In August, some of us expressed doubts over the ruling of San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson enjoining an effort to end Temporary Protective Status (TPS) for migrants from different countries, citing sufficient racial animus. Now, a unanimous panel just stayed that order in a major win for the Trump Administration, which will now be allowed to revoke deportation protections for citizens from Nicaragua, Nepal, and Honduras.
A panel composed of Circuit Judge Michael Hawkins (a Clinton appointee), Circuit Judge Consuelo Callahan (George W. Bush appointee), and Circuit Judge Eric Miller (Trump appointee) ruled that the district court erred in its injunction.
The decision follows the Supreme Court’s recent order to stay lower court orders blocking the termination of TPS for Venezuela.
Notably, the program was meant to be “temporary,” but judges such as Judge Thompson have treated it as effectively permanent with these injunctions. The TPS for Nicaragua was issued in 1999, over a quarter of a century ago.
The allegation of racial animus is hard to square with the overall effort of the Administration to not only end TPS programs but to carry out its promised mass deportation of those who came into the country illegally regardless of their country of origin.
The panel acknowledged the obvious in ruling against the district court given the recent Supreme Court decision:
We are not writing on a blank slate, however, because the Supreme Court has twice stayed district court orders blocking the Secretary’s vacatur of TPS for Venezuela. See Noem v. National TPS All., 146 S. Ct. 23 (2025); Noem v. National TPS All., 145 S. Ct. 2728 (2025). Those orders contained no reasoning, so they do not inform our analysis of the legal issues in this case, and the issues in any event are not identical. But the stay applications involved similar assertions of harm by both parties, and we have been admonished that the Court’s stay orders must inform “how [we] should exercise [our] equitable discretion in like cases.” Trump v. Boyle, 145 S. Ct. 2653, 2654 (2025). We therefore conclude that the equitable factors favor a stay.
As I discussed earlier, the judicial efforts to enjoin the ending of TPS programs actually work against future such programs. Presidents can now see that allowing immigrants into the country temporarily can be treated as granting a permanent status.
The same is true with the equally dubious rulings of judges such as District Judge Indira Talwani in preventing President Donald Trump from canceling a Biden program granting parole and the right to work to immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (CHNV).
It also raises more questions about recent rulings, such as Judge Ana C. Reyes’s in Washington. I criticized her decision last week in denying the termination of the TPS program.
The Ninth Circuit decision reflects a pattern of reversals for these district court judges in seeking to block the Trump Administration’s efforts to deport the millions of individuals admitted into the country under the Biden and earlier administrations.
If it was not so obvious, I would wonder what is going on. This is nothing more than finding a sympathetic judge to slow and bring the Trump agenda to a grinding halt. The Supreme Court rules the judges have to follow rulings and the same judges interpret that means they can ignore the high court. This is about kicking the can down the road until they get another politician that wants to let illegals stay. This should be easy, they come illegally without either permission or status, they should be deported quickly.
This is not about asylum seekers, refugees, green card holders, or visa holders. They all have a right to be here and all have status to be in country. This is a narrowly tailored area.
I even have sympathy for the dreamers. I can even accept finding a carve out for them, but not their parents that brought them.
I only have one question to anyone that wants the illegals. Why is it that you are willing to allow them to break the law the very first thing they do when they get here? Why are you willing to abet lawbreakers?
Judges, why are you willing to allow law breakers to run wild in the country unaccounted?
Quiet! — The regional farmers wll say “I just want my crop picked.”
We used to have a good brocero program.
The communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) want voters.
Temporary work permits have nothing to do with importing liberal Democrat voters; that’s why they aren’t used in America.
Everything Democrats do is done to thwart the severe limitations and restrictions on government and on voting in the Constitution.
The “dictatorship of the majority” is one-man, one-vote democracy, which is the “dictatorship of the proletariat” of communism.
You can’t have the freedom intended and codified by the American Founders under the communism of one-man, one-vote democracy.
One-man, one-vote democracy is the direct and mortal enemy of the American Thesis of Freedom and Self-Reliance, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, actual Americans, and America.
Temporary work permits have nothing to do with importing liberal Democrat voters; that’s why they aren’t used in America.
Only if their goal is to have illegals actually register and vote, and risk being caught. If their goal is simply to have them there at census time, so that their states get more congressmen and electors, then temporary workers would work just as well.
Let’s discover what the American Founders intended and allowed by duly passed legislation, which persisted for nearly 80 years, the better part of a century, until it was nullified by high criminal acts of illicit and unconstitutional brute force.
____________________________________________________________
Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798, 1802
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof….
President Grant wrote to his father Jesse in April of 1861 about his feeling and intent of joining the county’s request for volunteers to join the Union forces which in today’s environment could also be relevant:
“Whatever may have been my political opinions before I have but one sentiment now. That is we have a Government, and laws and a flag and they must all be sustained. There are but two parties now, Traitors & Patriots and I want hereafter to be ranked with the latter.”
Democrats are nothing more that modern day Confederates, as they were in 1861. Damn the law it means nothing accept what I say it means.
Secession is not prohibited; therefore, secession is prohibited.
That is the kind of support of the Constitution the “Dictatorship of the Black-Robed Juristocracy” provided in 1860 when a mad dictator forcibly imposed martial law, seized power, and commenced a war and his “Reign of Terror.”
Of course, secession was and is fully constitutional, and the dictator must have been struck down from the outset.
Legislation of duly-elected officials must have been the weapon, not brute force.
. GW, that is absolutely true. It is the Democrat party that is errant without a single correct matter in mind , body or spirit and they’re being born everyday. Wishing, hoping for rescue from on high.
OT: Many on this blog have lost their heads over ICE while supporting leftwing policies. Mandani’s policies create ICE CUBES, not funny because people are dying on the NYC streets by freezing to death. The policies of Mandani differ from those of other mayors who provide shelter so they can move the homeless off the streets during freezing weather. The socialists alwasy talk warm and cozy but in reality their actions are cold and deadly.
“As this winter’s frigid snap took up an extended residence over New York City, it presented the first urgent crisis for Zohran Mamdani’s fledgling administration.
Tragically, 18 people perished in the deep freeze — at least 15 directly from hypothermia — which has triggered City Council hearings yet no mea culpa from our mayor.”
https://nypost.com/2026/02/11/opinion/compassion-of-letting-people-sleep-on-the-streets-is-misguided/?utm_campaign=nyp_postopinion&utm_source=sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20260212&lctg=62680bbe38a279b1870b18c5&utm_term=NYP%20-%20Post%20Opinion
Spare me. They know full well it will have to go through channels until it reaches SCOTUS, they are not as stupid as they pretend to be. They are doing it intentionally and trying to buy time, to wait out the entire clock of the current administration.
There is nothing to praise or redeem about the modern left. It is indeed embarrassing that some of these people can call themselves judges or attorneys and still look themselves in the mirror every day. We all know this, even those that approve (its why they approve). It is a sh**show, and it is disgusting and exhausting. There is nothing to redeem on the modern left – it is corruption and depravity from top to bottom, now.
It is likely every single one of these ‘decisions’ will be found invalid, and they will likely lose; that doesn’t matter to them, the time it takes does. Pathetic, and the most gross abuse of our legal system in history.
PS – to crusty old hippies that think they are still fighting Watergate – this is all so far beyond the pale regarding that, on your ‘side’; you truly went on to become the most brain dead generation imaginable. Go smoke some more weed, and let us take care of you, just as we have as a burden on our backs since you ‘dropped out’, and then we will have no choice but to take care of your children many now adults, that you neglected, and those children’s children. Thanks a lot for f***ing things up for literally everyone else due to your initial privilege way back when.
. Yes, Meyer, and it is the ill will and incompetence that causes failure of any system and a reason these people have always failed except for crime which is a success. Incompetent KBJ never wanted to be an American citizen but it was thrust upon her. She’ll be sure you’ll pay for that 😉.
Thanks PT. adieu
Every war brings new tactics by the belligerent which in turns requires those who are being attacked to counter with novel defense strategies. Today’s war is as different to standard warfare as the Vietnam War and Communist takeover of Cuba vis a vis guerrilla warfare. To wit,
1). Judge Boasberg has once again issued another
judicialpapal promulgation sans papal tiara replete with fire and brimstone. The guy can rain down pejoratives on the US Government better than a Commie.https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436.247.0_4.pdf
A former US attorney provides his analysis:
Jay Town
@JayTownAlabama
Quite literally, Judge Boasberg is using a habeas petition (a writ to contest unlawful custody) to:
1. Take people NOT in U.S. custody
2. Demand the countries those people are in round them up or release their custody of those people.
3. Fly those people back to the U.S.
4. Force their surrender to U.S. custody at the port of entry.
5. Conduct a habeas hearing re their newfound U.S. custody.
This is one of the most absurd opinions ever written…in the history of ever! Chock full of pejoratives about the government’s disagreement with Boasberg’s orders in this case (including this one) and demands that don’t encroach on Article II but rather consume it whole by a district court judge.
https://x.com/JayTownAlabama/status/2021991507155108118
2). Another warfront: A newly installed US attorney was fired by the White House 5 hours after he was installed by a panel of federal judges from New York’s Northern District.
White House promptly fires new interim U.S. attorney in New York
ALBANY — The White House on Wednesday evening fired a new interim U.S. attorney in New York’s Northern District less than five hours after a panel of federal judges had appointed Donald T. Kinsella to the position.
timesunion.com/capitol/article/federal-judges-appoint-donald-kinsella-new-21347802.php
We are at war.
Insert St. Thomas Aquinas just war argument
St Thomas Aquinas on Just war
In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. For it is not the business of a private individual to declare war, because he can seek for redress of his rights from the tribunal of his superior. Moreover it is not the business of a private individual to summon together the people, which has to be done in wartime. And as the care of the common weal is committed to those who are in authority, it is their business to watch over the common weal of the city, kingdom or province subject to them. And just as it is lawful for them to have recourse to the sword in defending that common weal against internal disturbances, when they punish evil-doers, according to the words of the Apostle (Romans 13:4): “He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil”; so too, it is their business to have recourse to the sword of war in defending the common weal against external enemies. Hence it is said to those who are in authority (Psalm 81:4): “Rescue the poor: and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner”; and for this reason Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 75): “The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority.”
Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore Augustine says (QQ. in Hept., qu. x, super Jos.): “A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly.”
Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil. Hence Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. [The words quoted are to be found not in St. Augustine’s works, but Can. Apud. Caus. xxiii, qu. 1): “True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good.” For it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 74): “The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war.”
Summa Theologiae, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 40
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3040.htm
If a Judge made illegitimate decisions that negatively impacted the Woke Left, the way that Boasberg negatively impacts those who ascribe to the Constitution and the rule of law, and that Judge continued to get away with issuing ruling after ruling of that description, I think it quite plausible that someone who supports the Woke Left would attempt to persuade Boasberg to cease respiration.
