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.
Trump needs to stay calm and not say much for now…
Think about it.
The 4th circuit appellate court just sided w the judge and if you read their ruling you can see how flawed it is.
Assuming Bondi appeals… it will go to SCOTUS.
I suspect that would force a ruling.
-G
Should also add.
500K illegals just skipped their hearings.
That means that they are eligible for immediate deportation.
They had their day in court and skipped it.
Not just gang members but all illegal aliens.
They could try and argue that they got bad advice from their counsel to skill the hearing, but that won’t fly.
500K is a drop in the bucket.
But its a start.
They get deported.. and that should send a signal.
Because when they show up… they too will be deported after a quick hearing.
All it takes are more lawyers to be sworn in as immigration judges…
lets say each judge hears on avg 4 cases an hour, 8 hours a day. ~32 cases plus no shows. Lets say 50 cases a day.
200 days a year… 10K per judge.
So 50 new judges would be a good start. 500 judges… Should clear a lot of the backlog out…
And again, if the government can’t find the illegals and they miss their date… too bad.
Start in NYC, Chicago, Boston, Detroit, LA, SFO …
And expand South…
-G
Those who skipped safe countries on the way should have their cases expedited. They do not qualify tight there. Like Kilmar Garcia who went to Honduras and then Mexico to sneak into US. We do not share border with Kazakhstan, Mozambique and many other countries.
‘Hundreds of J6 defendants had been charged under a statue that did not apply to their conduct. Misdemeanor trespass was converted into a felony. John Roberts took 3 years to hear the cases of Americans who had been wrongfully convicted. 3 years!
But he works overnight for MS-13.’
@cernovich
“The Sixth Amendment grants defendants a right to a speedy trial. DC couldn’t handle all of the J6 cases. A judge who followed the law would have granted change of venue motions, allowing other districts to hear the cases.
But then they wouldn’t have had a 100% conviction rate.
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy … trial.”
DC judges denied J6’ers their rights by falsely claiming that “the public” had a interest in the cases that outweighed the defendant’s rights. Judges could delay cases at will.
The due process January 6th defendants received:
– denied their speedy trial rights, guaranteed by the Constitution
– denied change of venue motions
– disappeared for months via “diesel therapy”
100% conviction rate. Which has never happened in legal history.”
@cernovich
(((and these judges and lying corrupt Democrat politicians are now bending over backwards for what? illegal criminals to have their due process “rights”???
hey John Roberts, Democrat pols, et al: GFY))
Which is why they have grounds to sue the government and the prosecution (individually).
I wish they could sue the judge but at most… each J6er could file a complaint against the judge for violating his judicial canons.
And then each would have to be heard and investigated separately.
Of course you can expect the judges to dismiss the complaints however that would also show the hypocrisy of the courts.
-G
I think this is being played out and it isn’t accurate.
The 4th Circuit just denied Trumps appeal so it should be heading to SCOTUS.
One YT legal pundit thought it would be that this stay is temporary because of the holiday weekend and the impending case.
They never heard any arguments concerning Trump’s use of the law to make these gangs enemy combatants.
In truth… Trump has some very strong arguments and potentially historical support.
-G
Allegedly, Roberts worked on Saturday at 2AM.
post script. I’ve read all the comments and re-read Prof. Turley’s ACADEMIC argument/ analysis. YES, It is ACADEMIC because this time the BIGGER issue happening in Reality in this whole situation seems to be lost… this is not a case of: ‘I don’t agree with this judge so I want to impeach him…’ This is Much Broader & More Profound in scope. This is about WHY even bother having a President of the United States if a network of judges from the opposing Political Party can stop him at every turn from doing his Executive Branch Administration… and ergo the judges are de facto running the Country. not the Elected President, who is doing acts that other Presidents have done before but NOT STOPPED by any network of judges from the opposing Political Party…. INDEED this the CRUX of the situation that ‘it appears ‘ that Law Professors (with all due respect to Prof. Turley with whom I usually agree..) and Judges are skirting around here, keeping the argument academic, i.e., centralized within the context of how this should be seen inside the normal framwork of the system.. BUT.. THIS IS NOT NORMAL… That is the problem.. and it is MIND BLOWING to those of us who voted for this President, who is being shut-down, allowing the old Political order, whose President was voted out of Office, to continue to thrive.
Well said.
These out of control judges and Democrat politicians are blocking the agenda I VOTED for.
They are denying MY DEMOCRATIC VOICE. They are subverting the WILL of the PEOPLE.
And if John Roberts will not reign in his rogue judges, then Congress and/or President Trump will.
The courts are losing their legitimacy by the minute and John Roberts is directly responsible for it. Nice legacy, Roberts.
This seems to be presented as a contest between the Executive Branch (E.B.) & the lower Courts .. which are.. quite obviously being run by predominantly by ultra Liberal radical progressive judges.. notable how a new one pops up at just the right time, how is this synchronicity possible? that they are not even bumping into each other? WHY didn’t these same courts object to any of the deportatrions under other Presidents? or utter a sound when Biden threw open the borders to any Tom, Dick, or Harry who waltzed in and got instant financial support by the US… We did not vote for the radicall judges to step in and keep the old regime in play. We voted for change. Can you please explain, Prof. Turley, how this ‘change’ can happen when the old order is still in power via this judge nerwork?
Professor, I find that I agree with your analysis about 95% of the time and when I disagree it is with minor differences. Probabnly only a 5% disagreement when not in complete agreement. This time though I think you have missed the mark even though your rationale is well reasonsed and logical. So, Why do I disagree. In reading the opinion of the appeals court I have a different take. To me this seems to be a power struggle with the courts standing up not for the rule of law but for a lower court judge who has come under heavy administration criticsm. I am of the belief that this is more of a “We are the boss” ruling and you will obey and we if we choose will pay the exectutive some courtsey. I think the SCOTUS blew it with their “faciliate” comments. Either the judge has no power in this matter since it was not his jurisdiction and if not his jurisdiction then it does not belong to the Maryland District either since he was removed from Maryland and taken to another state and then removed to El Salvador. If branches are co-equal how does one branch, the judiciary in this case order a co-equal branch to do anything, especially to facilitate the return of a foreign national (who wihout doubt entered our country illegally) by ordering the executive to facilitate his return. Perhaps the executive in this case ought to simply tell the court “If you want him returned oder El Salvador to return him in a judicial decree. I think we can all see the folly of that argument. The court has no jurisdictiont o order a foreign country to return him. This case needs to be dropped by the courts immediately since they are well outside their lane.
Wilkinson deserves respect. Yet, it is difficult to call for strict observance of sep/powrs when the courts (esp. lower ones) attempt to run foreign policy and even the highest offers vague language on what is required.
Turley and Judge Wilkinson are both wrong on this one. According to them it seems they pretty much believe… any judge… at any time… for any reason… can prevent the executive branch from doing it’s job and the “process” needs to play itself out and the administration needs to respect it. This is nonsense. Most of these judges are trump-hating liberal activists. They don’t even try to hide their contempt, it’s personal, not legal, with them. The judiciary DOESN’T CONTROL THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, that’s not the way it works. Trump has been putting up with these abuses before he was first elected in 2016. The two other branches of government have violated his rights too many times to count with all their bogus investigations, accusations, lies, charges, trials and impeachments. We’ve NEVER seen anything like it in America, government and media colluding to take down a person by any means necessary. Trump is fighting back now… and he has my support and that of millions of Americans.
