very small price to pay.
In that vein we now have evidence that the Biden administration was providing Brazil with false information about elected Brazilian represenatatives who were unfreindly to the US and Brazillian left.
The only thing worse than politicized courts – is executives accross the wold cooperating with them.
“They do NOT get to decide if laws or govenrment actions are good or bad.
Only if the are constitutional and legal.”
A distinction without a difference.
Trump ignoring court orders and flouting the law are issues the court does have a right to get involve in after parties file motions to contest them. That’s how it’s supposed to work. Trump supporters and MAGA nut jobs relying on their arguments form ignorance to justify Trump’s lawless actions.
“And if impeaching a few judges is necescary to avoid the mess Brazil has with De Moreas – that is a very small price to pay.”
You’re already enabling lawless acitons by hand waving away as mere inconvenience some judges who are indeed doing their jobs. Seeking to impeach judges becasue you don’t like their rulings is exaclty what dictators do.
Trump Republicans have been politicizng everything and they are seeking to do the same when they accuse judges or courts that rule against him as biased or activist because they are impeding Trump’s agenda. SCOTUS made a very rare move last night and their bypassing of the 5th circuit shows they are no longer tolerating Trump’s BS and obfuscation. Alito was not even given time to write his dissent which some members reportedly knew he would use to delay any decision.
SCOTUS specifically told Trump to return Garcia. Now SCOTUS specifically told Trump to stop all deportations of Venezuelans so the could rule on the merits of his use of the AEA and unconstitutional push to deport immigrants without due process. Chief Justice Roberts has had enough and it seems they will settle this once and for all and Turley knows this. This is why he’s hedging on any analysis until the court rules. There’s already a lot of rhage rhetoric coming from MAGA accusing SCOTUS as corrupt. No surprise there since anything critical of Trump is heretical in their view.
SCOTUS made no such ruling “specifically told Trump to return Garcia”. this is false. The words were “fascilitate”. Even the most stubborn Kool aid bathed left half baked attorney reads that as weasel words with no direct interpretation.
next, is your argument that this entire matter can be summed up as angry rhetoric from “MAGA” accusing Scotus as corrupt.
well lets examine that record since you are either pretending not to KNOW THINGS or you have been in a drunken slumber for almost a decade now.
don’t you find it obviously suspicious that BoasTURD was the rubber stamp on numerous FISA warrants that were obviously based on complete horse manure. And that Justice Roberts was the president of FISC. and since these revelations have become provably true that none of those surveillance warrants should have never been signed, neither one of these reprobates have ever referred to DOJ evidence to charge those DOJ “officials” with crimes? not a peep from either one of them. That’s called conspiracy. And a coverup. And continuing that long history of completely destroying ANY indications of objective impartiality, you don’t find it alarming that BoasTURD would be promoted and then ‘selected” among all other judges in DC to be the bench for J6, and also this deportation issue?
what are people suppose to think? oh well, these are good men of honor, who are just doing their jobs. BULL SHIT.
If you can’t see the fact patterns of a conspiracy to destroy a candidate for president, to stack charges to high on protesters who’s only real crime was trespass which would ordinarily be a misdemeanor and a fine, and then also the same two jackwagons who have done everything in their power to influence elections by very biased rulings (no standing on national election violations?, and now attempting to describe what the President may or may not do with illegal aliens with alleged criminal ties to drug cartels and the terror networks that operate within them. What exactly ARE THE PEOPLE TO MAKE OF THIS COINCIDENCES /S ?
it’s not a coincidence when the same people show up committing the same crimes. it’s called a conspiracy. It’s called “collusion” to steal a former popular phrase of the press and so called legal experts who manufactured russia Russia Russia and the press provided cover for it.
no, the people are not amused..they see very clearly with their own eyes what has happened and what is happening. And these two that just seem to be at the center of every single issue involving this president is not some coincidence.
answer me this batman…dont’ you think just for the benefit of at least attempting to provide a perception of objectively and fairness that these two “judges” would have recused themselves from ANY LEGAL ENTANGLEMENTS INVOLVING THIS PRESIDENT? It would have been the right thing to do, given their combined effort to abuse the FISA court and to pretend they did nothing wrong. On that basis alone at a MINIMUM they should have recused themselves from all matters involving this President. But they didn’t Instead they have double and tripled down by continuing to attempt to throttle his policies. Politicizes that were well known, established and highly transparent that he ran on and spoke about at every single campaign rally. This is one of the main reasons that AMERICANS VOTED FOR HIM. We also voted for him because we KNOW there are people like these two judges that need to have accountability applied Ricky tick.
What you call “a distinction without a difference” is the difference between the rule of law and lawlessness.
You still making a distinction without a difference. The courts decide whether a law is good or bad according to the constitution and federal law written by congress. Their job is to decide whether the law being challenged is being followed or not or whether a law is being interpreted correctly by the administration or the plaintiffs.
The court is in charge of interpreting the law, what terms mean and if they meet constitutional standards. They do get to decide whether a law is good of bad. It’s always been that way. That’s why we have the appellate courts, state supreme courts, and the supreme court itself. They don’t just decide if a law is constitutional or not. They decide on whether laws are being applied correctly.
I would further suggest to you that you READ your own remarks.
If what you say is ACTUALLY True – then we WILL have a constitutional crisis quite soon – and the loser WILL BE THE COURTS.
Wilkerson rants about respect for the courts.
Respect is NOT an entitlement – it is EARNED.
For 250 years the courts have MOSTLY been careful to stay out of politics.