OT, selected headlines from the Bee:
– Billie Eilish hires extra security to guard her stolen land
– Husband explains he can’t build a chicken coop on stolen land
– Wife refuses to return stolen land she took from husband’s side of the bed
– Wife interrupts own story with another story
– Media baffled as to anything mass shooters might possibly have in common
– Canadian reporterperson announces policepersons have identified gunperson
– Next halftime show to be performed entirely in Sindaran Elvish
– Peter tries to explain to John the Baptist he doesn’t have to eat bugs anymore
– US ski team awarded gold medal for synchronized screaming about Trump
– Alarming study shows average Somali high school senior in Minnesota committing fraud at just a 5th grade level
– Lindsey Vonn announces she has joined the US Paralympics team
– Rest of country holds recall election on state of California
OldManFromKS,
HA!! Thank you for the afternoon laugh!
DEPORTATION NATION!
STOP THE CHEAT!
Every last one before the census.
We already have good immigration laws, they just need to be followed as they’ve already been debated and passed.
Unfortunately we now have this pathetic “resistance” mob of dopes that cannot think the situation through for themselves.
Then, there’s the ones that know exactly what’s going on, but it puts them at the bottom of the polls and so must act outraged in a desperate attempt to regain significance and power.
Hurrah! It well overtime to get ride of the Nicaraguans. There is a long list of negatives about them, but they are not worth listing.
Put it this way, They come here to ‘Take’ not give or have a respect for Our country.
Frm. President Daniel Ortega and (wife) President Rosario Murillo need to be Nicolás Maduro’ed (ASAP).
The Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN – Ortega/Murillo’s Party ‘Sandinistas’) has been a an internal threat to the US for far to long.
Nicaragua’s subsistence on U.S. money sent home to Nicaragua by Nicaraguan Nationals and Nicaraguan born – Naturalized Citizens should have been stopped decades ago. Same for the rest (Cuba, Honduras, Venezuela, …) If these Countries don’t want to change to the way we do business here in North America, then its time for Regime Change. Time to secure North America from 100 Miles into Northern Columbia to the North Pole (this includes Greenland and Iceland). Pull/Close the Military Bases from around the World and Redeploy to the North American theater. DEFENSE. Europe can fend for itself.
They are plenty of Communist dressed in the name of Democracy here in the US already.
“There is a long list of negatives about them, but they are not worth listing.” Could that be because you are lying?
Indeed, the communists co-opted the term “democracy” long ago; even the better term “republic.” But lie and mask their collectivist/Marxist agenda as they may, any student of history and politics knows what they’re up to; there is now as has been since early in the past century a commie behind every hijacked word.
Whew… proof that MAGAots have lost touch.
How so ? Can you support your claim ? Or are things true just because you say them ?
Senator Mark Kelly released a new online video on Thursday reminding the nation’s bartenders that they are allowed to refuse Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s orders.
Staring stonily into the camera, the former astronaut warned that, if Hegseth appears to be above the legal blood-alcohol limit, any additional drink request would constitute an illegal order.
“Our laws are clear: you can refuse illegal orders,” he told the bartenders. “You must refuse illegal orders.”
Kelly concluded the video with one final urgent plea to the mixologists: “If Hegseth’s behavior is belligerent, his words are slurred, and his makeup is smeared, you must refuse his orders.”
@anon 09:20 re: “Kelly concluded the video with one final urgent plea”. Attack the individual with gossip information – evidence is irrelevant.
In today’s environment (as beautifully illustrated in “rage”),
Kelly’s message was: drink the kool-aid and attack the person.
Example: The progression of NDSAP classification to justify genocide, or the “Counter-revolutionary activities” categorization used by those self-classified “Revolutionary Tribunal”, Jacobins, les sans-culottes, les tricoteuses, . . . to guillotine many, and accidentally miss Thomas Paine).
For those who have taken both oaths multiple times(judicial process & constitutional), there are two sets of information in the judicial system: 1) Blotter 2) Investigative. Professionals understand that Investigative information is exactly that – it is used to create or defend cases THROUGH THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM, and those oaths (especially if using 28 CFR 23 systems). It is to be used in the judicial process where it can be presented, assessed, and defended – NOT BY SENDING TO THE PRESS WHERE DEFENSE IS JUST a “Have you stopped beating your wife” message generation process by the attacker. Dissemination of that information (leakage) violates those oaths and, and is in many cases, illegal. It should NEVER be used outside the system because some of that “evidence” is inadmissible (e.g., hearsay, “I heard X say that POTUS is a pedophile”).
Congress has established itself as a kangaroo court of propagandists (modern Revolutionary Tribunal), and use processes to generate falsehood and propaganda. The abuse of this process has humiliated those who believe in a judicial system – for all its warts.
tiny brain bouncing around in zero G for too long inside a big head unprotected from cosmic rays by hair.
A great funny comment.
What is typically the final disposition of abhorrent, loathsome, noxious, and vile quislings and traitors according to the UCMJ?
OT; I thought spying on congressmen was a big deal with Republicans. Apparently Trump’s DOJ is spying on Congressional Democrats research history. How did they get the information about each of their search histories and what they searched? Looks like they are just fine with spying on Congressmen. So it seems Biden or Obama were legally “spying” on congressmen. Interesting.
Key word: Apparently. He’s guessing, is what he’s saying.
Source: Trust me bro!
“Everyone knows…” X is a looney.
” I thought spying on congressmen was a big deal with Republicans.”
Xlax, it is. Do you realize the data under discussion at the DOJ are audit logs, so any expectation that what a comment reviews isn’t under observation is wrong.
S. Meyer, audit logs? Nice try, since when does the DOJ “audits” congressmen’s search histories without notice?
Bondi seems to be fine with spying on Congressmen as long as it benefits Trump’s DOJ.
The “data under discussion” is literally Congressmen’s search histories and the links they opened without a warrant or any other justification. Clearly they did what Republicans have always been complaining past DOJs have done. Quite the hypocrisy indeed.
Still missing sufficient facts to evaluate your claim. Further what facts we have came from SM not you.
I am GUESSING that What you and SM are refering to is the records that DOJ must by law keep when ANYONE reviews classified information in a SCIF.
Spying is when conduct is sereptitiously observed, Not when it is done openly.
DOJ is perfectly free to read the congressional records, or review Youtube videos of congressional hearings.
Or any other open conduct that is openly documented.
John Say,
“ I am GUESSING that What you and SM are refering to is the records that DOJ must by law keep when ANYONE reviews classified information in a SCIF.”
Keeping records of WHO was allowed to view classified documents. Not recording what they were looking and what links they opened.
“ DOJ is perfectly free to read the congressional records, or review Youtube videos of congressional hearings.
Or any other open conduct that is openly documented.”
Congressional records are one thing. The Epstein files are not Congressional records. Being in a SCIF is not open conduct.
Again recording what they saw and using it as a personal crib sheet for Bondi to use is not what the recording is for.
Bondi was terrible and unprofessional. She conducted herself like a teenager lashing out because she got caught breaking the rules.
X is referring to when congressmen were allowed, as a courtesy, to examine classified files. A log is always kept, not just of who came in, but of which documents each person looked at. They need that information in case there’s a leak, so they know who looked at that document. That’s all.
There was no spying on Congressmen’s internet activity! Of course there is no internet activity in a SCIF.
X
Unfortunately, as a paid up and fully subscribed member of the MAGA cult, S. Meyer engages in semantic relativism, whereby the meaning of words is completely fluid and entirely contingent on his prejudices and those of the cult. It is a form of linguistic intergroup bias in which words have different meanings depending on whether the speaker is conversing with a member of the in-group or the out-group. This has the effect of rendering any rational conversation impossible, which is the real goal of Meyer’s responses.
We see this here, where Meyer attempts to redefine “audit logs” to suit his prejudices.
He also attempted to redefine “antisemitism” in another thread where it was pointed out that Bondi accused Rep. Becca Balint of antisemitism at the hearing yesterday. Balint is Jewish and her grandfather died in the Holocaust. Bondi explicitly used the word “anti-Semitic” in her attack, but Meyer used his special in-group MAGA dictionary to redefine that word such that it does not mean what it plainly means to those of us who live in the real world.
Xlax, I guess you aren’t sufficiently embarrassed. Your lack of knowledge is astounding, and your error rate per idea is only surpassed by Gigi/ Natacha/ Anonymous. The words I used, audit logs, are not semantic relativism but rather the actual term used for security reasons when anyone reviews classified material in a SKIF. It is you who makes up words, not the DOJ.
“He also attempted to redefine “antisemitism” in another thread…”
You are a liar. I didn’t define antisemitism. Instead, I explained why Bondi wasn’t being antisemitic, and Balint acted in a duplicitous manner. Jews, as well as others, can be antisemitic. You likely are, but don’t know it because you don’t know the meaning of the word. George Soros is Jewish, and his actions toward Jews was reprehensible. Look up his 60 Minute interview. He has no remorse. I believe that interview was removed from the net at one time because his actions were so disgraceful, but last I looked, it can be accessed.
,
So you are confirming for us that in your worldview, that of the MAGA cult, the word “antisemitiscm” has no fixed meaning. It means whatever you want it to mean at any given moment, in any given circumstance. This is classic semantic relativism.
I will keep this in mind when you again use one of your standard insults accusing someone of antisemitiscm. By your reckoning, such an insult has absolutely no meaning whatsoever. But that pretty much describes the sum total of all your contributions to this worthless blog. Your contributions have absolutely no meaning whatsoever.
You started at “stupid” and went downhill from there. The word antisemitism is defined by Merriam-Webster as: “hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group.” You should really get that dictionary I told you to get years ago.
What did Bondi say that was antisemitic? You can’t answer because you prefer to make up your own definitions. Based on Balint’s not voting to eliminate ‘from the river to the sea,’ is she antisemitic? I don’t know, but her vote and Bondi, demonstrating Balint’s duplicity, is not enough evidence to call Balint an antisemite.
If you feel that I started at “stupid” and went “downhill”, it’s because I’m trying to follow the breadcrumbs of your logic to their natural conclusion. It’s a long way down, I agree, but I’m committed to exploring this intellectual valley with you until we find a shred of coherence that we can actually use to move back up toward a more rational conversation.
Unfortunately, you are experiencing a common optical illusion. When you are standing still at the bottom, anyone moving toward you appears to be going “downhill”. In reality, I’m just trying to close the gap so we don’t have to shout across such a vast intellectual divide.
The truth is simple: You made up an accusation, out of whole cloth, that Bondi’s remarks were antisemitic.
Even if she had accused Balint of antisemitism (which she didn’t, quite) THAT WOULD NOT BE ANTISEMITIC. It would be a reasonable conclusion from her actions. And that would be true even if Balint were Jewish, which she is not.