‘An MS-13 terrorist illegal alien from El Salvador — who was merely returned to his own country as the law requires — has received more “due process” than was made available to virtually any innocent American citizen persecuted by their government during the Biden Administration.’
Stephen Miller
@StephenM
Regarding the Garcia case with him deported to El Salvador, the argument seems to be that he’s entitled by the U.S. Constitution that he be allowed due-process, but does this apply to illegals? or just to U.S. citizens since it’s U.S. law?
Re Alito’s dissent…
“Alito understands that allowing the ACLU to
-Leap frog lower courts to get a SCOTUS injunction
-Based on wrong application of existing law on class certification
-Without even hearing from the opposing party
-In the middle of the night
Is how banana republic courts work”
@PhilHollowayEsq
-judicial activism, lawlessness, confusion, & ambiguity reigns ‘supreme’ on the Roberts court. what a mess he continues to make.
Well Turley is not right on this. Both the Congress and the Executive are reacting to the Judiciary’s lack of respect and utter disdain in its legal opinions and restraining orders for the duly elected Executive. He sees it the other way around. This judge’s opinion is proof of that accusing the Executive of defying the law when it’s merely sticking up for its constitutional powers.
Did John Roberts get involved at all, or say one word, when American citizens who exercised their 1A rights on January 6 were being locked up in DC’s Gulag without due process for YEARS … with DC judges refusing all change of venue requests …. and with corrupt, Trump-hating, deranged DC judges actually bragging about their 100% conviction rate?
No, he did not say a thing. No statements issued from Roberts’ Supreme Court. Not a peep. Why not?
All during Covid Tyranny, as they stripped away our civil rights, did we hear from the Supreme Court?
Nope. Or did I miss it?
But now we are told that every illegal alien gangbanger deserves their day in court? Their due process rights? WTF?
We don’t even know who these people are! Biden flew them in by the millions, facilitated their arrivals, paying for everything, and now Trump cannot summarily remove them and fly them out? Bullshlt.
Oh, but their rights? No. How about this: The only “rights” they have is the right to a speedy removal from this country.
Suspend Habeas and get them out. F the Roberts court.
It never ceases to amaze me that the very members of the Courts that criticize any and all questioning of it’s almighty power are the same people that legally attack any and all questioning of their almighty power and legislation from the Bench. It has been made perfectly clear to any rational sane person during and following COVID and the tyranny rained down from the Governments on it’s Citizens and the endorsement of that tyranny by the Judicial Branch without question that the Power the Courts now “exercises” against the Executive Branch from the same Judicial Branch members is all we need to see to say “NO MORE”! Every sworn member of the Judiciary should take note, we the people have had enough of their rouge and anti-Constitutional rulings and that the remedy against these ruling is removal.
It takes two to tango but Turley seems to spend most of his time chiding one side. Some of these judges write legal opinions that sound more like newspaper editorials than serious judicial thought. It hard to take the judiciary seriously when some of its members act like little kids in black robes throwing a temper tantrum.
There are three significant statements of *fact* in the 4th’s Opinion that are dead wrong. Two by commission, one by omission:
1) “The government is asserting a right to stash away *residents* of this country . . .” (from the Opinion, emphasis added)
In the context of an immigration case, to describe Garcia as a “resident” is to imply that he had a legal right to be in the U.S. permanently. The fact is that he did not.
2) “. . . without the semblance of due process . . .”
Garcia had three bites at due process: Two courts ruled that the government had the authority to deport him. A third ordered that he not be deported to El Salvador. If three bites are not due process, then what the _____ is? (You might argue that the executive violated the third bite’s order. But that order is still due process.)
3) The Court’s obvious evasion of a fact: Nowhere does the Opinion acknowledge that by Garcia’s own admission, and by the determination of two courts, he was an illegal immigrant. (That fact, alone, is sufficient for deportation.)
“. . . must be reciprocated by the Executive’s respect for the courts.” (Judge Wilkinson)
That is a worthy goal. Earn it. Start by getting the basic facts of a case right.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
The phrase “the Constitution is not a suicide pact” is a well-known expression in American legal and political discourse. It conveys the idea that constitutional protections and rights, while fundamental, should not be interpreted or applied in a way that would endanger the survival of the state or its people.
The sentiment has roots in the actions and writings of figures like Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln. Jefferson, for example, justified the Louisiana Purchase—despite his constitutional doubts—by arguing that “the laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation” than strict adherence to the written law.
Abraham Lincoln invoked similar reasoning when suspending habeas corpus during the Civil War, prioritizing national survival over strict constitutional fidelity.
The precise phrase was first used in this context by Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson in his dissent in Terminiello v. Chicago (1949), a case about free speech and public order. Jackson warned that if the Court did not “temper its doctrine logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact”157.
The phrase has since been cited in various Supreme Court opinions and legal debates, especially when discussing the balance between civil liberties and national security or public safety.
““the Constitution is not a suicide pact”
That phrase can be used as a tremendously dangerous rationalization. While it is valid, taken literally, it is, potentially, and has frequently been used as, an excuse to violate the clear meaning of the Constitution for relatively trivial enactment of good intentions. I take it you recall what the road to Hell is alleged paved with? For an example of proper application, if a foreign adversary launched some kind of large nuclear attack against the continental U. S., and time did not permit waiting to respond for a Congressional declaration of war, I would consider it permissible for the President to immediately order a military response. For anything of significantly lesser magnitude and immediacy, the Constitution was equipped with a perfectly viable means for change. In fact, I would prefer that the conditions under which POTUS may bypass the requirement for Congress to declare war be embodied in an Amendment, but that would be a different topic of conversation.
You are the 1 missing the point again. The courts have stepped out of bounds with judge shopping and failure to recuse when there are obvious conflicts. We are sick over judicial overreach! It is very obvious politics rule judges and judges are not ruling on the law!
Only a fool would stand there and surrender in the midst of the WAR we are in … Yes, a political war that has been cast upon us by forces working to destroy our constitutional republic. They have said many times that they are at war with the rest of America. It is a strategic failure not to recognize this and respond appropriately because if you don’t then we will lose our Republic.
Yo
Prof. Turley is respectfully soft-spoken in defending the Framers’ intended solution for the problem of overt conflict between branches of government.
Separation of Powers is inherent to our form of Checks and Balances. The power of judicial review does not wrest executive or legislative from the hands of those branches, turning it over to the judiciary. Such an act would correctly be construed as “overturning the Constitution”.
Conflicts occur often. When they do, non-compliance or deviation may be an act of defiance, tho not necessarily so, as each branch is commanded to defend the Constitution. But that disagreement has to by the disputing branches, and sometimes all three. When a dispute becomes heated, the Constitution relies upon the respect for the limits of power under Articles 1, 2, and 3.