That is not entirely true – and the political nonsense of the courts is responsible for the mess that has been made of this country.
Still the past political nonsense of the courts has stayed mostly at the edges.
It has mostly NOT been a major threat.
Because the courts have mostly stayed away from politics they have EARNED peoples respects.
Today NO ONE – not the right not the left, respects the courts. And it is the lefts politicization fo the courts that has done that.
Wilkerson is WRONG in presuming the courts are entitled to respect.
The courts are used to respect – to having their orders followed even when those subject to them disagree. They have succeeded at that in the past BECAUSE people RESPECT the courts even when they disagree.
Today people do NOT RESPECT the courts.
That is the recipe for a constitutional crisis.
unless the courts RAPIDLY return to their legitimate domain – the law and the constitution.
There are several possibilities ALL BAD.
One is the courts assume executive powers. That has NEVER worked well in any country it has occured in. Quite often it results in political violence, coups revolutions, political instability.
The next possibility is that Trump starts ignoring the courts. So long as the public does not respect the courts, he will get away with that – and that will set a dangerous precedent.
You said Trump was violating the law and/or the constitution.
Please cite EXACTLY how. And do not tell me he has allegedly not followed a court order.
Courts orders are also supposed to follow the law and or constitution.
If you can not explicitly identify clearly and in detail how Trump is violating either the law or the constitution. You are going to find it near impossible to get the majority of people to care if Trump violates a court order.
I am not worrried about Trump violating court orders. Because I am not worried about Trump violating the law or constitution. But I am very worried that if Trump gets away with ignoring the courts – the next democrat president will be able to destroy the country.
We have been going through this left wing lawlessness for more than a decade.
Norms get broken – most frequently by the left – and then they are gone.
The senate fillibuster is a shadow of its former self. Democrats destroryed it,
But so far mostly republicans have benefited.
Democrats in the house under Pelosi egregiously violated minority rights. And we have seen house republicans running the house with little respect for minority democrats.
While they are NOT as bad as Pelosi, old norms are gone for good.
The least bad possibility if the courts do not fix this themselves, is that congress steps in.
Congress can limit the jurisdiction of the courts. Congress can alter significant portions of judicial procedure. Congress can and right now SHOULD threaten to impeach judges. Congress can and SHOULD threaten to remove judges without impeachment. Congress can and SHOULD threaten to limit the courts jurisdictions. Congress SHOULD issue all those THREATS in the hope that the courts come to sanity and fix themselves – because that is the BEST resolution.
Ranting that the the courts are not being respected, is an ADMISSION of failure on the part of the courts.
We ARE already in a constitutional crisis. Trump ignored a Supreme Court order.
“Respect is NOT an entitlement – it is EARNED.”
Wrong. There is no such thing. Courts are to be respected regardless of whether they earned it or not. Any judge is to be respected. To act disrespectful to a judge earns you a contempt of court or possibly jail time. Judges have immense power that requires them to be respected.
“Today NO ONE – not the right not the left, respects the courts. And it is the lefts politicization fo the courts that has done that.”
That kind of gaslighting is what gives people the impression that it is true. Trump FORCED politics onto the courts. He is the one attacking and accusing courts of bias and of being “leftists” because he doesn’t like the rulings that go against him. Surely you’re not THAT dense.
Trump is the one accusing courts of being “unfair” because things don’t go his way. He and his
White House staff have been demonizing judges that have been ruling against him and impeding his agenda because Trump is violating the law. it’s that simple and your ignorance is enabling it.
“I am not worrried about Trump violating court orders. Because I am not worried about Trump violating the law or constitution. But I am very worried that if Trump gets away with ignoring the courts – the next democrat president will be able to destroy the country.”
Trump IS getting away from it and YOU are enabling it. The level of cognitive dissonance in your arguments is astounding. If you don’t want a future democrat president to ‘destroy the country’ because, as you always say. “turnabout is fair play” will be the standard. Right? YOU are enabling the very thing you will end up opposing because you are perfectly fine when a Republican president does it, but your are not fine when a Democrat does it. That kind of hypocrisy is what makes your arguments as stupid as Trump’s policies. Incoherent and chaotic is the name of the game.
“ The least bad possibility if the courts do not fix this themselves, is that congress steps in.
Congress can limit the jurisdiction of the courts. Congress can alter significant portions of judicial procedure. Congress can and right now SHOULD threaten to impeach judges. Congress can and SHOULD threaten to remove judges without impeachment. Congress can and SHOULD threaten to limit the courts jurisdictions. Congress SHOULD issue all those THREATS in the hope that the courts come to sanity and fix themselves – because that is the BEST resolution.“
Congress won’t do that. Republicans won’t and don’t have the spine to do what you suggest they do and they can’t simply impeach judges because they don’t like their rulings. That would undermine the entire judiciary. They will undermine the right’s agenda by limiting nationwide injunctions. They will undermine any semblance of impartiality.
You’re advocating for fascistic behavior from Congress. You say people don’t trust the courts, which is a lie, you support Congress threatening judges as a means to “put them in line”. That would be a breach of separation of powers. There’s a reason why we have three co-equal branches of government. So stupid ideas like are not only unconstitutional, but also pretty stupid. Your argument is an extension of a tantrum over the fact that the courts are doing exactly what they are supposed to do. Trump is the problem here. He sees the other two branches as mere rubber stamps agencies for his agenda. When they don’t toe the line they are immediately “leftist” or “activist” and “unfair”.