Xlax, pretty words are not a substitute for intelligence. Keep them flowing, and you will remain with a dunce cap on your head.
Use the definition of antisemitism from Merriam-Webster, and match it to the discussion. That is your pathway from foolishness to normality.
I’m sure you find my “pretty words” intimidating, but don’t worry—without any intelligence to obstruct them, they will just bounce around in your empty skull like a screensaver until they eventually die of loneliness.
I understand why you would find a coherent sentence intimidating, but please don’t confuse your own lexical inadequacies with a lack of “intelligence” on my part. It must be exhausting viewing the entire English language as a personal attack on your intelligence.
I find it intriguing that you view my “pretty words” as a substitute for intelligence, rather than a symptom of it. But I suppose when your cognitive range is restricted to the back of a cereal box, anything with more than two syllables sounds like witchcraft. It’s not my fault you become confused every time I use an adverb. If my “pretty words” make you feel inadequate, perhaps that says less about my “intelligence” and more about your intellectual inadequacies.
It’s also charming that you view eloquence as a threat rather than a tool, but I suppose when you are struggling to grasp the basics, anything beyond a monosyllabic grunt feels like sorcery. While you’re busy glorifying your own intellectual bankruptcy as “intelligence”, the rest of us will continue to enjoy the fact that we can articulate a thought without sounding like a malfunctioning Chatbot. I don’t expect you to understand the utility of eloquence; after all, it’s hard to appreciate the finer points of a tool when you are essentially a semi-sentient rock.
It is clearly a defense mechanism to treat my “pretty words” as a distraction rather than admitting you lack the cognitive ability to process them. The structural failure in your logic is so profound that I’m surprised your sentences even manage to hold their own weight. You are essentially arguing that a pile of bricks is superior to a cathedral because it’s “simpler”. You have rebranded your lack of articulation as “intelligence”, which is a bit like claiming a pile of bricks is actually a “minimalist cathedral”.
I almost envy your simple-mindedness. It must be so peaceful to navigate the world without the burden of nuance or the fluency of a well-formed thought.
Intelligence may have been chasing you, but apparently you have proven to be much faster.
“I’m sure you find my “pretty words” intimidating”
No Xlax, I find it similar to a child dressing up in their parent’s clothes, pretending to sound important while tripping over every word.
“I find it intriguing that you view my “pretty words” as a substitute for intelligence, rather than a symptom of it.”
No, I find your writing stuck at a grade school level, with critical thinking skills that never made it past recess.
“It’s also charming that you view eloquence as a threat rather than a tool”
No, your “eloquence” is more like a $5,000 urinal; overpriced, cracked, and still full of waste.
It is truly a marvel of your cognitive dissonance that you have managed to mistake your own comprehension deficit for my lack of literary merit. Your assessment, while charmingly ambitious in its attempt to sound authoritative, suggests a tragic unfamiliarity with the nuances of subtext and structural integrity. It seems we are operating on two entirely different intellectual planes: I am crafting a narrative, and you are still struggling to navigate the preface.
I find it deeply ironic that you would critique my “critical thinking” skills while delivering a rebuttal that possesses all the intellectual depth of a suburban pothole. To suggest that my prose is “stuck at a grade school level” is an obvious projection, likely born from a desperate need to feel intellectually superior in a room where you are fundamentally outmatched. I’d offer to deconstruct the irony of your statement for you, but I fear the sheer volume of multisyllabic words would trigger a sensory overload for your clearly fragile sensibilities.
I appreciate the time you took to formulate such a vitriolic—albeit derivative—critique. It’s always enlightening to receive feedback from the “peanut gallery” of self-appointed intellectuals who think that cruelty is a valid substitute for insight. While you are busy dwelling on the playground of your own insecurities, I’ll continue to refine a craft that clearly eludes your grasp. I would suggest a remedial course in civility, but I suspect the “recess” you mentioned is the only place where your intellectual skills actually feel at home.
Your attempt to categorize my work within the confines of a primary school curriculum is a masterclass in unintentional comedy. It’s a bold strategy to insult someone’s writing while demonstrating a grasp of “critical thinking” that is rudimentary at best and performative at worst. It seems you’ve confused my clarity for simplicity—a common mistake for those who believe that convoluted arrogance is the same thing as sophistication. Rest assured, I’ll keep writing; and you will keep reading—maybe I should start providing something with more pictures if the current material is proving too strenuous.
There is a certain tragic whimsy in your attempt to litigate my writing skills with a statement that possesses the intellectual buoyancy of a lead balloon. If my writing feels like “grade school” to you, perhaps it is because I have mastered the art of accessibility, a concept that clearly remains an impenetrable fortress to your own rigid and rather uninspired mind. It must be exhausting to stand on the periphery of a conversation for which you lack the analytical tools to join. Truly, your feedback is less a critique of my talent and more an unintentional confession of your own inability to engage with text that doesn’t cater to your specific brand of insecurity.
It is rare to encounter a rebuttal so perfectly devoid of substantive merit, yet so bloated with unearned confidence. You’ve attempted to construct a narrative of my intellectual arrested development, but in doing so, you’ve merely highlighted your own pedagogical myopia. The irony, of course, is that while you’re busy diagnosing my “grade school” level, you’re utilizing a rhetorical strategy that is essentially the digital equivalent of sticking out your tongue. If you wish to challenge my capacity for critical thought, I suggest you bring a weapon more sophisticated than a blunted insult wrapped in the tattered remains of a superiority complex. You seem to be laboring under the delusion that vitriol is a synonym for discernment, and that a haughty tone can bridge the cavernous gap where your analytical rigor should be.
Your critique is a fascinating and vivid illustration of how a profound lack of insight can masquerade as discerning judgment. It is quite a feat to dismiss my “critical thinking” faculties while simultaneously failing to grasp the nuance and stylistic intentionality inherent in my writing.
I would suggest you return to the “recess” you so fondly remember; at least there, the stakes of your misplaced arrogance are limited to the sandbox.
Xlax, congratulations on putting together a noun and a verb and finding an adjective in a thesaurus, but you deserve even more for finding out how to use AI so that a few paltry words can be expanded into a giant, bloated mess.
As expected, you immediately recognized Artificial Intelligence.
It is the only form of intelligence with which you are familiar.
You fail in your response because you rely on rhetoric over reason. This demonstrates an inability to apply knowledge or facts and leaves you with nothing but fallacious reasoning.
Your attempt at philosophical profundity is pitiful.
You sound like an AI chatbot that was fed nothing but minimally moderated Reddit blogs and alpha male podcasts.
.I say what is logical and true; you, not so much
S. Meyer, Soros’s recent (in the last 20 years) activities have been hostile to Jewish interests. He has openly supported and funded antisemitic propaganda.
But the accusations you are referring to, about what he did in the War, are completely false. In the 60 minutes interview he simply DID NOT SAY what his enemies accuse him of having said. And it is disgraceful to falsely make such accusations against a survivor. If you doubt me, go listen to it again, but listen to what HE says, not the words that the interviewer tries to put in his mouth.
I have no time at all for Soros, or for his sons, but truth is truth and blood libels are blood libels.
“But the accusations you are referring to, about what he did in the War, are completely false.”
Millhouse, I listed no specific accusations, but “he simply DID NOT SAY what his enemies accuse him of having said” is a very loose set of accusations. Some say what is true, and some have exaggerated. I didn’t exaggerate or specify, but what he did was reprehensible, and he showed no remorse. Listen to 60 Minutes and then read what I wrote below.
“George Soros is Jewish, and his actions toward Jews was reprehensible. Look up his 60 Minute interview. He has no remorse.”
You are referring to disgraceful accusations that he collaborated with the Nazis. He did not, and in the interview he did not say that he did. He has nothing to be remorseful FOR in that regard. If you want to criticize him, stick to his activities in the last few decades; there’s plenty there to be upset about. But don’t sully the memory of the Holocaust victims by making false accusations like this.
I have listened to the Soros tape many times and read the transcript. You are accusing me of saying things I never said. There are at least two parts to what he said: the basic comment and not feeling guilt.
Try not to assume what another person is saying. If you wish to characterize Soros’ actions as laudable, go ahead; that is your choice, but you are wrong.
. The linguistics you speak of, anon, is what Ellison does and heard on audio commonly known as deniability. It’s kind of double talk. Eliison–> before you know it Somalis will pack suitcases with millions if dollars and fly to Somalia. He meant, this is what you do and it’s untraceable. He lied about it under oath during testimony. He’s a diamond hard criminal.
X, you are the one who tried to redefine antisemitism. You claimed that Bondi’s criticism of Balint was antisemitic, when that is obviously not true. There was nothing even slightly antisemitic about it.
She correctly accused Balint of not having a problem with antisemitism. She didn’t accuse her of actually being one herself, but I will accuse her of it. The fact that her grandfather was killed has nothing to do with it.
And Balint is NOT Jewish.
Xlax, I won’t explain further since John already did so and by now you should be sufficiently embarrassed.
Good job Mr Meyer
I think Xlax is pooped out after that, it’s become quite regular…🤣
Great name, Xlax. He is an Xlax abuser and has diarrhea of the mouth.
Oh, wow !!
A “poopy-head” joke. I see you’ve brought your finest second-grade material to the table. I’d try to engage with you, but I don’t have any crayons handy to help you understand my response. Truly, your wit is a towering monument to the preschool curriculum. Did you come up with that all by yourself, or did you have to trade a juice box for it during recess?
I haven’t heard a zinger like that since I was busy fighting over the blue crayon. If you promise to stop pouting and use your “indoor words”, maybe the teacher will let you have an extra Goldfish cracker at snack time.
Actually, I should probably be insulted, but it’s hard to take someone seriously when their primary debate strategy involves the verbal equivalent of a temper tantrum in the Target toy aisle.
Do you need a timeout, or just a hug and some string cheese?
Xlax, what is now coming out is artificial diarrhea.
X once again making a claim with no source, no evidence, no details. Nothing to even allow one to know what he is talking about .
If Trump’s DOJ is “spying on congressmen” without meeting the constitutional and legal requirements for doing so, then those doing so should be fired and prosecuted – as should those in the Biden and Obama DOJ.
But you have not provided actual evidence that is the case.
You make a claim that theTrump DOJ did so – provide no facts and gloss over the fact that whether such spying is illegl depends on whether the constitution and law were violated, Without more than a vague allegation how are we to kow that the spying occured much less that the law or constitution was violated ?
As usual John Say the Stupid flies off the handle with an opinion when he has no understanding of the facts.
In the House hearing yesterday, a photographer managed to capture the content of one of the many papers that Bondi was shuffling during her testimony. It was a printout of the search history of the unredacted document database of the Epstein files conducted by Rep. Jayapal. The paper was entitled “Jayapal Pramila Search History”.
Lawmakers were recently permitted to search the unredacted data base.