I have not been able to find one piece of President Trump say the words Judge…”should be impeached “. I have viewed people have said Judge or Judges…”should be impeached”. Judge Wilkinson must not read the Supreme Court ruling stating…”THE PRESIDENT IS THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH “. Not the members of the cabinet, not the Vice President, not any member of the federal agencies,… etcetera etcetera etcetera. Members of Democratic Party and the media have claimed this but is just spin doctoring in order to attack our President. I respectfully ask Jonathan Turkey Esq. to either produce video evidence or apologize.
John, Wilkerson is WRONG, judges must EARN repsect, they are NOT entitled to it.
It does not matter WHO is talking about impeachment, that is free speech and judges must suck it up. And Turley should KNOW better.
The problem is NOT that people are talking about impeaching judges.
it is that the courts have LOST the respect of people so that such talk is not idle fringe threats.
It is going mainstream.
That is the COURTS fault – not the people making the threat.
John Say, what on earth are you blabbing on about? Really?
“John, Wilkerson is WRONG, judges must EARN repsect, they are NOT entitled to it.”
Apparently you didn’t understand what Wilerson was saying or you just flipped out on only one part of his comments.
He was talkinb about BOTH the executive and judicial branches respecting their decisions. Trump has to earn respect too, right?
What has he done to earn that respect? According to your view Trump attacking judges because he doesnt’ like their rulings and demanding they be impeached is supposed to earn their respect? Really John? Come on.
“ It does not matter WHO is talking about impeachment, that is free speech and judges must suck it up. And Turley should KNOW better.“
Oh, it certainly matters. You would never accept that rationale if Biden was the one calling for the impeachment of judges because he didn’t like their rulings. You would be apoplectic if that was the case. You know it matters who is calling for impeachment. Trump’s use of his outsized influence is demanding judges be impeached for merely ruling against him. It wouldn’t be surprising if Trump started calling for the impeachment of Justice Roberts because he ruled wrong on the deportation orders. MAGA nut jobs are already losing their minds on SCOTUS for issuing a ruling they had every right to make as the Supreme Court. They have intervened on behalf of Trump bypassing lower courts. Now that they have seem to have had enough of Trump’s games and obfuscations it seems they have taken the rare step of sidestepping the 5th circuit because the ACLU made an emergency request. The court obviously was keeping tabs on the evolving event, enough to grant their motion and settle this once and for all.
The people have not lost respect of the courts. MAGA has, only because the court ruled against their wishes. Court don’t rule according to what people think should be the outcome. They rule according to the law. Trump has been attacking the courts for a while now and he’s the one lying about the courts and falsely accusing them of bias and activist behavior. It’s Trump’s slandering and smearing of the courts that is insinuating to his MAGA hordes to think the courts shouldn’t be trusted. You’re enabling that by making the same baseless claims.
This is not the court’s fault. It’s Trump and his sycophantic staff. Trump will not succeed in this dispute just as he won’t succeed in his tariffs agenda. Trump is a moron and the right is blindly following along just because they don’t like that he is being “treated unfairly”.
If you you want to be taken seriously then don’t write things like “MAGA nutjobs” in your comments. Maybe you’re the nutjob.
I don’t think Wilkerson was talking about the judicial AND executive branches. He was saying it was wrong for the Executive Branch to challenge rulings outside the judicial branch imposed process. In that regard he is wrong.
George, this is my third comment to your comment and all I can say is that Trump is not the moron, you are,
Wrong again! During Biden’s 4 years Democrats were calling for stacking the Supreme Court with more justices. Schumer threaten the court on the steps of the courthouse. The barrage of by Democrats on the Supreme Court after Roe v Wade was overturned reached levels never seen before. So stop playing ignorant.
The real issue is the President is charged with protecting the U.S. from whoever seeks to destroy her. He is also mandated to enforce the laws.
The President used Constitutional Law to declare MS 13 and TDA enemy terrorist. The law was passed by congress and signed into law. The Alien Enemies Act has been used three times before. The act gives the President the authority to remove Enemy invaders from the United States.
MS 13 and TDA have invaded the U.S. no question. Both have committed violent crimes and Distributed fentanyl, a deadly drug/chemical that has killed tens of thousands of Americans. We wouldn’t hesitate to remove invaders if they were using guns and tanks. So why should we hesitate because the killing of Americans is done by deadly chemicals. Americans are just as dead.
With every hour the courts delay The President from removing these killers more Americans die.
The Court has interfered with the president trying to save the lives of Americans from foreign alien terrorists.
And let us remember: Section 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act states that suspected affiliation with terrorism voids any asylum or withholding claims. So the claim that Garcia had a “withholding claim” was void when MS-13 was declared a terrorist organization. He had his 2 days in court, was ordered deported and now he is gone and can stay there.
Where does it say that suspected affiliation with terrorism voids all due process?
Yes, you’re correct. Section 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) does specify that suspected affiliation with terrorism can render an individual deportable and ineligible for certain forms of relief, such as asylum or withholding of removal. Let’s break this down based on the relevant details provided in the web search results and the context of the INA.
Key Provisions of Section 237(a)(4)(B)
• Deportability for Terrorist Activities: Section 237(a)(4)(B) of the INA identifies terrorist activities as a ground for deportability. This section applies to non-citizens (referred to as “aliens” in the INA) who have engaged in, are engaging in, or are likely to engage in terrorist activities after entry into the United States. The term “terrorist activities” is broadly defined under INA Section 212(a)(3)(B) and includes acts like providing material support to a terrorist organization, planning or committing a terrorist act, or being a member of a designated terrorist organization.
• Impact on Asylum and Withholding of Removal: According to the web result from MyAttorney USA, aliens who are deportable under Section 237(a)(4)(B) are explicitly ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal. This means that if the U.S. government determines that an individual has engaged in or is associated with terrorist activities, they cannot seek protection from deportation through these mechanisms, even if they face persecution in their home country.
• Asylum: Asylum is a discretionary form of relief under INA Section 208, allowing individuals to remain in the U.S. if they demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. However, terrorism-related grounds under Section 237(a)(4)(B) bar eligibility.
• Withholding of Removal: Withholding of removal under INA Section 241(b)(3) prevents deportation to a country where the individual’s life or freedom would be threatened on account of the same protected grounds as asylum. However, like asylum, this relief is unavailable if the individual is deemed deportable under Section 237(a)(4)(B).
Additional Consequences
• Special Removal Proceedings: The web result notes that individuals subject to removal under Section 237(a)(4)(B) may face proceedings before a special court established under INA Section 501, rather than a standard immigration court. This special court is used when the Attorney General has classified information indicating the individual is an “alien terrorist.” This process allows for heightened security measures and potentially limited transparency due to the sensitive nature of the evidence.
• Mandatory Detention: Section 236A(a)(3)(A) of the INA mandates detention for individuals described under Section 237(a)(4)(B) (and the related inadmissibility ground, Section 212(a)(3)(B)). This means that if the government has reasonable grounds to believe someone is involved in terrorist activities, they can be detained without bond during removal proceedings.