It’s not the courts that are the problem. It’s Trump and you don’t want to admit it because you’re already in too deep in defending him.
“Ranting that the the courts are not being respected, is an ADMISSION of failure on the part of the courts.”
No. It’s an admission that Trump is forcing politics onto the courts. Look how Trump treats SCOTUS. He runs to them the moment they seem likely to lose a case in lower courts. Trump is the one not respecting the courts while he expects to be respected and that is precisely what wilkerson is talking about. Trump treats SCOTUS as his personal court. Not as the Supreme Court.
What court order was “ignored” ? What law was broken ?
SCOTUS directed Trump to fascilitate the RELEASE of Garcia.
Essentially they ASKED rather than ORDERED, and they did NOT seek Garcia’s return.
Doing anything more would have been incredibly stupid.
As I noted regarding Marbury V Madison.
The court did much the same thing as it did with the Garcia decision.
It said – the power to decide what the constitution requires is OURS, and we have decided he constitution does NOT allow us to make this decision.
You should actually READ Marbury.
Marshall issued a decision that became the basis for courts juridical review by deciding NOT to interfere.
Which is what SCOTUS should have – and mostly did do.
Lets make this EASY for you.
The president has the constitutional and legal power to deport illegal aliens.
We can fight about the details of “due process” – but at the end of the day, the ACTUAL LAW and the CONSTITUTION permit the president to deport illegal aliens.
If you are ranting about due process to make sure that ONLY illegal aliens get deported – that is one thing. If you are trying to prevent deporting illegal aliens – then it is YOU that are on the wrong side of the law and constitution.
Due process exists to minimize mistakes, not to thwart legal and constitutional action.
If you do not want illegal aliens deported CHANGE THE LAW.
The president has the constitutional and legal power to cut wasteful, fruadulent and abusive spending. The president has the constitutional and legal power to cut any and all spending that is not EXPLICITLY authorized by congress. If you can show where Congress authorized Trans Ballets in Columbia or DEI programs throughout government or education – then Trump may not cut those. But we BOTH know Damn well congress NEVER authorized these or many many other things. If One president has the power to interpret the budget incredibly broadly, the next can interpret it narrowly. In fact EVEN if one president CAN NOT interpret the budget broadly the other can still interpret it narrowly.
If you want the left wing ROT that Trump is cutting – get congress to EXPLICITLY include it in the budget.
Further – I have not yet seen Congress sue Trump for failing to spend budgeted money.
The courts CAN adjudicate budget disputes between congress and the president based on the TEXT of the budget. But only congress has standing to challenge the presidents choices regarding the budget – and silence is consent. The courts have no power to prevent the president from cutting ANY spendin he wants – even in violation of the budget, until Congress takes the president to court. Courts can not make their own cases, and they can not give the power to challenge to a party who does NOT have actual rights being infringed on, and there is no RIGHT to benefit from govenrment spending – the courts have long ago ruled even social security and medicare do NOT create a right in citizens to sue the government.
The president has the constitutional and legal power to fire, lay off, reduce in force whoever he pleases within the executive branch – there are incredibly few exceptions to this and SCOTUS has been correctly eliminating those one by one. Regardless of those fired by Trump less than 1% have any actual legal recourse to claim they can not be terminated. The REST may or may NOT be entitled to damages. The do NOT an NEVER did have a right to a government job. No one has a right to ANY job.
So on every single major issue of conflcit between Trump and the courts, at the most fundimental level there is ZERO argument the president has the power to do what Trump is doing.
We can debate here whether the i’s are being dotted and the t’s are being crossed.
but if you objective is to STOP Trump rather than to assure that he does not mistakenly fire someone necescary or mistakenly deport a citizen, or mistakenly cut actually budgeted spending. Then YOU are the one who is lawless an unconstitutional.
That is ALSO true of these judges. One of the critical criteria for any form of judicial preliminary injunction is the likelyhood of the plantiff prevailing. As I have noted above – every single thing Trump is doing you do not like is lawful and constitutional. Again you are arguing about i’s being dotted and T’s crossed. That means at best you slow things down a bit, you still LOSE in the end.
I do not as an example thing there is a way in h311 that Garcia gets returned to the US.
Not even SCOTUS can issue an order to return Garcia that anyone under the authority of the court can with certainty do. But lets presume that magically Garcia is returned.
He will NOT be released. He remains in the US illegally, He was ordered deported both recently and long ago. Those orders are FINAL they can not be further reviewed by the courts.
They are FINAL because Garcia allowed them to become final by his own choice.
The order barring Garcia’s deportation to El Salvador has expired, further it is an IF court decision- based on an excercise of EXECUTIVE power – not law, constitution or judicial power. It therefore can be rescinded unilaterally by the executive – which has been done.
And in fact all or most TPS status has been cancelled. There is not TPS law. It is just an excercise of executive discretion and therefor rescindable by the executive. Further the El Salvadoran gang Garcia feared has been eliminated – so the order is moot. And finally Garcia can still be deported elsewhere.
My point is that each and every fight here – the left and these judges will ultimately LOSE,
unless SCOTUS goes lawless.
Turley is not telling his readers that this ruling is unprecedented.
The middle of the night ruling bypasses the 5th ciruit. They are esstentially stepping in and directly telling Trump to stop his shennanigans. They are recognizing that Trump will ignore their orders and they won’t stand for that. Interestingly the court didn’t wait for Alito to write his dissent. They went ahead without Alito’s and Thomas’s dissension.