Apparently the DOJ was spying on their activities.
Clearly Bondi wanted to see what the Democrat members had looked at and planned to ask about in the hearing, giving her an opportunity to prepare responses.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bondi-epstein-files-search-history-hearing-pramila-jayapal/
Speaker Mike Johnson was questioned about this.
He said, “it would be inappropriate, if the DOJ looked through Rep. Pramila Jayapal’s search history”.
Now that you the facts, I presume you will be calling for Bondi to resign or be fired and prosecuted.
In light of your comment, “If Trump’s DOJ is “spying on congressmen” without meeting the constitutional and legal requirements for doing so, then those doing so should be fired and prosecuted”, the only rational response from you would be to demand that Bondi be removed from office and prosecuted.
Love it
combative congressional hearing Wednesday with what appeared to be a list of the lawmaker’s searches.
What appears to be.
Lawmakers were recently permitted to search the unredacted data base.
Yes, as a courtesy.
Apparently the DOJ was spying on their activities.
Logging, not “spying”. They had no expectation of privacy, and certainly no right to privacy, when enjoying the FAVOR of being allowed access to classified documents to which they have no right. DOJ is entitled to ensure that they don’t abuse the favor.
Xlax
Ummmmmm most likely from a public records search from their public computers on their public servers….unless of course they got on their restricted servers kept in their bathroom.
No, exactly the opposite. It was a closed computer in a secure facility, and DOJ was logging who accessed which documents, because that’s what is supposed to happen.
As usual, X lies and lies and lies.
Congressmen were allowed, as a courtesy, to come in to the DOJ offices and search through the unredacted Epstein files, which are secret and publication is illegal. DOJ doesn’t have to let them in, but it has chosen to be nice and do so. Naturally they have to track and log such searches, so they can try to ensure that secret information is not leaked. If something is leaked they have to know who accessed that file, so they can prosecute that person — Congressman or not. There’s nothing wrong with this. Democrat Congressmen cannot be trusted to obey the law, so they can’t just be left alone to do whatever they want, without monitoring!
This is very different from spying on a Congressman’s communications, or private papers, which is what the Biden administration did.
Let us bottom line this whole discussion. Anyone who enters this country illegally or overstays their visa is here illegally. BY LAW the US government is authorized to remove them. That process involves court appearance with representation.
If that process has been followed what possible reason could there be for any court to block removal?
Perhaps one of you geniuses could explain that.
How do federal district courts have jurisdiction to hear what are essentially immigration cases?
There may absolutely be legitimate, case-specific reasons for judicial review even when someone entered unlawfully. Congress created asylum, trafficking protections, and other forms of relief for a reason. Those claims should be evaluated individually and as efficiently as possible.
The separate question is whether one district judge, based on one case, should halt enforcement nationwide. That is a structural issue about judicial scope, not about whether individuals deserve due process.
Case-by-case review makes sense. System-wide injunctions are a different constitutional debate.
May… should … question … not about … makes sense? So in actual fact, you’re fictionalizing aka suppositions… guessing. Get back to us when you have something relevant to add.
You should write novels instead. Constitutional law is not your domain.
Gotta ask, do you have on your resume that your a commenter on Turley’s blog?
Olly, isn’t that what they are doing now, case by case reviews? That is what is overwhelming the courts now and why AUSA’s are quitting en masse over the overwhelming case loads. It’s also the reason why DHS is disobeying court orders to release detainees because they have rights to bond hearings.
The TPS issue may not be “nationwide” because it applies to a specific group instead or…it may be that it applies only to the circuit of which the court is in. Either way there is still a lot of “territory” a district court’s ruling can apply to.
From a citizen’s perspective, it seems like removals are already handled case by case, and the backlog and strain on the courts are very real. That’s a capacity problem inside the system. But due process requirements don’t disappear just because the caseload is heavy.
A bond hearing for an individual detainee is different from a district judge halting enforcement nationwide. One addresses a specific statutory right in a specific case. The other raises structural questions about how far a single district court’s authority should reach.
On TPS, because it is created by statute and applies to a defined group nationwide, any ruling about it will naturally have broader effects. That’s different from a judge independently expanding relief beyond what the statute itself contemplates.
Olly,
“But due process requirements don’t disappear just because the caseload is heavy.”
True, BUUUUT, Trump’s DOJ is using that as an excuse to skirt due process and ignore court orders. That is why AUSA’s are either quitting or trying to comply with court orders while DHS throws them under the bus by deliberately ignoring court orders.
That’s a strong accusation. Back it up.
Olly,
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/10/ice-immigration-detention-court-orders-00771727
This has been going on for a while. MAGA’s don’t like to admit it and choose to pivot from that conversation because it’s an inconvenient truth about how ICE and DHS have been flouting court orders and the law. The AUSA’s have been overburdened with these cases and many have quit because they KNOW DHS is acting lawlessly and intentionally defying court orders.
X you have it backwards – left wing nut judges have issued myriads of unlawful orders that have been obey when that was actually physically possible – a judge can not order anyone to change the past, Those lawless orders have been appeal and nearly always won on first appeal, but on rare occaision have had to go to the Supreme court to be reversed
Please name a court order – lawful or not, that was possible to obey that has not been obeyed until it was stayed ?
Absolutely left wing nut judges are deliberately trying to unlawfully overburdern AUSAs.
Most of these cases are Habeuas cases. There is NO burden on DOJ at all in a habeaus case – they are the defendant,
The judge can not order them to do anything. the party with the burden is the plantiff the illegal alein.
And again Habeaus is actually a CIVIL law claim with very limited scope. The due process requirements are CIVIL and there are no actual rights being infringed on.
Due process is the constitutional requirement that government comply with the constitution and the law before it can infringe on an individuals rights. There are no rights being infringed on. This is not a criminal case it is civil. There is no presumption of innocence,
And the legal burden is on the plantiff – the illegal immigrant.
There is less constitutionally required due process than a traffic ticket requires.
John Say,
“Absolutely left wing nut judges are deliberately trying to unlawfully overburdern AUSAs.”
And your proof of this is..?
“Please name a court order – lawful or not, that was possible to obey that has not been obeyed until it was stayed ?”
There are hundreds.
“How ICE defies judges’ orders to release detainees, step by step”
“In a particularly dramatic case, ICE detained a 19-year-old woman on Jan. 14 — the night she witnessed an alleged assault on a federal agent that resulted in an agent shooting a man in the leg — and quickly transported her to Texas and then New Mexico, frustrating her attorney’s attempt to file a habeas petition in Minnesota. Her attorney then raced to file petitions in her other two known locations to ensure they were lodged before she could be deported. ICE moved her despite a Minnesota judge’s order to bar her deportation because of her potential testimony in the criminal case.
The saga ended late Thursday when a federal judge in New Mexico — who had already deemed the Trump administration’s mass detention practices illegal in other cases — ordered the woman’s immediate return to Minnesota and release from custody. The reason: Her 1-year-old son, whom she was separated from while in detention, was badly burned and required emergency surgery.”
“In another recent case, the Trump administration told a judge that a man seeking release from custody had been deported — when in fact he had not. Because of the administration’s representation, U.S. District Judge Kyle Dudek, a Florida-based Trump appointee, tossed his habeas case, saying it was moot.
“There is no live controversy left to adjudicate, and the Court is powerless to grant relief for a detention that has already ended,” Dudek wrote.
But on Thursday, Dudek rescinded his ruling.
“The Court dismissed this habeas action as moot on the representation that Petitioner was deported. That fact turned out to be untrue,” he wrote.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/10/ice-immigration-detention-court-orders-00771727
These are a few detailed descriptions of how ICE violates detainees rights and defies court orders.
It’s not just “left wint-nut judges” also judges on the right. ICE has been systematically moving people around to avoid orders and keep detainees from consulting their lawyers.
“ U.S. District Judge Harvey Bartle III, a George H.W. Bush appointee in Pennsylvania, who wrote most animatedly.
“These petitions are filed due to the illegal actions of Immigration and Customs Enforcement,” he wrote. “Despite hundreds of similar rulings in this and other courts resoundingly in favor of the ICE-detainee petitioners, ICE continues to act contrary to law, to spend taxpayer money needlessly, and to waste the scarce resources of the judiciary.”
It’s not limited to left win but judges John even conservative judges are aware of how ICE is violating people’s rights and breaking the law.
“In another recent case, the Trump administration told a judge that a man seeking release from custody had been deported — when in fact he had not. Because of the administration’s representation, U.S. District Judge Kyle Dudek, a Florida-based Trump appointee, tossed his habeas case, saying it was moot.
“There is no live controversy left to adjudicate, and the Court is powerless to grant relief for a detention that has already ended,” Dudek wrote.
But on Thursday, Dudek rescinded his ruling.
“The Court dismissed this habeas action as moot on the representation that Petitioner was deported. That fact turned out to be untrue,” he wrote.”
Again SO ?
Nothing lawless.
You are not entitled to perfection.
The error rate for ICE under trump is less than 1/3 that of ICE under Obama.
But mistakes happen
ICE makes far far fare fewer mistakes then any other LEOs.
But they are not perfect.
Franklin’s adage is better that 10 guilty go free than 0ne innocent person is imprisoned.
It is NOT better that ALL guilty people go free.
WE want mistakes minimized. But they will happen.
Regardless AGAIN the law was follower.
Because of the error it took LONGER to deport this person – he BENEFITTED from the error.
John Say, they are not mistakes. They are deliberate intentional actions meant to ignore court orders because Trump wants to bypass the slow process of the law illegally.
The law isn’t being followed. There are literally hundreds of “mistakes” made by DHS. It’s lawless when judges are seeing that these acts are deliberate.
“These are a few detailed descriptions of how ICE violates detainees rights and defies court orders.”
Yet nothing you cited supports EITHER claim.
In ALL instances the orders – even illegal orders of judges were followed.
In no instance was anyones rights violated.
John Say, you’re a poor liar. Everything I cited supported my claim. It’s notable that you’re not able to refute the facts. You choose to pivot and deny.
“ U.S. District Judge Harvey Bartle III, a George H.W. Bush appointee in Pennsylvania, who wrote most animatedly.
“These petitions are filed due to the illegal actions of Immigration and Customs Enforcement,” he wrote. “Despite hundreds of similar rulings in this and other courts resoundingly in favor of the ICE-detainee petitioners, ICE continues to act contrary to law, to spend taxpayer money needlessly, and to waste the scarce resources of the judiciary.”
It is absolutely correct that many judges have said FALSE things like this.
Yet though this nonsense has bought a TINY fraction of deportees more time.
It has not changed the FACT that they are unlawfully in the US, Deporting them is lawful,
And the supreme court to this day has NEVER found any of these absurd claims by these wing nut judges to be true.
In most cases they are b***h slapped by appeals courts before the cases get to the supreme court.