• Related Inadmissibility Grounds: The web result also references Section 212(a)(3)(F), which makes an individual inadmissible if the Secretary of State or Attorney General determines they are associated with a terrorist organization and intend to engage in activities that could endanger the welfare, safety, or security of the U.S. This provision complements Section 237(a)(4)(B) by preventing entry in the first place, while Section 237 applies to those already in the U.S.
Context and Implications
• Broad Scope of “Terrorist Activities”: The definition of terrorist activities under the INA is expansive. It includes not only direct participation in acts of terrorism but also providing material support (e.g., funding, housing, or transportation) to a terrorist organization, even if the support was not intended for terrorist purposes. This has been a point of contention, as some advocates argue it can unfairly penalize individuals who may have acted under duress or without full knowledge of the organization’s activities.
• Security Focus: Section 237(a)(4) as a whole encompasses various security-related grounds for deportability, such as espionage, participation in genocide, or activities aimed at overthrowing the U.S. government. The emphasis on terrorism reflects post-9/11 legislative priorities, particularly through amendments like the USA PATRIOT Act and the REAL ID Act, which expanded the government’s authority to deport individuals suspected of terrorism-related activities.
• Practical Application: In practice, the government must have “reasonable grounds to believe” an individual is engaged in or likely to engage in terrorist activities. This can be based on classified or unclassified evidence, and the threshold is lower than proving a criminal conviction. For example, membership in a designated terrorist organization (as defined by the Secretary of State) can be enough to trigger these provisions, even without evidence of a specific act.
That was me, Farm4501 (no way to put in an identifier. BTW, Grok is your friend. I asked it my question, and this was the answer I got.
“Court don’t rule according to what people think should be the outcome. They rule according to the law.”
LOL yeah right. Trump is EXPOSING the judges. The judges blocking everything Trump does are CLEARLY biased activists. They are judicial insurrectionists brazenly abusing their power.
“When we’re done deporting illegals, it’s time to start deporting rogue judges.”
@seanmdav
“Apparently you didn’t understand what Wilerson was saying or you just flipped out on only one part of his comments.”
I understand what he is saying and it is WRONG.
“He was talkinb about BOTH the executive and judicial branches respecting their decisions.”
Correct and that is precisely WHY he is WRONG.
This is NOT a two way street. The courts are DIFFERENT from the executive.
Judges are elected for life.
They are supposed to be insulated from and above the political process.
They are literally constitutionally restricted to questions of law and constitution – not right/wrong. not works/does not, not moral/immoral, not policy.
Further – they do NOT get to pick their own cases.
They can not step in on their own.
They can not even step in because some random person files a lawsuit.
No matter how great the allegedly bad actions of the congress or president they can only step in when a plantiff with standing raises a challenge to the legality or constitutionality of the actions of the executive or congress.
Further congress has the power to even further restrict their jurisdiction.
All of the above is specifically to AVOID exactly what we are seeing now – Judges and courts playing president.
You say Respect is bidirectional – that is FALSE.
Most of us have little respect for politicians – even in the party we prefer. It might be nice if we respected our congressmen, our president, …. but there is no requirement that we do so.
The president is answerable to the voters, through election.
He is answerable to the congress through the threat of impeachment.
He is answerable to the courts ONLY with respect to the constitutionality and legality of his actions.
The courts have NO OTHER SAY. Again – it would be nice if the president earned the respect of the courts, but that is NOT a requirement for the president to do their job. It is NOT a requirement for congress to do its job.
Conversely the courts have absolutely NO POWER to enforce their decrees.
They rely ENTIRELY on the respect of the executive, congress and the people.
When we cease to respect the courts – they lose their power. They make themselves irrelevant.
The president controls and army as well as law enforcement and millions of employees sworn to obey the president. The courts have no power to enforce their edits EXCEPT respect.
Judge Boasburg – who does not even properly have jurisdiction over any case, is purportedly considering finding the DOJ in criminal contempt.
So what happens if he does ? Congress found Lois Lehner in contempt – the Obama DOJ did nothing.
Congress found AG Holder in contempt – the Obama DOJ did nothing.
Lets say that Judge Boasburg finds the DOJ in contempt,
it is near certain they follow the precedent set by democrats and DO NOTHING.
Or Trump just issues a pardon.
The result of Judge Boasburg acting so blatantly politically – will be deminishing the power, authority and respect of the courts.
So YOU an Judge Wilkerson are WRONG – respect is NOT a two way street.
Presidents have power and authority by virtue of being elected.
You can respect them or not. They still hold that power.
The power of the courts rests ENTIRELY on respect.
For 250 years the courts have been nearly always held in this country with the HIGHEST respect.
They nearly always are respected and approved of higher than the president, the militrary, both political parties, congress, most every other institution.
They have that respect BECAUSE they MOSTLY stay out of politics an policy.
Those of you on the left rant about Trump’s purported low approval rate.
Yet his approval is DOUBLE that of pretty much any other national leader,
Double that of Harris, Schumer, Double that of republicans as a whole who are nearly double that of democrats.
And TODAY down towards the bottom is the approval of the courts.
Democrats and republicans – for essentially the same reason – the politicization of the courts. do NOT respect the courts.
The low level of respect for the courts is NOT because of Trump or members of the house.
It is because they have become political.
For 250 years the courts have mostly protected themselves and MOSTLY tried to stay out of politics and that is why they have had such high respect and approval.
The courts are NOT like congress or the president – without that respect they have no power.
Nearly everyone is concerned that we are approaching an actual crisis in which the president and possibly even congress tells the courts to SHOVE IT.
Very few of us want that to happen.
But those of you on the left FAIL to grasp that doing exactly that – Telling the courts to pound sand, is NOT “beyond the pale”.
We only obey the courts because we respect them. Because we value the rule of law and we beleive – even when we think they are wrong that they do too.
You do not seem to grasp that it is possible for the courts to be the ones that are actually wrong.
That is it possible for the overwhelming majority of people to beleive that the courts are actually wrong.
That disobeying them is the RIGHT thing to do.
We have never faced that before, because the COURTS have never put us in that position before.
Today – they do NOT have the respect of the majority of people – left or right,
and they do NOT have the moral authority that comes from confining themselves to the law and the constitution.
When they become just another political actor – they lose respect AND power.
I have been repeatedly begging, pleading, demanding that Roberts in particular and SCOTUS more generally,
REIGN IN lower courts. Bring them back to following the law and the constitution.
I have sought that – not because congress can not and might well do so, Congress can, they can legitimately, and if this continues they likely will. But congress acting is an extreme response. The executive ignoring the courts is an extreme response. It is justified if and only if the courts are unable to discipline themselves.
We as a nation are better off if Roberts and SCOTUS bring the courts in line.
One of the problems with Roberts, and Wilkerson, is that they are USED to the respect that the courts earned long ago, and they do not grasp that, the courts have LOST that respect, and that they can NOT get it back just by demanding that others respect them.
Roberts and Wilkerson are much like SEC chair Paulson in 2008 – attacking the short sellors for pointing out there is a problem.