Alito must have been furious, but it also points out that Both Alito and Thomas don’t give a rats a$$ about the constitution. Roberts and even Barrett think Trump is going too far. This is why Turley is hedging his criticsm in both-sideism which makes for an awkward sort of criticsm of Trump’s overreach. This may be the point where Trump’s anti-immigrant agenda runs into serious trouble. MAGAs are already howling with anger and calling this SCOTUS all kinds of names and denigrations.
George – Judges are NOT kings,
They are also NOT presidents.
They have ZERO policy making power or power over policy.
They do NOT get to decide RIGHT and WRONG.
They have the power to decide constitutional or not
lawful or not.
And even in that power they are NOT free to do as they please.
They are constrained by the rules of statutory interpretation.
Which eddentially is they are required to read the law and constitution as they were written – not as they wish they were written.
Anything else is NOT the rule of law.
Trump has promised to follow court orders while appealing – and thus far despite nonsense claims by the left – he HAS.
But even that promise ultimately has limits.
If a court orders Trump to launch nukes at Russia – should he obey the courts ?
Whether you or Turley or Judge Wilkison grasp it, there DOES come a point at which the president MUST disobey the courts.
A “constitutional crisis” can be when the president fails to obey a lawful order of the court.
It also can be when the court issues and unconstitutional order.
“They are recognizing that Trump will ignore their orders”
That speculation is NOT a basis for courts to act.
The power of the courts is limited to what HAS happened, that is unlawful or unconstitutional.
Courts do not get to gues what MIGHT happen.
“they won’t stand for that.”
Courts stomping their feet and saying they wont stand for something – is childish.
Turley and Wilkinson COMPLETELY get this WRONG.
Courts must EARN respect. Doing do REQUIRES they stick to the law and the constitution ONLY.
And What HAS HAPPENED, not speculation.
Behaving childishly undermines their respect.
We would all prefer our politicians do NOT behave childishly.
But the childishness of politicians has a check int he electorate.
The check on the childishness of the courts in in the congress.
It is PROPER for congress to threaten the courts when they misbehave – as they are doing now.
Congress should NOT have to threaten the courts, because they should either police themselves, or better still NOT act stupid in the first place.
“Both Alito and Thomas don’t give a rats a$$ about the constitution.”
What part of the constitution is implicated by Trump’s EOs or actions ?
The AEA is valid law. Turley keeps saying it is old – old laws that are still arround are presumed MORE valid, not less. Laws are also prsumed more valid if they are tested frequently – the AEA has not been. But Trump’s application of the AEA is cearly within the text. The TEXT of the AEA creates 4 separate basis’s for the president to invoke it – only ONE requires a declared war.
The claim that the AEA has only been used when war has been declared – an unproven assertion, would still be irrelevant. Trump is NOT reading in to the AEA words that are not there.
He is not using an expansive reading.
So long as Trump’s application fo the AEA fits the text and does not violate the constitution – and SCOTUS determined that the AEA was constitutional almost a century ago, so that ship has sailed,
then if you do not like Trump’s use of the AEA – we have a congress with the power to change the law.
With respect to Garcia – he is ADMITTEDLY in the US illegally – that is all that is necescary to deport him. The fact that he is a wife beater, human trafficer, drug dealer and gang member are reasons to deport him FASTER.
There is absolutely nothing illegal or unconstitutonal about deporting Garcia.
As I have noted repeatedly – and the administration is now CORRECTLY stating.
If Garcia is somehow ordered back the US, he will be re-deported immediately.
Garcia has no right to be in the US, and he exhausted all his legitimate due process in 2019.
Those of you on the left want to rant that various things have not been proven.
But they do not have to be to deport illegal immigrants.
Further the standard of proof to expedite deporting someone to their HOME, is very low.
The FACT that the judges in this case keep citing criminal law standards is precisely why they do not belong on the bench. Deportation is NOT a criminal process. No one is taking from Garcia something that is his by right.
“Roberts and even Barrett think Trump is going too far.”
And they are WRONG.
Get a grip on reality – people in the US illegally must by law be deported.
We do a piss poor job – as evidenced by the absymal enforcement of the law byt Obama and the far worse enforcement by Biden.
If you do not like the law CHANGE IT. That is what congress is there for, and that is why we have elections.
“This is why Turley is hedging his criticsm in both-sideism which makes for an awkward sort of criticsm of Trump’s overreach. ”
How is Trump overreaching ?
He is reporting people who are not legally allowed to be in the US.
That is both legal and constitutional.
Garcia had all the due process he was entitled to years ago.
The only question regarding deporting TdA members is how quickly can that be done.
NOT whether.
Those of you on the left are NOT arguing that Trump is moving a tiny bit too fast.
You are arguing that he is not allowed to follow the law and the constitution.
It is the Courts that are Lawless – not the president.
It is the courts that are overreaching – not the president.
It is the courts that are BEGGING to have congress change the law or impeach judges.
What Trump is doing is LAWFUL, CONSTITUTIONAL, and what people voted for.
The courts can only interfere with the will of the people when what they want is outside the law or the constitution.
I have YET to hear – YOU, or the courts state clearly – beyond “we have the power” how Trump is violating the law or constitution.
That is the limit of the scope of the courts.
The courts do NOT get to say – we do not like this.
Only it is unlawful – and how, or unconstitutional and how.
I would further note that no where in the constitution is a requirement to obey judges.
The constitution itself does not even explicitly give judicial review power to the courts.
I have said over and over – the respect the courts are given MUST be EARNED.