You and these judges are on the wrong side of the law and the constitution.
Habeaus petitions ARE a claim that someone is being illegally detained. But Habeaus for illegal aliens has ALREADY been limited by SCOTUS to ARE YOU the person named in the deportation order.
That is the only jurisdiction that a federal court has in a Habeus case for an illegal immigrant.
Title 8 not only allows, it requires the deportation of an illegal alien.
MOST of those deported by Trump are deported using Deportation orders – that means that the illegal alien has already had their day in fort and the Article III courts have ZERO jurisdiction over the FACTS, and issue of LAW are all settled.
The only issue left for a habeaus claim is “I am NOT the person named in the deportation order” and the burden of proof is on the deportee. the DOJ attorny has NO burden of proof and really is not legitimately subject to any order from the judge unless the Deportee PROVES they are not the person named.
If ICE tires to deport an illegal alien and by some mistake or miracle they are NOT the person named in the deportation order, theeyn they will win their habeaus hearing. But so long as there is probable cause thety are an illegal alien they will continue to be detained until a new deportation order is issued. They will get an article II deportation hearing where they and their lawyers can make whatever arguments they want to Article II INS judges. If they miraculous win that – THEN they are released.
“It’s not limited to left win but judges John even conservative judges are aware of how ICE is violating people’s rights and breaking the law.”
No it is limited to left wing judges. Being appointed by one of the Bushed does not make you conservative.
“Please name a court order – lawful or not, that was possible to obey that has not been obeyed until it was stayed ?”
There are hundreds.
Can you name one ?
“In a particularly dramatic case, ICE detained a 19-year-old woman on Jan. 14 — the night she witnessed an alleged assault on a federal agent that resulted in an agent shooting a man in the leg — and quickly transported her to Texas and then New Mexico, frustrating her attorney’s attempt to file a habeas petition in Minnesota. Her attorney then raced to file petitions in her other two known locations to ensure they were lodged before she could be deported. ICE moved her despite a Minnesota judge’s order to bar her deportation because of her potential testimony in the criminal case.
The saga ended late Thursday when a federal judge in New Mexico — who had already deemed the Trump administration’s mass detention practices illegal in other cases — ordered the woman’s immediate return to Minnesota and release from custody. The reason: Her 1-year-old son, whom she was separated from while in detention, was badly burned and required emergency surgery.”
So ? You have nothing here. ICE detained an illegal immigrant. Moved her to NM, where an idiot judge who had already issued stupid order, told Trump to return her to MN which SCOTUS has already said judges can not do.
All you are doing is proving MY case.
US code Title 8 is the law and prcoess for deportation – Please cite anywhere where the judges involved here claimed that was not being followed ?
The judiciary’s authority over the deportation process is limited to constitutional and statutory review.
Deportation is constitutional.
Deportation of illegal immigrants is statutorial required.
YOu have AGAIN cited a judge way over his skis, A federal apelate court has ALREADY invalidated judical orders to realease illegal immigrant. They are NOT entitled to a bond hearing much less bond. They are not being CRIMINALLY detained.
They can be released from custody AT ANY TIME – to GO HOME.
They can NOT lawfully be released back into the US.
The norm when a person is arrested by ICE is that they are immediately transported to a larger detention center.
Most of these are located near the border and they have been for decades.
ICE does not have large detenion centers throughout th country
John Say,
“Due process is the constitutional requirement that government comply with the constitution and the law before it can infringe on an individuals rights. There are no rights being infringed on. This is not a criminal case it is civil. There is no presumption of innocence,
And the legal burden is on the plantiff – the illegal immigrant.”
The government is required to comply with the law. Which they are NOT following when they deliberately ignore court orders finding the government did not follow the law and intentionally removes detainees to other states before they can contest their detention. That act alone is a violation of their due process rights and yes the do indeed have rights while in U.S. custody. This is not about presumption of innocence. It’s about the government denying them any fair chance to contest their detentions by removing them outside court jurisdictions before judges can issue a ruling and deliberately lie to judges about detainees status or whereabouts. It’s deliberately designed to frustrate the courts and their ability ensure detainees due process rights are denied to ensure speedy removals.
The Trump administration doesn’t want to go through the laborious and tedious process of ensuring due process is carried out. So they deliberately ignore court orders under the pretense of not being aware such orders or courts have determined detainees cannot be moved or deported. AUSA’s know this and this is why many have quit or refuse to do this kind of work. It’s the Trump administration who are causing all these problems. You want to blame the judges which makes no sense because they are not in charge of who files the habeas cases. The defendants so thanks to Supreme Court’s recent ruling that these cases must be heard individually so now they are inundated with all these cases when they could have done a district-wide or nation wide injunction.
Soyou cite a bunch of caes where judges issued orders that SCOTUS or appelate courts have already ruled unlawful and unconstitutional – and despite that The Trump admin did what the lawless judge ordered and that is some how in you left wing nut brain evidence of refusing to follow a judges orders ?
The only question is when will these judges be removed.
About 90% of the time someone is arrested by ICE they are moved to a much larger detention center close to the border,
Because 90% of ICE’s detention capacity is in border states, because no one wants a detention center in their back yard.
None of this is unique to Trump. It has been that way for decades. It is a direct consequence of Congress failing to fund more detention center beds, and the construction of the largest fascilities in TX, AZ and NM.
There is nothing nefarious.
But lets assume you left wing nut judge is correct and ICE was rushing her out of MN – that is perfectly legal.
An illegal alien has NO LEGAL RESIDENCE in the US, she has no right to be in MN or any other part of the US,
Judicial jurisdiction over her is in whatever detention center she lands in
And SCOTUS has already ruled on this.
The NM judges order to send her to NM was illegal and violated existing supreme court precident.
Federal judges do not have the authority to transfer detainees wherever they please.
I beleive the 5th circuit court of appels has already determined that Federal judges have no authority to release illegal immigrants. They are in the US illegally – they have no right to be in the US that is being infringed on.
ICE MUST release them immediately to their HOME if they decide not to keep fighting to illegally stay in the US.
But they have no right to stay in the US.
I would further not congress has been working on details of title 8 for Decades.
While the laws these judges are violating are more than a decade old, they were actually specifically altered to close the loopholes that thes idiot judges are pretending still exist.
Congress has spoken – the most recent changes were during the Obama administration. So blame democrats.
Trump is deporting people twice as fast as Obama did – but not 10 times as fast.
Trump’s PROCESS is SLIGHTLY different – less raids on workplaces and more arressts of SPECIFIC illegal aliens using deportation orders.
Further when a deportation order exists The ONLY legal step available to an illegal to avoid deportation is a Habeaus appeal.
I would further note – the people you call HER LAWYERS are not HER LAWYERS unless SHE retained them.
Typically those arrested are taken straight to the airport, put on a plane and sent to a detention center. THERE they are given an opportuity to contance any lawyer they want and provided with a list of those that will take their case pro bono.
There is still some variation between Jurisdiction – I beleive in TX the deportee has 48 hours to request a Habeaus hearing and if they do not – they get deported. If they ask for a hearing – that is scheduled within 14 days and then they are deported, because virtually no one wins a habeaus hearing – unless they get a lawless judge – like the ones you point out.
In OTHER jurisdictions – the amount of time allowed may be greater – I beleive in MD it is 30days and then 90 days.
Which is why few are detained in MD and the MD fascility quickly gets filled to capacity and the stays are close to 120 days.
In TX they have many more bed, and the process from start to finish takes far less time, and therefore bed are opening every day and people are put on planes.
SCOTUS has ruled that illegal immigrants must have the oportunity to file a habeaus claim
And they have said the time frame can not be drawn out, But they have not ruled on specific rules so different circuits hve different rules. Because the fastest circuits also have the greatest capacity and have more new capacity opening every day,
That is where most detainees go.
Trump might deliberately want that. But even if he did not -it is how things would happen,
because those arrested will ALWAYS be transported to where there are free beds.
John Say,
“ Soyou cite a bunch of caes where judges issued orders that SCOTUS or appelate courts have already ruled unlawful and unconstitutional – and despite that The Trump admin did what the lawless judge ordered and that is some how in you left wing nut brain evidence of refusing to follow a judges orders ?”
Again you’re conflating two different things. Judges are not issuing illegal orders. Not when due process is being violated. The examples I cited deal exactly exactly you want to deny is happening. Your attempt to conflate two different issues shows us you don’t want to admit the truth.
“The government is required to comply with the law.”
Correct.
“Which they are NOT following ”
Incorrect.
You are manufacturing a NEW loophole to create a nationwide injunction out of the stupid rullings of a handful of left wing not judges who are always overurned in short order.
The only cases that apply across the country are SCOTUS cases, and in the past year SCOTUS has never found the Trump immigration enforcement illegal. In a tiny number of cases they have tweeked details – and Trump is complying with those Tweaks.
I am not currently aware of a single appelate court in the US that has found Trumps actions to be illegal or unconstitutional.
That means there is not a single circuit in the US that has found Trump’s actions illegal or unconstitutional that was not overturned by SCOTUS.
You have a handful of judges who have ruled trumps actions illegal in “a hundred or so cases”
Those rulings ONLY apply to the specific cases, they do not apply nationwide, they do not apply circuit wide and they will all be overturned on appeal and only morons like you beleive otherswise.
980,999 people were constitutionally and legally deported last year.
Left wing nut judges STOPPED a bit over 100. – almost every one of withich will be deoprted as soon as the appeals courts b***h slap them.
In the cases you cite where you mention a specific issue – such as bond or release from detention – several appeals courts have already ruled – there is no right to bond or release into the US for anyone in the US illegally.
But they are free to demand instant release out of the US.
“when they deliberately ignore court orders finding the government did not follow the law”
You have not cited an instance that has happened.
“intentionally removes detainees to other states before they can contest their detention.”
SCOTUS already addressed this – detainees have the right to file a habeaus claim in the location they are detained.
NOT the location they are arrested.
Generally they are removed to locations near the border within ours -because nowhere else has the capacity for them.
I would note – this is also the case for Citizen Criminals. If you are arrested in MD, and transfered to a federal prison in LA,
You must file a habeaus petition in the jurisdiction you are imprisoned.
I would further note Habeuas is the writ of last resort. You do not typically get to file a habeaus claim until all other legal remedies are exhausted.
If you comit a crime in MD you are jailed in MD, tried in MD, sentenced in MD and THEN transfered to prison by DOC – the prison of THEIR choice. THAT is when you get to file a habeuas petition.
In THESE immigration cases the hearing has already taken place a deportation order issued, and you are picked up and transfered to a fasicilty for immediate deportation. You are entitled to a habeus claim but under the ruled of the jurisdiction you are detained in -just like criminals in prison. MN does not have jurisdiction over you because you were arrested in MN.
You are an illegal alien, you have NO legal place of residence in the US. There is no jurisdiction that has jurisdiction over you.