The courts have lost respect. They actually make that WORSE by attacking those who are criticising them.
The make it WORSE by trying to silence talk of impeaching judges, or limiting their jurisdiction, or just removing them.
To quell those extreme threats, they need to bring themselves back from their own EXTREME divergence from the law and constitution.
If they do not do it themselves – it WILL be done for them.
“This is NOT a two way street. The courts are DIFFERENT from the executive.”
John. We have co-equal branches of government. All three don’t rule over the others. This is basic civics.
“Trump has to earn respect too, right?”
False. Trump is president – he wields actual power.
Respect would be nice, but he was elected and he has power because of that.
The power of the courts is purely because they are obeyed, and they are obeyed because they are respected,
and they are respected because they stay within their domain.”
Now you’re contradicting yourself. All branches of government have power. The courts have the power to declare laws unconstitutional or unlawful or not meeting the requirements of laws set out by Congress.
Trump doesn’t automatically get respect because he has power. Trump is not more powerful than Congress or the Supreme Court.
Trump is deliberately disrespectful of the courts because he doesn’t like their rulings. To say the courts must earn it is stupid. Trump is a moron and so easily offended by anyone who dares contradict him including the courts.
The courts have not lost respect. Trump is attacking the courts and smearing them with insults and baseless accusations. You’re enabling that idea by parroting Trump’s false claims.
The rest of your rantings are purely regurgitation of the same stupid argument you are making.
“We have co-equal branches of government. All three don’t rule over the others. This is basic civics.”
Please do not lecture me or anyone else on civics it has ben self evident for years, you neither know the actual structure of our government nor the philosophical and trial and error reasons that it is as it is,
An worse still – you do not care.
Like all left wingnuts – you beleive you can just wish things to work however you want and that will happen.
John, its apparent you need lecturing on basic civics. Your interpretation of how government works is based on ideology, very flawed ideology and it shows.
I care, thats why I always end up commenting on some of your more asinine rationales.
Your projection onto others of your flawed views is notable when you can’t reconcile reality with your preferred ideological outcome. Not once have you cited law or precedent to justify your position.
“Now you’re contradicting yourself. All branches of government have power. The courts have the power to declare laws unconstitutional or unlawful or not meeting the requirements of laws set out by Congress.”
The power of the courts to do that comes from the respect they have earned by doing so correctly.
Correctly means that time after time after time when the courts make a decision regarding the law or constitution that people accept it as correct.
As serveral early presidents remarked – “lets see SCOTUS enforce its own decisions”.
Trump has repeatedly said he will obey court orders.
If this keeps up at some point something will change.
Congress will go forward with its threats, or change the courts jurisdiction,
or Trump will start ignoring the courts.
Trump can NOT do that – if he people respect the courts, and/or if congress decides that Trump has gone too far.
The current signs are that this congress will impeach roberts before it will impeach trump.
The current signs are the majority of people are not far from accepting it if the president ignores the courts.
As I said repeatedly before – the power of the courts comes from the fact that they are respected.
Roberts, Wilkerson and Turely seem to understand the danger of dimminished respect for the courts,
the do NOT grasp they courts have done this to themselves.
The BEST answer is for the courts to fix this,
But that increasingly appears unlikely.
“Trump doesn’t automatically get respect because he has power. ”
That is more complex – ask much of the world which has capitulate his tariff demands.
But lets assume you are correct.
Trump has power regardless.
“Trump is not more powerful than Congress or the Supreme Court.”
The supreme courts power comes from respect – not the constitution – that is precisely why MArboro Vs. Madison is so important.
Any debate regarding Trump’s power versus that of congress is moot for the next 2 years. ‘
Congress is not butting heads with Trump.
They are not considering laws to reign in the president, they are considering laws to reign in the courts.
They are no in court challenging the president,
The silence of the congress with respect to cutting the federal govenrment or deportation is consent.
“Trump is deliberately disrespectful of the courts because he doesn’t like their rulings. ”
Correct – because their rulling have ben repeatedly WRONG and that is why they have lost respect and are losing power.
You seem to think that the courts are magically assured of being correct.
They are not. The specific apolitical way that we TRIED to insulate the courts from politics is supoposed to increase the odds they are correct, and thereby enhance their respect and power.
But that has clearly failed.
“To say the courts must earn it is stupid.”
No it is a tautology. You can not force a single person on the planet to respect you.
Respect – like many other things are not RIGHTS – you MUST earn them.
“Trump is a moron and so easily offended by anyone who dares contradict him including the courts.”
This person you call a moron, is as Van Jones correctly said – smarter than the rest of us.
He has come back from oblivion, built a a powerful base, overcome every obstacle you have thrown in his way. That is not by accident.
“The courts have not lost respect.”
Of course they have – both the left and right have been destroying trust in the courts for over a decade,
and the courts themselves with bad decisions have been complicit.
During the campaign Trump repeatedly said he was one indictment away from a landslide.
That was a joke, but there was a great deal of truth in it.
Your lawfare made Trump stronger not weaker.
It did so because people perceived it as lawfare – not justice.
That is another significant factor in the errosion of respect for the courts.
” Trump is attacking the courts and smearing them with insults and baseless accusations. You’re enabling that idea by parroting Trump’s false claims.”
Back to the idiotic claim that Trump mezmerizes people.
You really do not get it. Trump’s power and support comes FROM the people.
It comes FROM the fact that he does what THEY want.
He does NOT control them.
They control him.
It is much like the way the free market works.
Individual consumers have very little power.
But 1000 consumers have 1000 times the power of one.
Trump’s power comes from giving the people what they want.
Not telling hem what to think.
“Trump has to earn respect too, right?”
False. Trump is president – he wields actual power.
Respect would be nice, but he was elected and he has power because of that.
The power of the courts is purely because they are obeyed, and they are obeyed because they are respected,
and they are respected because they stay within their domain.
“Trump attacking judges because he doesnt’ like their rulings and demanding they be impeached is supposed to earn their respect?”
Nope, Trump does not need the respect of judges. He needs them to do their jobs, to follow the law and the constitution. They are obligated to do that whether they respect him or not.
“Oh, it certainly matters. You would never accept that rationale if Biden was the one calling for the impeachment of judges because he didn’t like their rulings.”
Correct, because Biden was acting unconstitutionally and unlawfully when judges were ruling against him.
You – like all those on the left have no ability to distinguish between what you beleive to be right, and what is lawful or constitutional.
The absolutely critical distinction between MOST on the left and MOST on the right,
is that MOST on the right will seek to change the law and the constitution when it gets in the way of what they beleive is right.
Those of you on the left – DO NOT CARE.
You have decided that what you want is morally right, and what you oppose is morally wrong,
and that you are justified in anything you do to get your way.
You do not seem to grasp that no two of us agree exactly on what is morally right and what is morally wrong.
The entire purpose of the social contract – which binds us to law and constitution, is to move away from each of us using whatever power we have to impose our view of what is right and what is wrong on others by FORCE.
The law and constitution are not perfect. They also are not with few exceptions moral codes.
Slavery in the US was legal and constitutional for just shy of 100 years.