We obey court orders – not because the constitution requires it – there is no provision for obediance to court orders in the constitution.
The president an every member of the federal govenrment SWORE to uphold the constitution and the laws of the land. Members of the military SWORE to obey the lawful orders of the president.
No one SWORE to obey the courts.
WE do so because the courts in the US unlike those in much of the rest of the world have to a large extent STAYED OUT OF POLITICS. They have confined themselves the law and the constitution. ‘
That is why they are appointed for life – not elected. And why Congress should remove them when they go beyond the law and constitution.
We have always had a tiny number of lawless courts. We have tolerated that and obeyed them anyway because humans are not perfect – no judges, not presidents. We are obligated to gover ourselves with the peopl we have, not the utopian people who never make mistakes we wish we had.
We obey bad court orders – because MOSTLY the courts eventually get it right, and the courts going beyond the law and constitution have int he past been anomalies.
They are NOT now and corrective measures are becoming necescary.
Changing the law, or impeaching judges for politics, is an extreme response to the extreme and lawless behavior of the courts.
Extreme bad behavior, sometimes requires extreme responses.
The other George rants because Lincoln declare marshal law, and suspended Habeaus corpus.
The courts did eventually get arround to putting him in his place AFTER he was dead and it no longer mattered.
I want the constitution and the law followed scrupulously to the letter.
But we have not had that in my LONG lifetime.
It is far more egregious now than ever, and the lawlessness is nearly entirely on the left.
WE are NOT at declaring marshall law or suspending Habeaus corpus.
But MY POINT is that under extreme conditions – extreme responses are justified.
Few in this country have the slighest problem deporting Garcia, or TdA members of Khalil or …..
A majority of americans want EVERY illegal alien who has arrived in the past decade removed.
Even if they have committed no crimes.
Even if they pay taxes,
Even if they have families.
Our ACTUAL immigration law allows deporting ALL of the approximately 45M illegal immigrants in the US. That is not going to happen. Trump will be lucky to deport 10% of them in 4 years.
But he could constitutionally and lawfully deport 45M people.
So NO Trump’s conduct is no unlawful, unconstitutional, or even extreme.
But YOUR conduct and that of the courts IS.
You talk about migrants without distinguishing between those who follow the law and those who don’t. And that means you are a dishonest moron
prof Turley – Judge Wilkson and you are concurrently right and wrong
Mutual respect between the judiciary and the executive and congress makes governing easier.
But Respect is NEVER required, it is NEVER a right. It must be earned.
Thus far CONTRA claims of the left Trump has given the coruts more respect than they have earned.
He is obey idiotic and obviously unconstitutional orders, while appealing.
Conversely the courts – including the Supreme court are VIOLATING the constitution.
Marbury vs,. Madison extablished that judicial review of the constitutionality and legality of the actions of the executive and congress is the constitutional domain of the supreme court.
But even Marshall was wise enough to avoid a direct confrontation with the executive.
Roberts frequently opines about “political questions” – correctly noting these are WAY outside the domain of the courts.
For those on the left – Trump’s efforts to redefine birthright citizenship by EO are unconstitutional, and are properly enjoined by the courts.
Pretty much everything else any court has done thus far is WAY outside the power of the courts.
It is not the role of the courts to decide if a policy is a good idea. If it is the right policy. If it is effective.
The courts only have jursidiction over two questions:
Is the action legal ?
Is it constitutional ?
Not is it a good idea.
Even in many issues when the question is “is it legal” – it is STILL not inside the courts domain, until a plantif with actual standing raises the issues.
There are fringe issues regarding th Presidents powers to hire and fire that were wrongly decided decades ago, that hopefully will be corrected as they are revisited.
Though even most of those, past courts have held that improper firing is an issue for damages, the reinstatement is rarely if ever a legitimate remedy.
But 90%+ of Trump’s RIF’s of various government employees are NOT in the domain of the questionable.
You can beleive those terminations are a bad idea. Time will tell.
But they are within the power of the president.
To the extent there is ANY judicial review it is to determine damages for wrongful termination – meaning the termination of a protected class for reasons that violate that protection, NOT meaning because an agency is being downsized. Outside of issues regarding protected classes – and NONE of those have been raised in challenging Trump’s firings, there is nothing within the domain of the courts to review.
And even if there was – that would require a conflict between congress and the president, congress is NOT in court, and silence in this means consent.
These constant stays of terminations have no basis in the law or constitution.
They are BAD ACTS by the judiciary that PROPERLY destroy respect.
AGAIN – the courts are NOT entitled to respect. They must earn it.
Issuing completely bogus court orders earns deseved disrespect.
While I would caution republicans in congress NOT to rush to impeachment, restricting jurisdiction or similar measures, My advice is NOT because many judges do not deserve the be removed,
it is because if Republicans expand the window of punishing the politics of judges through law, eventually democrats will do the same. In many instances they already have.
Republicans should pause before ACTING, because even if the action is justiies and legitimate, it will become the new norm, whether justified or legitimate.
At the same time Republicans ABSOLUTELY should be TALKING about impeachment and other measures to reign in the judiciarty – with the goal of getting the Judiciary to reqign itself in.
THAT is the ONLY legitimate outcome.
With the execptions of a handful of people all terminations of executive branch employees MUST stand, absent Congress stepping in as a plantiff.
There should be no debate about this.
Th courts can debate whether they are entitled to extended severance.
NOT whether they have been terminated
With respect to AEA deportations.
Cotra your claim – OLD law is the BEST law. Something that has stood for hunreds of years deserves more repect that yesterdays spegahetti sauce.