Now I suspect that the article II deportation hearing MUST take place in the jurisdiction you reside – just liek a criminal trial, but that is still and article II process not an article III one. It is my guess that the huge backlog of deportation orders – I believe curently 4M is because the illegal alien did NOT show up for the deportation hearing and therefore lost.
If they had wanted to attempt to remain local THAT was the time. They could have showed up with lawyers for the deportation hearing and when they lost immediately filed for Habeuas and THEN the jurisiction would have been MN.
Nut if you make ICE arrest you – they are sending you where theyhave beds.
Nothing is new. The same occured under Obama.
“That act alone is a violation of their due process rights”
Nope
“yes the do indeed have rights while in U.S. custody.”
Correct – they have the right to a habeaus hearing in the jurisdiction they are detained in – theis was one of the earliest Trump cases. Left wing nuts claimed it was a win because Trump was arguing that there was no right to a habeaus proceexding.
He won the jurisdiction issue – Judges from places other than where the illegal is detained have no jurisdiction.
Again – SOCTUS decided issue.
The facts in the Boasburg case are much the same. SCOTUS told Boasberg he had no jurisdiction.
They told DOJ that even TdA members who can be deported without a deportation order, are still entitled to a habeuaus herein in the circuit they are detained in.
” This is not about presumption of innocence. It’s about the government denying them any fair chance to contest their detentions by removing them outside court jurisdictions before judges can issue a ruling and deliberately lie to judges about detainees status or whereabouts. It’s deliberately designed to frustrate the courts and their ability ensure detainees due process rights are denied to ensure speedy removals.”
Regarless of your rant – SCOTUS has already ruled on this.
There is a right to a habeus hearing IN THE PLACE YOU ARE DETAINED. Not the place you were wandering arrond illegally.
Yes there are still judges ignoring that. And they lose on appeal.
All you are doing is proving the judges are lawless.
Not Trump.
“The Trump administration doesn’t want to go through the laborious and tedious process of ensuring due process is carried out.”
False – SCOTUS has again already ruled – habeaus for illegal aliens is SIMPLE – arfe you the person named in the deportation order. 15 minute hearin in chambers, burdern of proof on the illegal.
Absent a numnutz left wing nut going outside of his jurisdiction. DOJ will win probablly 99.99% of the time and all they have to do is show up. The burden of proof is on th plantiff – the illegal alien.
This is true of ALL habeuas hearings.
Yes the Trump adiministration is ACTIVELY avoiding i9diot judges who do not follow the law.
Or recent SCOTUS decisions.
“So they deliberately ignore court orders”
Again they have obey even the idiot left wing nut judges orders.
You are STILL trying to manufacture a nationwide injunction from a single case.
These left wing nut judges DO not have jurisdicxtion over anyone except the specific illegal brought before them
AGAIN SCOTUS has already ruled on this – more than 6 months ago.
In a habeaus case the judge can rant and rave falsely about illegal conduct in th CASE BEFORE THEM,
and they can issue stupid and lawless orders regarding the CASE BEFORE them
They can claim that everything ICE is doing is illegal – they can order ICE to stop – but the order is completely invalid.
In a habeaus case they only have jurisdiction over a SINGLE person, and there valid orders are limited to that person.
Boasberg tried to manufacture a class action habeaus case to circumvent this – SCOTUS laughed.
Habeus jurisdiction is limited to A SINGLE person and a SINGLE issue – are they the person in the deportation order.
ANYTHING beyond that is not an actual order – as the judge has no jurisdiction.
“under the pretense of not being aware such orders”
The trump administration is well awre of illegal judicial orders by judges exeeding the jurisdiction.
SCOTUS has already shut that down.
As Mark Kelley said – government employees do not have to obey and illegal order.
Though i would note – in most cases these judges improperly FOUND that ICE was behaving illegally – few of evern these stupid judges have actually ORDERED ICE to stop. They KNOW they do not have jurisdiction.
If a bat$hit xraxy judge orders an illegal released and then filles the order will lots of claims that are NOT orders saying ICE is behaving illegally – those claims are just rantings not orders.
ICE may not appeal – they will just get a new deportation order and startt over again.
If th judge ACTUALLY orders ICE to stop something beyond the individual before them, then ICE will immediately appeal and the order will be stayed within hours and the illegal will be deported.
“courts have determined detainees cannot be moved or deported.”
They can order that WHEN they have jurisdiction – but in most of these cases they do not.
If they do order that – the order is obeyed until appealed and then the order gets rveresed – usually in a few days.
“AUSA’s know this”
Back to mind reading.
Yes DOJ is using habeaus cases as a sort of stupidity test for AUSA’s – they can do the job – properly arguing tje actual law infrront of left wing nuts. Or they can be fired for case, or resign.
Trump is actively trying to get rid of federal employees who confuse their ideology with the law – 30,000 gone last month.
Only idiots like you are crying over the loss of these people.
“this is why many have quit or refuse to do this kind of work.”
And get fired.
“It’s the Trump administration who are causing all these problems.”
New argument
Trump is following the law – it is the lawless that cause the problems.
” You want to blame the judges which makes no sense because they are not in charge of who files the habeas cases.”
Correct, but they are obligated not to accept cases from people who do not represent to person, and to not accept cases they have no jurisdiction over.
A detainee gets ON habeuas claim filed in the district they are detained in NOT the district they are arrested in not the district they cklaim to illegally reside in.
SCOTUS settled this with the Boasberg TdA case more than 6 months ago – keep up.
Lots of lawyers are CLAIMING to represent people before they have had any contact with that person.
BTW this also was decided by SCOTUS recently in a case that was not about immigration.
You can not go to court and claim to represent someone until THEY pick YOU.
If you can not prove they retained you – you are not their lawyer.
Now If you are illegal and you are worried about ICE – you can retain a lawyer BEFORE the arrest you,
And if that lawyer manages to get to a judge in the few hours between arrest and transport out of state – then and only then does the MN judge have jurisdiction and they can legitimate order the person detained in MN – but not if they do not issue the order before they are outside of his jurisdiction. But once the place is wheels up – you can still represent them – but not IN MN.
There is no requirement that ICE detain someone where they were picked up.
“The defendants so thanks to Supreme Court’s recent ruling”
Coprrect – that was a TRUMP vistory. Boasberg wanted a habeaus class action in DC – he lost.
“that these cases must be heard individually”
Yup, takes about 15 minutes “Do you have proof you are not the person on the deportation order ?”
“No ? – here is your ticket and the plane is just outside, free trip back to your home NOW”
“now they are inundated with all these cases”
But they are not – a REAL habeaus case for an illegal immigrant is trivial – DOJ does not have to do anything but show up.
The burden of proof is on the illegal, and the scope is “Are you the person on the deportation order”
SCOTUS has spoken.
“when they could have done a district-wide or nation wide injunction.”
No they can not. The answer to the question “Are you the person named in the order?” is unique for every single deportee.
Each order is for different person – at the deportation hearing when the order was created indivisualized proof – name, dob, finger prints, DNA or facila recognition was used to identify the deportee.
At a habeaus heaaring each deporte must disporve that identifying information for them.
A class action or group habeuas claim is legal nonsense and has been since the magna carte.
Habeaus is an INDIVIDUAL right.
While these cases are easy for DOJ – the burden is on the illegal.
And they do not last long at all absent a left wing nut judge who goes off the rails,
they still must be held individually – in the jurisdictin where the person was detained.
You do not get to just make up the law and constitution to suit your ideas of convenience.
That is not how the law works.
Olly,
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ncwd.121898/gov.uscourts.ncwd.121898.24.0.pdf
Folks, this guy is plagiarizing the MSM. Saw the same content on Fox News yesterday.
Cite it or move on.
Wow, tell me you don’t know what you’re talking about without actually telling me. I love reading your nonsense.
The Judges are doing nationwide injunctions/refusals despite the Supreme Court telling them they cannot. A foundation of common law is that relief may only be granted to the person in front of the judge. No one else is eligible. JT has actually done articles on that and it’s something learned the first half of 1L year in law school.
“AUSA’s quitting en masse.” What a lark. I have a friend who quit, not because of Trump or the caseload, but because there was a review of anyone less than 2 years in (probation) and he fit that bill. He just didn’t want to wonder if he would stay. He loved his boss, the light caseload, and all the resources that AUSAs have access to.
So, he went to the State’s AG office. Others he worked with went private or went in the County Prosecutors office. The AUSA’s offices have been a political dumpster fire since Obama started to restructure them 18 years ago. I know some who’re just waiting out the clock now but have been miserable since then (long before Trump part 1). And yet none I’ve spoken with or worked with have ever complained about the workload. I know County Prosecutors with 10x the workload and less resources (I live in a major city so that shouldn’t be a surprise).
And those ninys who quit in Minnesota or NY in “protest”? They were all never Trumpers and made that vocally clear. It wasn’t workload. It was Orange Man Bad. Being political will likely help them land on their feet in private practice. If they go private, you know it was all political theatre.
AUSA’s, often like Judges, think they can pick and choose what directives to follow and what to ignore. Doesn’t work that way. You have prosecutorial discretion, not assignment discretion.
Trump’s DOJ is having trouble getting AUSA’s. They’ve gotten to the point where they are “volunteering” JAG’s. Military attorneys. Because the career AUSA’s know what the administration is doing is unlawful or impossible.
“They’ve gotten to the point where they are “volunteering” JAG’s.” Sorry George, as judges, not lawyers. Is there ever a remark out of your mouth that isn’t a lie?
But hey, what’s a big fat lie among felloe commenters.
Military lawyers (JAGs) are being used as temporary immigration judges, not as immigration lawyers in the traditional sense. Starting in 2025, the Trump administration began authorizing hundreds of JAG officers to serve in this role to address a massive backlog of immigration cases—now nearing 4 million.
Source: https://www.npr.org/2025/09/02/g-s1-86691/military-lawyers-immigration-judges-jag. Imagine that, NPR as a source.
Or that the DOJ is fast to get rid of the illegals? Makes for great stats for the midterm.
Anonymous,
Nope, that’s not what I’m referring to.
“Twenty Judge Advocate General (JAG) attorneys, part of the legal branch of the U.S. military, have been assigned to prosecute civilian cases in Washington, D.C., as the Trump administration continues its crackdown on crime.
A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the nation’s capital confirmed to Fox News Digital that the military lawyers will prosecute misdemeanor crimes. ”
https://www.foxnews.com/us/trump-admin-assigns-military-attorneys-prosecute-dc-crimes-amid-federal-crackdown.amp
The Jan jobs numbers came in WAY better than expected. 172,000 new jobs – but only a 140,000 net gain – why ? there was a decline of 30,000 in government employement. We are allready saving 39B/yr from a reduction in Government.
People in nonproductive government jobs are being returned to productive private sector jobs.