The constitution does not provide the answers to what is right and wrong.
It provides the structure by which we establish the law we will impose by force and require all to follow, taking into account ALL the different views of right and wrong of the entire people.
The constitution is our agreement not on what right and wrong are, but HOW we will decide the laws that establish by FORCE the framework of right and wrong that we will follow for he moment.
We have a supermajoritarian political process – that is elections, a congress and a president, that decide “policy”,
which is essentially a supermajoritarian consensus view of what the people as a whole – not individuals determine is “right and wrong” at this moment.
The constitution provides the rules for reaching that supermajoritarian consensus.
For the MOST PART it does NOT say anything about what actual right and wrong are.
Only how we establish as a society the current version of right and wrong that we will follow.
I said FOR THE MOST PART – because the constitution DOES establish that specific RIGHTS can not be infringed on, just because we have reached a consensus.
It should be OBVIOUS to all but a moron, that those rights, can not be subject to the protection of the united states government for every individual in the world.
It should also be OBVIOUS that crossing a line in the dirt does not magically grant you protection for rights you did not have a step before.
It should also be OBVIOUS that these determinations are NOT moral – we would all prefer that every person on the planet had exactly the same rights. Those determinations are PRACTICAL – it is beyond the power of the US government to protect all rights that US citizens have for everyone everywhere.
Again – the way we operate as a society MUST be driven by PRACTICAL as well as Moral values.
And that the moral values – each of our differening values regarding what is right and wrong MUST in the real world by constrained practically – or society is not possible.
“Correct, because Biden was acting unconstitutionally and unlawfully when judges were ruling against him.”
So, like Trump he could simply ignore the courts. Trump is also acting unconstitutionally and unlawfully.
“George – most everything that you write is an appeal to emotion.
You almost never address the law, the constitution or the facts, and when you do you always get them wrong.”
Projection John? Really? You never cite the law or the constitution or the facts. You rely purely on ideology. Zealots tend to behave that way.
“like Trump he could simply ignore the courts.”
he could if the majority of the people and congress beleived the courts had seriously erred.
But they did not.
“Trump is also acting unconstitutionally and unlawfully.”
I have asked you to support that repeatedly and you have not done so.
“You never cite the law or the constitution or the facts.”
Actually I do all of that constantly.
Further I do not need to make specific cites because I have established a reputation for accuracy, and for correcting errors when I make them.
Biden using exectuive power to give college Students a free education was unconstitutional – it was also morally wrong, it was an attempt to redistribute the nations wealth from the working class to the elites.
It was popular among those elites but pretty much no one else.
So it was both unconstitutional and morally wrong.
Most people support SCOTUS’s ruling – because it is unconstititonal and morally wrong.
By getting that right – SCOTUS increased its respect by a tiny bit.
You say that I am incorrect regarding the law and constitution – but you will not even specify what it is that I am incorrect about.
Inarguably deporting people who have no lawful right to be here is constitutional, and most of us also beleive it is moral.
Due process is about assuring that when we do something that we may constitutionally and lawfully do, that the PROCESS is done lawfully and constitutionally.
In the case of deportation “due process” is the right to challenge the governments claim that you are the person identified in the order for your deportation, and to challenge the governments claim that you are not a legal resident.
The claims that Garcia is a gang banger, human trafficker, and wife beater, are NOT the basis for deportation. We do not deport citizens for those offenses. They are the reason for EXPEDITING deportation. Garcia is gone – he is not a US problem anymore.
In what world do you think that a court has the constitutional power to order someone with no legal right to be here to be brought to the US ?
George – most everything that you write is an appeal to emotion.
You almost never address the law, the constitution or the facts, and when you do you always get them wrong.
The people YOU are criticising are responding within their legitimate rights.
They are responding to facts, to the constitution, to the law.
They are responding to efforts to thwart the constitutional and legal demands that they voted for in the past election.
Those on the left are perfectly free to oppose the constitutional and legal will of the majority.
You are free to claim to defend the rights of those you think are being infringed.
You are free to be WRONG or right as the case may be.
The courts do NOT enjoy that POLITICAL freedom.
Judges are bound to the law and the constitution – not the political perceptions of right and wrong of their party or ideology.
Those calling for impeachment or other constitutional or legal remedies for the continued lawfare of the left
are emotional. They are also acting on a rational legal, and constitutional foundation.
YOU are not.
” SCOTUS for issuing a ruling they had every right to make as the Supreme Court.”
No they do not. SCOTUS is bound by the law and the constitution.
“They have intervened on behalf of Trump bypassing lower courts.”
SCOTUS is not there to support or oppose Trump or the president.
They are there SOLELY to assure that the actions of the executive are lawful and constitutional.
“Now that they have seem to have had enough of Trump’s games and obfuscations it seems they have taken the rare step of sidestepping the 5th circuit because the ACLU made an emergency request.”
And that is NOT a basis for their acting. SCOTUS is required to have infinite patience, they are required to take heaps of abuse. They are required to follow the law and the constitution – and they are required to do so whether they like the outcome or not.
The ONLY questions that courts may entertain are:
Is the issue in question brought before us by a party lawfully entitled to do so ?\
Are the actions of the executive lawful ?
Are the actions ofthe executive constitutional ?
In these cases those questions are all easily answered.
The deportation of those in the US who are not citizens or legal residents is LEGAL and Constitutional.
Those the govenrment seeks to deport have the right to due process sufficient that the govenrment must establish – to a relatively LOW standard that they are not citizens or legal residents.
That is ALL the due process they are entitled to.
If you do not like that change the law or constitution.
The courts – including SCOTUS may NOT change the law or constitution. They are bound to the constitution and law as they ARE not as they wish they were.
” The court obviously was keeping tabs on the evolving event”
That is NOT their job.
You are so far off base on the courts – which is a mirror for exactly what is wrong.
The courts do NOT supervise the executive.
They do not have ANY executive powers.
They do not have the right to direct the exectutive to do pretty much anything.
They do NOT have the power to impose policies.
They have the power to address the issues of LAW and constitution that are brought before them by a plantif with standing.
Where the actions of the executive violate the law or the constitution they can say STOP.
The courts have NO POWER to say DO THIS.
They can not make policy.
They have no political role at all.
Their respect is at a historic low,
The calls for impeachment an other acts to restrain them are a reflection of the FACT that the courts are WAY over their skis – and outside their domain.
Once again:
Deporting those who are not citizens or legal residents is lawful and constitutional.
Cutting govenrment spending is lawful and constitutional
Cutting government staff is lawful and constitution.
You, the left, democrats, have the ability to challenge the specific ways in which that is being accomplished,
The courts are required to compel YOU to demonstrate the PROCESS is not lawful or constitutional – something neither you not they have not done.
Individuals – like YOU have the freedom to be wrong, to argue unlawfully or unconstitutionally.
The courts DO NOT.
“SCOTUS is required to have infinite patience, they are required to take heaps of abuse. They are required to follow the law and the constitution – and they are required to do so whether they like the outcome or not.”
What law says that? You’re making stuff up now? Come on John.