SCOTUS has already determined long ago that the AEA is constitutional law.
That it has been used rarely does not change the fact that is it valid law.
That the AEA has not been used for this before – which is NOT clearly a valid claim.
Is a basis for review. It is not a basis to presume invalidity, or unconstitutionality.
Trump’s use of the AEA is NOT like the Biden adminis use of !8 US 1512(c) – requiring an incredibly broad reading of the statute. The AEA gives the power to deport people of another nation with limited due process, under multiple circumstances – a declared war being ONLY one of those.
Can Trump deport Yemeni’s under the AEA ? We are not in a declared war with Yemen,
but we are bombing the crap out of them and they are firing missles at us.
Do you doubt that the AEA would apply there if invoked ?
I am not altogether bent out of shape over staying Trump’s use of the AEA – because TdA members can be deported relatively easily without the AEA. The Biggest advantage of the AEA is that it prevents this idiotic forumn shopping on the left, using the APA and other similar games to get cases in front of favorable judges.
If you do not like the power that the AEA gives the president – then repeal the AEA.
It was long ago determined to be constitutional – that boat has sailed.
The way that you correct law you do no like, as opposed to law that is actually unconstitutional, is to get Congress to repeal it.
It is NOT to tie it in knots in court. If Trump’s application of the AEA was a strained reading of the text – such as Biden DOJ’s reading of 18 US 1512C – which we had t go to the supreme court to overturn.
Lower courts had no problems blessing the administration using a NOVEL and highly elastic reading of a NEW law – and NEW laws are MORE suspect than those that stood the test of time.
Regardless, There are ways other than the AEA to deport TdA members – so long as left wing nut courts do not interfere – which they are already doing.
The Garcia case is another idiotic lawfare case.
Garcia was detained in 2012 – he admitted at the time that he did NOT enter the US legally.
That is the ONLY requirement to deport him.
Part of the nonsense that is running arround on this case is the stupid claim that deportation somehow is entitled to the same due process is executing someone for murder.
The due process for deportation is simple.
Are you the person ICE claims you are ?
Is that person in the US illegally ?
END OF STORY.
Being a member of a violent criminal gang that has ties to a foreign govenrment that is working through that gang to cause disruption in the US is just icing on the cake.
Being a member of a violent criminal gang or being a wife beater or a drug dealer or a human traficer is
also just icing on the cake.
Government does NOT have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are a member of a violent criminal gang to deport you if you are not here legally.
They have to do so to a LOW standard of proof to deport you RAPIDLY.
We have a process for coming to the US legally – if you do not like it, if you think it should be less restrictive – I agree, then lets work together to CHANGE THE LAW.
The Rule of law requires that we follow the laws we have until they have been changed – and that includes the COURTS.
I can go on and on.
I do not agree with everything Trump is doing. But then I have never agreed with everything any president has done.
What I do KNOW is that with very few exceptions Trump is acting WITHIN the LAW and WITHIN the constitutional powers of the president. The fact that I or some others do not LIKE what he is doing is NOT a valid basis for judicial review.
The ONLY questions for judicial review are:
Does the plantiff have standing ?
Is an actual right being infringed on ?
Is the action of the executive withing the law narrowly read.
There is no “no one has ever used this law outside of its first clause” impediment to lawfulness.
If we do not like the law AGAIN we change it. Courts decide whether it is being followed, NOT wherther they like it.
Finally is the law constitutional – does it infringe on a fundimental right and is that right unjustifiably being infringed on.
There is no “I think this is a bad idea” basis for judicial review.
The misbehavior and disrespect here is BY THE COURTS.
It is SPECIFICALLY by the courts. I have no qualms with the Plantiffs in these cases.
In this country you are entitled to bring absurd claims to court.
It is the JUDGES that are required to impose the above tests before allowing you to proceed.
The check on lawlessness int he court is THREATS of impeachment or limits to Jurisdiction or even just removal by congress. That is NOT improper. It IS a sign of DISRESPECT – DISRESPECT that the courts have EARNED. The FIX is for the courts to police themselves. It will be worse for all of us if they do not.
“We must free Luigi Mangione, Letitia James, Abrego Garcia, and Mamoud Khalil who are being held as Political Prisoners! China demands it! The DNC demands it! This is a political attack against all law-abiding criminals everywhere!”–Sen Chris Van Hollen.
Confusing? Maybe.
Turley wrote:
-=-
This rarely used and highly controversial law stretches back to the Adams Administration. There are good-faith arguments on both sides of the case that the Court wants to consider. Accordingly, this is not surprising.
-=-
And if you look at the SCOTUS order for the Trump Administration to ‘facilitate’ his return… it also went back and ordered the judge to better define her order as to also give deference to Trump.
Here when you consider what is meant by facilitate… there’s the INS definition which is what SCOTUS will ultimately use. And when you add in the deference to the POTUS… it was meant to give the lower court a way to save face.
(Which has some implications w their latest stay…)
The issue is if Trump can consider the gangs to be a foreign force. And there is some evidence to this.
The issue is just how much deference should the courts give Trump.
If there’s compelling evidence that the gangs are either terrorist organizations or are working in concert w a foreign government… (which may be the case) Then the courts deference to Trump would mean he could do what he is doing within the law, but he’s very close to the ‘red line’. The courts really cannot argue that the law itself is unconstitutional. Remember these are foreign individuals who are here illegally to begin with.