That is a big boost for the economy, That is a reduction in government spending AND an increase in GDP.
As to the rest of what you claim.
This is all Habeaus claims – the burden of proof is on the plantiff, the illegal immigratn.
The AUSA just needs to sit there.
When you hear that a Judge has ordered an AUSA at a habeuas hearing to do anything – you KNOW the judge is way out over their skis. There is no legal burden on the defendant in a civil case, the Judge can not legitimately order the defendant to do anything.
John Say, the jobs numbers are nothing to be proud of. If you look deep into them you can see they are mostly in healthcare and social services. Which means it’s the only industry which is experiencing an increase. We have an aging population requiring more healthcare services.
It’s odd to brag about those low numbers, since Trump called similar jobs numbers when Biden was in office as “weak”. Certainly these are weak numbers and are not really a good indicator of an improving economy. It’s still not doing well. It’s not improving as Trump claimed it would.
“When you hear that a Judge has ordered an AUSA at a habeuas hearing to do anything – you KNOW the judge is way out over their skis. There is no legal burden on the defendant in a civil case, the Judge can not legitimately order the defendant to do anything.”
It can when the defendant is the government illegally holding someone in jail for not properly following the law. An AUSA who represents the government can be ordered to release a detainee. That does not mean the AUSA itself does it. It means the AUSA presents the court order to the appropriate authority in charge of the detainees and starts release protocols or whatever process they have.
In most civil cases, the AUSA only needs to prove that their claim is “more likely than not” true (often described as >51% certainty).
Because DHS has been lying incessantly to the courts and making facts up to keep detainees in jail. AUSA’s have not been able to even meet their preponderance of evidence proof. Not when the evidence shows DHS is not telling the truth the majority of the time.
I read enough of theis to determine that again the judge was making it us as he went..
TThe core issue is that some idiot in DHS granted him a work permit that he was not entitled to in May, 2025 – another left wing nut in governemt that should be filed.
This person is admiittedly in the US illegally. Even the Biden DHS was not that friendly to him for them.
The court is hearing buch of BS that has nothing to do with Habeus and thus is outside of its jurisdiction.
He requested bond – the law cited by the illegal specifically says that Band is at the discretion of DHS, can be revoked at any time for any reason,
Though there does appear to be some wierdness in the law that makes him more eligable for a bond if he can legally work.
While hae CAN NOT legally work in the US, again some Dufus in DHS issued him a work authoriztion that he is not qualified for.
That creates a mess because sometimes there is SOME right to something government gives you even if you are not entitled to it – it is as example harder to deport people with Visa’s.
I am not sure of the exactly legal violations or seriousness of the offenses of this person – but he has a HISTORY of violations that actually make him more eleigable for deportation and not eleigable for work authorization
In what I read this person while not in the US legally does not have a deportation order against him – which does make the process of getting rid of him more difficult.
Regardless while as best as I can tell the judge got this wrong, and there is ZERO evidence of anything beyond the judge not accepting perfectly valid arguments from DOJ attorneys.
There is absolutely nothing her demonstrating your claim that the trump administration is lawless.
All you have is a the case of an illegal who is clearly deportable, but who has the compllication of a work authorization, and who is entitled to some due process- a deportation hearing in front of an Article II judge.
It appears the correct decision on the judges part is to require DHS to have a deportation hearing before deporting him.
It is not clear to me what his history of violations means, Whether those are criminal or technical,
but that is for an INS court to sort.
Regardless, THIS court has relatively limited jurisdiction and is attempting to bite off more than it has – because there are unusual factors in this case.
But that does not change the FACT that Article III courts do not have original jurisdiction over deportation, so this jusge at best must send this back down for a deportation hearing.
Much of what he is getting into is beyond his jurisdiction.
This still does NOT support your claim regarding Trump, DOJ, DHS, ICE, …
Nothing improper was done here. The most I see is a judge disagreeing on how the law should be applied.
He is probably correct that DHS cn not just deport him.
He is probably incorrect that he is entitled to bond or parole.
But that andd returning this to the INS courts is all the powerr he has.
Revoking TPS for a group merely notes that the basis for granting Temporary protective status no longer exists, and those who are here under Temporary protective status should return home.
Deporting them is still done on a case by case basis.
“That is what is overwhelming the courts now and why AUSA’s are quitting en masse over the overwhelming case loads.”
What is overwhelming the Artice III courts is idiotically taking Article II court cases.
Due process does not mean that the factual basis for final decisions of Aarticle II immigration courts are subject to factual review by Article III courts.
I would note article III factual review of ANY lower court decision is only lawful under extremely rare instances.
Appelate courts almost never reconsider facts.
Appeals of lower court decisions are 99.99% of the time challenges to their application of the law.
In the specific case of illegal immigrants they are entitled to ONE form of factual review appea, and that is a Habeus claim.
But Habeaus claims are actually CIVIL claims of illegal detention, and the burdern of proof is on the plantiff – the illegal immigrant.
In the Habeaus review of the deportation of an illigal immigrant the illegal immigrant MUST prove then are not the person being ordered deported. Absent the judge going off the rails AUSA’s can not be “overloaded” by a habeuas case as the DOJ does not need to prove anything. The Defendent must DISPROVE being identified as a parson to be deported. AUSA’s can sit on their hands.
Their case was already proven at the immigration court.
They become overburdened when Judges assume jurisdiction they do not have or attempt to turn the burden of proof in a habeuas claim on its head. In a hbeaus claim the “defendant” DOJ needs to do nothing beyond show up. They may CHHOOSE to challenge or correct claims made by the Plantiff, they are not obligated to.
Whenever you hear of an Article III judge ordering DOJ to do ANYTHING in a Habeaus claim – the Judge is way outside of jhis jurisdiction.
and has either deliberately or stupidly but always unlawfully inverted the burden of proof.
” It’s also the reason why DHS is disobeying court orders to release detainees because they have rights to bond hearings.”
No they do not. Detainees can be released at ANY time, they are “free to go”, they just can not be released into the US,
They are “free to go home”
With rare exceptions deportation is entirely a CIVIL law process, No rights are being infringed on.
Once it is established that a person is not in the US lawfully. they have no right to be here.
They are not being incarcerated, They have chosen to challenge that determination and as they have already been found to be illegally present, they can not be released into the US.
“The TPS issue may not be “nationwide” because it applies to a specific group instead or…it may be that it applies only to the circuit of which the court is in. Either way there is still a lot of “territory” a district court’s ruling can apply to.”
Your remarks are confusing – typical of left wing nuts. A revokation of TPS iis determination that applies to every member of the group within the US. It is NOT however an individual order of deportation which is required to actually deport the person.
SCOTUS revoked the lower court stay of the termination of Venezuelan TPS – as terminating TPS is an unreviewable executive power – just as granting it is. While a lower court can TRU to claim that the SCOTUS decision does not apply to a different TPS revokation they would have to provide a factual or legal distinction of consequence that was not present in the SCOTUS case.
Absent that 0- the judge is again unlawfully acting outside their legitimate domain.
The SCOTUS decisions on vens\zeulan TPS should hve resulted in all lower courts reviewing and rescinding their TPS stays sua sponte.
Instead these idiot judges have forced DOJ and appelate courts to waste time b***h slapping them over obcious error.
But that is what Left wing nuts do – unlawfully game the system to do everything possible to delay the inevitable.
The goal is to gum up the works. That is NOT due process – that is obstruction.
“There may absolutely be legitimate, case-specific reasons for judicial review even when someone entered unlawfully. Congress created asylum, trafficking protections, and other forms of relief for a reason. ”
Then I think we should advocate that a method be added to the law for an immigrant to invoke those protections upon entry by immediately presenting him or herself to authorities, be granted a prompt hearing, and if found eligible, be declared a legal exception to the general rule. If that was in place, a failure to apply for the exception could be seen to constitute ineligibility for it, and deportation could proceed unimpeded. Much simpler and more foolproof for everyone involved, imo.
If something like what wrote above is already in place, and heavy caseload is the impediment, then there should be quarantined holding areas established for applicants awaiting decisions. At minimum, an applicant awaiting a hearing should be issued identification as such, possibly in conjunction with a tracking bracelet, be subject to restrictions on where he or she can go, and the condition imposed that failure to produce that id on demand, or removal/disposal of the tracking device, constitutes a felony punishable by immediate deportation, or imprisonment, at the discretion of the court. H311, I am subject to similar restrictions on my Second Amendment right to bear arms, are these immigrants eligible for more due process than I am?
All of this stuff is already in our immigration law.
We have problems now because left wing not lawless judges are pretending that immigration is a criminal rather than civil action and that illegal immigrants have a right that is being infringed on.
Criminal due process does not apply to immigration – just as it does not to parking tickets.
There is an entire US title – title 8 of US code that covers the myriads of laws and process for immigration and illegal immigration.
Congress should be stress-testing its own laws. Instead of fixing root flaws, we layer on another exception and call it reform. Over time you don’t get clarity, you get a Rube Goldberg statute that rewards the people who know how to game it.
Those methods already exist. You may request asylum at any US consulate, or at any US port of entry.
Just because you have requested asylum does NOT mean you are allowed to enter even temporarily.
Generally an asylum seeker must wait outside the US for their asylum hearing.
The grounds for granting asylum are incredibly narrow almost no one gets it.
Asylum is a permanent right to be in the US.
We have a Temporary Protective Status system to allow people fleeing bad conditions in their country to TEMPORARILY stay in the US until those conditions change so they can return home. While TPS requires a presidential finding – if you meet the requirements of that finding you may stay in the US temporarily.
Those case specific reasons if any should be addressed by the immigration court or by the immigration appeals process.
I’m addressing jurisdiction; not whether the courts should handle these issues but which court. I believe that immigration courts handle immigration issues and that district courts are overstepping they adjudicate an immigration case. Many of these cases get overturned on appeal based on this issue.
I beleive that if an illegal alien EXHAUSTS his appeals within the Article II courts that for a short period of time – I think 90 days he can appeal to the Article III courts, but ONLY with respect to issuses of LAW. Not issues of Fact,
There are extremely few cases we are dealing with where an illegal immigrant with a deportation order has not allowed his right to appeal on issues of law to an Article II court expire. Most of the 4 million outstanding deportation orders are FINAL – the deportation hearing has taken place, the time for Article II court appeal has expired the time for article III court appeal has expired and the only remedy remaining is habeaus.
. That’ll work until contiguous Districts are corrupted and it spreads. Rust never sleeps, Olly.
One look at CECOT should tell anyone right or left to militarize the southern border, both coastlines and possibly the northern border.