They DID follow the law. The ACLU filed an emergency motion to the Supreme Court just like Trump does and they acted on it according to the law which allows them to do that. You really are poorly versed in court procedures and legality.
“Their respect is at a historic low,”
Thanks to the conservatives in the Supreme Court. They have a clear bias towards Trump.
““SCOTUS is required to have infinite patience, they are required to take heaps of abuse. They are required to follow the law and the constitution – and they are required to do so whether they like the outcome or not.”
What law says that? You’re making stuff up now? Come on John.”
The latter assertion is in the constitution.
The requirement that they take heaps or abuse and have infinite patiences is because the constitution does NOT give the courts the power to excercise their power for any other basis than following the law and constitution.
“They DID follow the law. The ACLU filed an emergency motion to the Supreme Court just like Trump does and they acted on it according to the law which allows them to do that. You really are poorly versed in court procedures and legality.”
This is not about process, this is about constitutionality. I have no quibles with what the ACLU
did. SCOTUS was obligated to tell them to pound sand – because that is what the constitution requires.
Because that is what the law requires.
Previously SCOTUS correctly ruled that Habeaus applies to TdA members.
Habeaus in the context of the AEA is pretty trivial.
The plaintiff – the ACLU/TdA member can go to court and attempt to prove that they ARE in the US legally, they are NOT a member of TdA or they are NOT the person on the deportation order.
That is pretty much it. I have not heard any claim that recently or previously deported TdA members were denied that opportunity.
I would note that while the AEA permits an expedited removal process,
the Due process to deport ANYONE, is are you the person being ordered deported, and are you in the US legally. We allow more hearings and appeals, in an Immigration court the burden of proof is on the Government – though it is a very low burden, while in a Habeaus hearing the burden of proof is on the plantiff – the person being deported. Those are the only absolute requirements to deport.
So you rant about emergency petitions, and alleged constitutional and legal violations.
But the law and constitution on these issues is NOT complex and the burden to deport is OBVIOUSLY met.
So it should not surprise you that so many people wonder what the supreme court is smoking.
You repeated claim I am emotional, or trump supports are emotional – for the most part I am not.
The part that worries me here is that if the courts do no fix themselves – they will be fixed from the outside,
and it is far better that they fix themselves.
As to the rest – the requirements for deportation are simple. They are easily met.
While we are not likely to deport more than 10% of those here illegally,
there is ZERO doubt the president has the constitutional and lawful power to deport 45M people who are here illegally.
That will not happen – because despite polling to the contrary if we tried to deport 45M people the political will of the people do do so would diminish.
But contra the left – there are very few and none rational rushing out to defend TdA or Garcia.
We definitely do not want them in the US
“The latter assertion is in the constitution.
The requirement that they take heaps or abuse and have infinite patiences is because the constitution does NOT give the courts the power to excercise their power for any other basis than following the law and constitution.”
You don’t cite what part of the constitution says or impliest your claim. Cite the clause, or article. Otherwise you’re just making stuff up John. Just saying so doesn’t make it true.
“This is not about process, this is about constitutionality. I have no quibles with what the ACLU
did. SCOTUS was obligated to tell them to pound sand – because that is what the constitution requires.
Because that is what the law requires.”
What law requires the Supreme Court to tell the ACLU to pound sand? Cite it. It has been reported that the Trump administration has been moving Venezuelan immigrants to north Texas which is outside of the southern district to avoid the district court’s ban on deporting them. The Trump administration was in the process again ignoring court orders and intent on deporting these immigrants wihtout due process. They gaven them a paper “notice” in english” and “neglected” to notify their lawyers that they were being moved. Buses were already enroute to an airport in north Texas and abruptly were turned around AFTER the Supreme Court issued it’s order to stop the deportations.
SCOTUS was obligated to rule on the motion and they did by ordering a halt to the deportation of the Venezualan immigrants from north Texas. Trump was clearly trying to do an end run around the southern district courts block on deportations. He’s shown his intent to defy court orders and still deny due process rights to those immigrants.
“ I would note that while the AEA permits an expedited removal process,
the Due process to deport ANYONE, is are you the person being ordered deported, and are you in the US legally. We allow more hearings and appeals, in an Immigration court the burden of proof is on the Government – though it is a very low burden, while in a Habeaus hearing the burden of proof is on the plantiff – the person being deported. Those are the only absolute requirements to deport.“
Again you don’t uderstand how the law works. You WANT it to be as simple as possible because that’s the only way you can make your argument work, but that’s not how it works. The governmen has the burden of proof and they have NOT met that burden. Not with Garcia and likely not with others. Trump wants to dispense with that problem of due process and just declare all of them gang members and terrorists without proof. Alleged tattoos and clothing and hearsay from barely credible witnesses is not enough. We already know the government has a poor record of detemining who is and isn’t really a gang member or even a terrorist. Just like the government not being able to produce evidence of their claims in the Khalil and Osturk cases. They are just accusing people and absconding them as fast as possible before they have a chance to contest the government claims. That’s Trump goal. That’s how he wants to increase the numbers of deportations because his deportation numbers are nowhere near where he expected them to be.
Deporting people under the AEA is dependent on we having declared war with a nation or be invaded. Calling immigrants coming here legally or illegally is not what the AEA defines as an invasion. Trump is twisting and contorting laws to justfiy his unlawful actions on deportations. The Supreme Court will now have arguments on the constitutionality of using the AEA as Trump is using it and they can absolutely pause any deportations until the issue is settled.
“But the law and constitution on these issues is NOT complex and the burden to deport is OBVIOUSLY met.
So it should not surprise you that so many people wonder what the supreme court is smoking.”
John, this has nothing to do with deportation, none. It has to do with following the law and Trump is not following it. I has to do do with the legality of using the AEA to remove people to avoid the lengthy process of affording every immigrant their right to challenge their designation as gang members or terrorists. Garcia has not been proven to be a member of MS-13 or TdA or even a terrorist. Many others have been accused of the same and since the goverhment can’t prove the claims or show that their claims are in fact true in court needs to be determined by each immigrant in court before being deported. THAT is what Trump is trying to avoid and that is what SCOTUS is telling Trump needs to happen. The court is aware of Trump playing games with the courts and ignoring court orders that violate the law. You’re advocating for a lawless executive and blaming the judicial branch for it.
“But contra the left – there are very few and none rational rushing out to defend TdA or Garcia.
We definitely do not want them in the US”
There are enoug people rushing to defend Garcia. Not TdA. You’re smearing him with the label of being a member of the gang to justify the lawlessness. It’s about the rule of law. Trump thinks the law is just an impediement, a nusiance impeding his goal of deporting millions as quickly as possible. Trump thinks the law shouldn’t apply because illegal immigrants don’t have rights at all. Trump doesn’t get to decide that SCOTUS does.
“enough to grant their motion and settle this once and for all.”
What is it that you think is being settled ?
There is ZERO doubt that if you are in the US and not a legal resident or a citizen the executive branch not only CAN deport you – but that it has a duty to.
The purpose of “due process” is to assure that when the government does what if CAN lawfully and constitutionally do – that the PROCESS is also lawful and constitutional.