Since the law is still on the books… Robert’s court will most likely side w Trump and defer to Congress to repeal the act.
At the same time… Roberts still needs to reign in the judges.
-G
Lol, Trump and his band of retardos.
The courts seem to be embracing the same crazy and repugnant causes that have made the Democrats so unpopular.
Now the entire judiciary is looked at with contempt as if it were another ANTIFA arm of the Democrats.
Meanwhile I think most of us have had enough of the whining about what Trump is doing.
Where were the judges when challenges were made to the 2020 election? No standing. Not ripe. Laches. Excuse us while we examine our navels.
Where were the judges when the grifters around Biden were flooding the country with criminal illegals who were preying on Americans. Silent. Thumbs up in dark places.
Where were the ‘scholars’ when Trump was bombarded with impeachments, bizarre criminal accusations and outrageous civil suits. They supported these attacks.
Where are the courts while DOGE is revealing massive fraud and trying to recover some of it? Purely obstructionist.
So far Trump hasn’t done anything comparable to what has been done to him, but I am ready to see him cut fast and cut deep to remove the rot.
And I think these flaccid, criminal minds have more to fear from Vance if somehow they get Trump aside. They should think of that. Trump has always had a good life. Vance has fought and has a hardness not seen in Trump.
Had enough.
Well said!!
Yeah, right. You quote Wilkinson “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. ” We in the poor judiciary are just sitting here minding our own business and all these people are saying nasty things about us, we dinn’t do nuffin. Not even the whiff of a potential scent that ideologically thugs on the bench are themselves destroying respect for the judiciary, not to mention the linguini spined Roberts.
OT;
China just stopped all deliveries of Boeing aircraft to China. That is a big issue since it’s our biggest export. Airbus and Chinas emerging commercial aircraft company COMAC are going to fill the gap. leaving Boeing out of the market completely.
Trump will cave as he always has. What do we get in return? A wrecked reputation and other countries looking at China as the more stable trading partner.
Trump is isolating the US and giving China the advantage. Trump the moron is doing what he has done to many of his businesses. Drive them into the ground.
Wrong again George.
Learn something about what it takes to build an aircraft.
I know a lot about it since I’m in the industry. Boeing is in trouble. China’s COMAC is becoming and will become a viable competitor against Airbus and Boeing. They are currently building a supply chain that doesn’t rely on a lot of foreign countries to manufacture parts. Airbus can win over Chinese airlines with their products as better quality and safety. Boeing has a lot to do to regain confidence in their product.
No country has made a deal with Trump yet and Trump is sitting by the phone waiting for China to call. They won’t. The “art of the deal” approach is turning out to be a flop. We will be the ones begging for deals later on.
breaking spoiler: china and the rest of the world are fantastically relieved they can cancel contracts with Boeing based on tariffs and use that as a very effective excuse because Boeing aircraft have not only been severely delayed in deliveries, but the quality escapes just keep happening. COMAC will have it’s problems sourcing hardware because it violates Airbus IP. (COMAC designed aircraft are in fact clones and text book examples of robbing Airbus secrets and IP protected assets. So Airbus, yes, will step in and fill the gap, but they would have regardless of tariffs. China had already filed to pressure Boeing to either make delivery promises or most of the deals would be canceled. The tariffs simply made that easier to legally accomplish and quicker to realize.
perhaps the real story here is why the US Gov’t has any interest (and taxpayers) to support an aerospace company that has failed in so many safety requirements…I think we call that a captive market. too big to fail…cronyism…and otherwise corruption by committee. If Boeing fails, it’s not because the tariffs happened. It because Boeing failed to build safe aircraft, deliver them on time, and at competitive prices.
this from a 30 years avionics technician, who would have really liked to see Boeing succeed…because it has arguably been one of the most successful and safe aircraft designers and builders. That is simply no longer true. We live in a different time and place now. You are only as good as your last build. Boeing should be forced to dematerialize anyway…it is a text book monopoly that has lived well past it’s purpose. I would be better than at least two other major wide body commercial aircraft designers and manufacturers have a shot in the market. That would drive real innovation, reform the FAA standards, end the cronyism and DC political involvement in aircraft industry, provide more jobs and arguably give way to better safety standards. competitive does that.
likewise, it would be in the best interest that Airbus do that same. Likewise, it would be in the best interests of Airbus to stop all trade with China until it dissolved COMAC and pays quite a bit of money for stealing designs.
The people that Trump is trying to deport are responsible for 287 American deaths per day from Fentanyl overdoses. Whether they’re killing Americans with guns or drugs the final result is the same. How many mother’s tears will it take before this carnage comes to an end. Somehow the people on the left try to convince you that they’re the ones with the big hearts. Their hearts are lumps of coal compressed so hard that they have become black diamonds that even the vultures won’t touch. All we can hear is the laughing of the hyenas on this blog. You know their names.
Trump is just deporting Venezuelans regardless of gang affiliation. He’s not making sure they are who they are and that’s the problem. According to OUR laws those immigrants are guaranteed due process which means they can contest the claims by the government that they are indeed gang members. Garcia was not given that opportunity and therefore must be returned, especially when the government admitted they messed up. I would be like getting a bogus traffic ticket and you are denied any chance to contest the ticket or the reason for it and instead you are taken to jail because the3 government claims you are guilty. I’m sure you wouldn’t stand for that. Nobody would.
You accidentally omitted the “illegal alien foreign national” qualifier ……… but of course, you already know that.
“William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”
― Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons: A Play in Two Acts
“Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
This is precisely what “Crazy Abe” did to please his fellow traveler, Karl Marx.
Lincoln threw the baby out with the bathwater; he threw the Constitution out with reprehensible slavery.
“Crazy Abe” Lincoln killed America.
Poor example. In this case these individuals – no matter who they are – broke the law/committed a felony as their first act. They are not eligible to obtain drivers licenses and if stopped legitimately they have broken 2 laws not just one. Yes, the constitution says they are eligible for due process however, there are many levels of that and based on the existing practices the least amount of due process since they are in fact her illegally which means no matter what the outcome of their minimal due-process outcome is they will be deported – no judge can stop that.
Oh George, so silly.
Look, if you are here illegally and you’re caught in an INS sweep… you go buh bye. Deported.
If you’re here illegally and are not caught up in a sweep… you’re not going anywhere for now.
Even if you’re here illegally, you’re still entitled to due process. Trump wants to bypass all of that so he can boast that he is deporting immigrants in record numbers. His deportation numbers aren’t looking good and he’s boosting those by revoking the temporary status of hundreds of thousands here legally. He wants to be able to gloat that he is meeting his goals and to do that he is resorting to illegally denying them due process.
Do you have a block on “illegal immigrants”? We are deporting illegal immigrants, not imigrants.
point to a single legal statue that even approaches this inane notion that a NON CITIZEN< WHO ENTERED THIS COUNTRY HAS DUE PROCESS?
name one?
yeah, we know..you just made it up. because the phrase due process sounds powerful.
you aren't fooling anyone.
the problem with the left is that it pretends to know certain things, and pretends to not know other things.
the game of pretending the moment your side decided that men can be women, babies can be murdered the womb, a stolen election was just fine because you liked the outcome (did you really though…what did you get out of the Joe malarkey circus anyway…asking for friends who still wonder what any of you were thinking that you had anything whatsoever to do with his installment…you got cheated out of a vote and you people still can't seem to square that simple circle…)
this game of pretending must be exhausting…either that or you filled the entire olympic pool in Kool aid and attempted to drone yourself in it.
spoiler: you're suppose to drink the Kool aid, not smoke it like crack.
they are here illegally in violation with law. PERIOD. end of story.
if you are not happy with this law, do what every SINGLE LAWFUL CITIZEN CAN DO: appeal to your representatives and vote accordingly.
but what you can’t do is pretend that people in this country illegally have rights and due process. they do not. It’s such an easy logical and rational concept.
and that right there explains a LOT of what is so wrong with left progressive ding dongs.
they can’t add. nor do they want to. They act as mafia accountants.
what is 2 + 2? the left ding dong says “what do I want it to be”!
God Bless America
No recognition by Judge Wilkinson that the current Executive is attempting to correct the lawless actions of the previous Executive. Or that the Judiciary stood by and did nothing to correct or prevent the lawless actions of the previous Executive (and not for want of challenges being filed in the courts), while now doing everything possible to prevent lawful corrections by the current Executive. That being the case, are the actions of the current Executive really so harmful to the legitimacy of the Executive or are the current actions of the Judiciary more harmful to their legitimacy? The good brethren in the Judiciary must act in a manner that shows they perceive the rule of law as vital to the American ethos. Ultimately Congress may have to step in if the Judiciary does not start acting in such manner, and the Judiciary may rue that day if and when it comes. Congress, not the Constitution, created the lower courts and they can make changes to those courts in any way they see fit, and the Judiciary may not like those changes.
Reasonable judges like Wilkinson should be more concerned with the activism of leftist judges playing out in courtrooms across the country than in the public statements of a President who is only giving vent to his frustrations while not actually taking any action against those judges.
Anon– Keep posting. Your thinking is on target.
Wilkinson points out that it’s the executive that is pushing the boundary, not the judicial. Trump wants to have his way regardless of what the courts say. He’s already shown this by ignoring court orders.
Trump wants to rule by telling the other branches that they basically don’t matter. They are just window dressing to him until he needs them. Just like how he treats everything else. When he encounters resistance he will either bully or when he fails he will “forget” or “doesn’t know that is going on”.
Well said, and so true.
What specific legal challenges were made against Biden Administration actions where you think the judiciary did not act properly?
Wilkinson is not reasonable. Calling Boasberg a “fine district judge” is a disgrace to the judicial system.
Quote of the day
“Despite our differences,” says one German executive, “Xi is more reliable than Trump with his tariff tantrums.”
Yes, China is a more reliably unfair and devious trading partner than the U.S..
Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798
An Act Concerning Aliens.
That it shall be lawful for the President of the United States at any time during the continuance of this act, to order all such aliens as he shall judge dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States, or shall have reasonable grounds to suspect are concerned in any treasonable or secret machinations against the government thereof, to depart out of the territory of the United States….
An Act Respecting Alien Enemies
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever…predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States, by any foreign nation [i.e. the nation of MS-13] or government, and the President of the United States shall make public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation…shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured and removed, as alien enemies.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Merriam-Webster
nation
1a(1): nationality
(2): a politically organized nationality
(3)in the Bible : a non-Jewish nationality
why do the nations conspire—Psalms 2:1 (Revised Standard Version)
b: a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and government
c: a territorial division containing a body of people of one or more nationalities and usually characterized by relatively large size and independent status
2archaic : group, aggregation
3: a tribe or federation of tribes (as of American Indians) the Seminole Nation in Oklahoma
Thanks for posting that! The democrat party and our judiciary have put our country’s safety and sovereignty in jeopardy.