But the END MUST be the same.
TdA members WILL be deported. Garcia has been deported, it is highly unlikely he will be brought back,
if he is, he will be deported AGAIN. If that does NOT occur – that is a MASSIVE constitutional crisis.
That is the COURTS acting outside the law and constitution.
Numerous people – my self included have demonstrated hat your claims regarding Garcia and Due process are LIES – Garcia got massive due process – he had his day in court. Multiple times.
“The people have not lost respect of the courts. MAGA has, only because the court ruled against their wishes. Court don’t rule according to what people think should be the outcome.”
Atleast you grasp that people have lost respect for the courts.
Guess what – when that occurs – when respect tanks – respect for the courts, respect for the law, respect for democrats, respect for anything – the FAULT lies with those who have lost respect. Not with those who no longer respect them.
It is not some fringe that has lost respect for the courts – it is super majorities.
That is the consequence of the courts politicization.
“They rule according to the law.”
Then you would be able to cite the EXACT law.
AGAIN there is ZERO doubt that if you are not a citizen or a legal resident you can be constitutionally and legally deported.
You can putr Garcia on a YoYo between El Salvador and the US.
But you can not change the FACT that he has no legal or constitutional right to be here.
“Trump has been attacking the courts for a while now”
Correct – he has been dealing with lawless courts for years now.
And he has WON. It is the lawlessness of the courts that is a major factor in getting him re-elected.
Whether you like it or not the american people cast their vote on this.
YOU and the courts have engaged in lawless and unconstitional lawfare – and you continue to do it.
I would note – that while Trump is the epicenter of all this – the problem goes far beyond Trump.
“he’s the one lying about the courts and falsely accusing them of bias and activist behavior.”
Again we had an election and VOTERS determined exactly that.
The LEFT keeps saying that we can not elected a convicted felon – and that is true.
What voters did was cast their own Verdict on the courts and determine that the courts had acted in a biased and activist manner.
We frequently say that the Supreme court is the final authority.
But that is FALSE.
While we do NOT have a pure majoritarian system.
We DO have a system where all power ultimately comes from the people.
Not the supreme court.
The 2024 election was a verdict on many things – including the conduct of the courts.
YOU made it that, and YOU lost.
The courts are biased and activist – they are political.
They are not constitutioanlly allowed to be.
The constitution says that.
and in 2024 Voters affirmed that is NOT what they want.
The voters elected as president a person the Courts said was a felon,
but the voters reversed.
The only appeal to the verdict of the voters is the next election.
Their verdict has more finality than the supreme court.
“It’s Trump’s slandering and smearing of the courts that is insinuating to his MAGA hordes to think the courts shouldn’t be trusted. You’re enabling that by making the same baseless claims.”
Still brain dead.
Trump is NOT some hypnotist.
This appears to be unbeleivably difficult for you to grasp but people support Trump because he keeps his promises and does what THEY want. Not because he has brainwashed half the country.
Though I would note in you idiotic majoritarian democracy – if Trump magically brainwashed people.
That is STILL majority rule.
“This is not the court’s fault.”
Of course it is.
When you lose the respect of 80% of the people it is ALWAYS your fault.
“It’s Trump and his sycophantic staff. Trump will not succeed in this dispute just as he won’t succeed in his tariffs agenda. Trump is a moron and the right is blindly following along”
There are elemens of Trump’s agenda I do not agree with.
That should not be surprising – there is no other individual in the world any of us are likely to 100% agree with.
The people we elect will ALWAYS be people we agree with in part and disagree with in part.
It is literally impossible for it to be different.
You rant and rave about Trump’s policies – but NONE of the policies you rant about are unique to Trump,
Are unique to republicans, or are “extreme”.
It is Trivial to find leading democrats – Pelosi, Obama, Clinton (either one) Sanders, AOC, Warren,
all advocating for exactly the policies that are Trump’s platform.
So your barking at the moon.
What is different about Trump is that he has NOT made some half hearted effort to impliment those policies that a majority of people want, and then said “Oh Well, it is too hard”.
If Trump says he will do something – he will use ALL the power of the presidency to DO IT.
And it likely will get done.
All this lawfare by the courts – including SCOTUS is not going to stop Trump.
It can not. What he is doing is both legal and constitutional and has the support of the majority of americans.
That is not merely a wining combination – it is actually a morally superior combination.
Which you do not seem to grasp.
The courts – including SCOTUS if necescary WILL lose. They may slow things down a bit.
But ultimately they WILL lose.
I am begging, pleading, demanding that the Courts fix themselves – that is the PREFERED outcome.
There are a number of alternatives – all of which are worse than the courts fixing themselves,
BUT all of which are better than capitulating to lawfare.
We are not there yet, but the end result if the courts are not careful could ACTUALLY be what idiot left wing nut judges have claimed – and that is for Trump to treat the courts with actual contempt and to ignore them and move forward regardless.
Nowhere in the constitution does it say that lawless and politicized courts must be obeyed.
Our tradition of obeying court orders, is based on the respect that past courts have earned by MOSTLY sticking to the law and constitution.
Deporting those not here lawfully is constitutional and lawful.
Cutting govenrment spending is lawful and constitutional.
Cutting government staffing is lawful and constitutional.
You are trying to hold back the wind,
“There is ZERO doubt that if you are in the US and not a legal resident or a citizen the executive branch not only CAN deport you – but that it has a duty to.”
You’re missing the point John. Garcia had protection from removal by a court. He couldn’t be deported. Especially to El Salvador. Trump’s administration knew that and they admitted he was not supposed to be deported.
The government never proved Garcia was a gang member. They alleged he was and the evidence that alleged he was has been shown to be lacking.
Garcia was not given a chance to contest that claim and now he’s accused of being a terrorist without evidence.
“Nowhere in the constitution does it say that lawless and politicized courts must be obeyed.
Our tradition of obeying court orders, is based on the respect that past courts have earned by MOSTLY sticking to the law and constitution.”
Republicans are all about the rule of law. But when they don’t like it. They can ignore courts saying the law must be obeyed. You’re advocating for lawlessness.
“It is not some fringe that has lost respect for the courts – it is super majorities.”
ROFL! John, what “supermajorities?” MAGA is not a supermajority. It’s barely half the country and it may be dwindling with Trump’s poor handling of the economy and his disatrous tariff policy. You’re a free market man, surely you must know that tariffs are anti-free market. Tariffs destroy free markets. You should be the first to be griping about the tariffs, but I degress.
This is not about deportations John. It’s about Trump violating the law to deport people. Trump already admitted that Garcia’s deportation was a mistake, why was it a mistake, because there was an order protecting him from removal by a court and Trump knew that, he deported him anyway. He ignored the lawa and the constitution.. According to you that’s wrong and illegal.
John Say: “John, Wilkerson is WRONG, judges must EARN repsect, they are NOT entitled to it.”
Evidently you haven’t practiced law in front of a judge. Take your toothbrush if you do.
“Take your toothbrush if you do.” I don’t get it what does that mean?
Johnny …. Google bid your friend , stop asking other people to do your job .