A friend today is the tomorrow’s enemy. It’s just not a best world, Polly. ☺
“BY LAW the US government is authorized to remove them”
I think it might be more accurately stated that “by law the US government is COMPELLED to remove them”…
That should be the case – but the courts have expanded prosecutorial discretion to an extent that “shall” means ignore
TPS, by another name, is “camel’s nose under the tent.” This is how the Democrats give permanent residence for future voters. Thanks for revoking the TPS. We never wanted them, and don’t need them. The sinking ship should jettison excess baggage.
Please stay on board.
Funny how the Professor neglected to point out the ninth circuit first sided with the district judge before issuing this new ruling. As usual Turley did not tell the whole story.
“ It also raises more questions about recent rulings, such as Judge Ana C. Reyes’s in Washington. I criticized her decision last week in denying the termination of the TPS program.”
The ninth circuit actually ruled in favor of the Haitians in this case citing Kristi Noems unlawful termination of TPS for Haitians.
It seems Turley is conflating a bunch or related cases that the ninth agreed to not stay the district judges rulings at first. But the case of the Haitians is not part of this new ruling.
LOL! Good one george. Really appreciate your humor every day. You go big fella.
“… did not tell the whole story.”
“…forgot to mention that…”
“…failed to say that….
These are all tactics that little george picked up from this blog.
You missed the point.
First before any court heard a TPS termination case – terminating TPS was lawful and unreviewable.
Despite that a number of lawless left wing nut judges have tried to rule on something outside their power and jurisdiction.
Eventually as with many similar cases SCOTUS called BS. While the SCOTUS ORDER only applies to one case, the decision is PRECIDENT and applies to ALL CASES that can not be distinguished.
Please identify any legitimate factual or legal distinction in any of the rest of these revokation of TPS case you are citing ?
Noem has not acted unlawfully – a hadfull of left wing nut judges have.
And they are forcing SCOTUS to b***h slap them individually – rather than getting the message the first time.
The entire gumming up of the works is the lawless actions of a tiny hadnful of left wing nut judges who are being overruled close to universally.
That alone should tell you whose conduct is lawless.
The supreme court should start holding lower court judges who fail to follow CLEAR precedent in contempt.
They are certainly lawsless and contemptable.
“Impeach them” and “despot” are both lazy. Judicial review is necessary. But nationwide injunctions from a single district judge are a bad design choice because they turn every policy fight into judge-shopping and emergency appeals.
Congress should limit nationwide relief and build an expedited review path. That protects the courts and the executive at the same time.
Judicial review is necessary. Really, because you say so, a non-constitutional lawyer. I don’t think you could argue your way out of a small claims action against a bunch of 5th graders.
Lots of “shoulds” in your naive interpretations.
No law degree required to read Article III and two centuries of precedent. Judicial review has been settled doctrine since Marbury. Even a basic understanding of civics makes that clear. The real debate is not whether review exists. It is how far a single district judge’s equitable power should extend and how quickly higher courts should weigh in.
Spot on.
Your purported analysis is irrelevant and useless to the current issue.
You’re always focusing and analyzing nonissues, defecting the the actual facts of the matter. Again, useless input.
As for that law degree, you obviously do not have or had one. You would realize the uselessness in arguing an issue that doesn’t exist.
Olly is an arm chair lawyer. Lots of those here.
Required you say? Would help with the credibility issue. Reading it and comprehending it are two different issues with you. You keep repeating yourself (like george) and can’t make a conclusion, just piling up words without rhyme or reason. Basic understanding of civics? But only if you had that. You don’t.
It extends to the law and the constitution, and is limited to cases and controversies that are legitimately before the court.
It does nott extend to the reasonableness of a decision or motives, it does not extend to evaluating whether a decision is wise, or will work.
Just whether it is within the law and constitution.
Judicial review is necescary – but it is not carte blanche to 2nd guess decisions. Judicial review is limited by standing, and limited to statutory law and constitution.
The judicial review question is “deos the president have a certain power, and is he excecising it within the constraints of the constitution and applicable law.
It is NOT – do I like the dicision the president made. Is it wise ? is it the best choice, not even is it reasonable.
Further even if I beleive the decision was NOT constituutional or lawful, a judges is still bound to follow existing precident unless they can distinguish the case before them from the precident in a meaningful way.
One of the fundimental issues with the left is that they see EVERYTHING as subject to their whim
Precident does not matter
The law does not matter
the constitution does not matter,
if they do not like something they presume the power to unilaterally change it without regard to anything beyond their own judgement.
You can do that inside YOUR OWN LIFE, You are not free to do as you please – not as an individual and certinly not as a judge when your decision impacts others. All of the constraints of the constitution, the law, precident, judicial procedure exist to remove personal preference from the domain of the judge. subjective determinations belong to the executive – though still constrained by the law and constitution.
I will admit to memory loss at times but didn’t the Supreme court limit, restrict or otherwise strike district court judges like this one from nationwide injunctions? If so why is this even an issue for the 9th or any other circuit court?
I had to check on this myself. It appears the Supreme Court has criticized nationwide injunctions and some justices have questioned their historical basis, but the Court hasn’t issued a decision prohibiting them. Until it does, district courts can still issue them and the circuits still have to review them.
SCOTUS is not going to strike down nationwide injunctions – there are very rare instances in which they are justified.
But it has b***h slapped the lower courts and ordered them to limit their Nation Wide injunctions to cases where such an injunction is actually required.
There are many good reasons why nationwide injunctions should be very rare.
A nationwide injucntion is going to force a decison to rapidly rise through appletate courts to the supreme court.
When you issue a nationan wide injunction you almost guarantee fast track to the supreme court and over burdern the supreme court.
Worse still you deprive the supreme court of the opinion of other judges on the issue.
When injunctions are confined to a jurisdiction the same issue may be decided by multiple ccourts in different jurisdictions – if they all agree or they all disagree it is likely that SCOTUS will not even take the case. But even if the case gets to SCOTUS – if it hwas risen through multiple jurisdictions the court gets the benefit of the wisdom of a far larger body of lawyers and judges.
. Not sure I follow you, eightball, but you’ve hit upon another method of creating law that does not originate in congress nor the citizenry as voted but through the judiciary interpreting and granting specific changes via cases. Interesting
The layer of RICO judges is essential
“Judicial review is necessary.” Broadly YES.
But many things are not reviewable. The courts get to apply the law and the constitution to cases legitimately before them.
We have spent thousands of years working out the rules, The western system rules started from the Magna Carte 810 years ago.
All of the details of how the process works are covered by the constitution, statutory law, common law, judicial procedure and precident.
Just because a court MAY have judicial rview powers does not mean it has carte blanche to do as it pleases.
This TPS revocations are an example. The power to grant TPS is an executive power, the power to revoke it is an executive power.
The executives excercise of that power is constrained by the constitution and statutory law.
But that was already establish before these cases were filed.
The courts get to “review” conformance with the constitution and the law.
They do NOT get to decide whether the LIKE the choice the executive made.
The courts get to decide whether a president has a power – something with respect to TPS grants and revokations is settled law.
They do not get to 2nd guess how the president chose to excercise that power – as courts are constantly doing with Trump.
That is just as lawless as a president defying an executive order.
Adios Amigos!! Thanks for visiting!
hey, hey, hey, come back here. Take your lumps just like everyone else.
The low level left-wing activist district judges are a serious threat to our Republic and need to be stopped. The district court wasn’t designed to help one party stop the agenda of the duly elected opposing party president from achieving his agenda.
District court judges are not so “low level” as you imply. They have great sway. Wanna get rid of them? Too late. Could try a civil war, round them up and … I’m not into violence, so count me out.
The THINK they have great sway – but they do NOT. Judicial review is not carte blanch to second guess.
It is confined to the law and the constitution – not the wisdom or effectiveness of the action being reviewed.
Judges, appointed for life, view themselves as little gods, each thinking his or her rulings can tie up an entire, duly-elected presidential administration. Far from being viewed as a coequal branch of government, the federal judiciary acts as though it is the supreme authority over the entire government, on each and every decision that it decides merits attention.
Are or were you a judge at the district level? Not me, but this much I know, they do represent Americans for good or for bad. Its the system you decided to live in. Now you have doubts? No solution available until the SCOTUS weighs in and that’s unlikely. The system favors the DC judges. .
“Are or were you a judge at the district level?”
No.
And I’ve also never been a commercial pilot. And yet, I’m absolutely certain that a drunk pilot is a disaster.
Great analogy. You just forgot to make it relevant.
A commercial pilot who decides, solely on his own authority, without recourse to current established standards, when and where to fly, what routes and altitudes to take, and whether he can cut off another plane to take off or land, would be an unmitigated disaster. However, the example pilot would have one saving virtue over an activist judge. He would get to make an egregious error a very limited number of times before he perished in a crash (with all of his passengers, unfortunately), unlike our activist judges, who are a gift that keeps on giving, ad nauseam. Like that better?
“A commercial pilot who . . .”
Nicely done.
Though the ankle-biter didn’t deserve your explanation — I thoroughly enjoyed it.
They do NOT represent americans – that is our elected officials.
They represent the law and constitution – that is ALL.
That is their domain – nothing else.
That is an important domain.
But it is not carte blanche to become co president or co senator,
Again, where does the Constitution grant each of America’s 677 District Court judges veto power over the President? It doesn’t even mention the district courts at all. It merely alludes to their possibility.
By way of the fact that the Constitution establishes a federal judiciary . 677 vs. 1. My money is on the DC judges for the win.
You will lose.
Re: “Where does the Constitution grant….” It doesn’t other than to Anonymous and its minions.
Oh oh Johnny is pissed. How did you know we are minions? What gave us away?
Swallow this: Article III of the Constitution vests the judicial power of the United States in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. This means the Constitution mandates a Supreme Court but gives Congress the authority to create lower federal courts and define their structure and jurisdiction.
So what’s it taste like Johnny?
Here is where the correction is needed. Immigration judges should havd been established as article III judges not article II judges. When the immigration law was written no one believed that ANY AMERICAN judge or not would protect those who entered by breaking our laws.
Sadly immigration judges are now virtually useless and the result of crimminal negligence surrounding border enforcement will be difficult to rectify.
Immigration courts being housed in the executive branch is not an accident. Congress designed it that way. The deeper issue is the administrative structure itself.
When agencies write rules, enforce them, and adjudicate them internally, it concentrates power inside one branch.
Article III courts still provide review, but whether that safeguard is sufficient is a legitimate constitutional debate.
If Congress believes separation of powers has eroded, it has the authority to redesign the system.
Smart. A good one.
“If Congress believes separation of powers has eroded, it has the authority to redesign the system.”
As, in fact, do we all (sorry, you will need to remove the asterisks from link, since the reference to this subject matter is consistently being censored on this site:
c*o*n*v*e*n*t*i*o*n*o*f*s*t*a*t*e*s.c*o*m
While you are arguably correct – we have a great deal of article II judges.
The IRS has its own courts and judges as does social security and medicare. Federal magistrates are all article II judges.
These district court judges are either suffering from extreme TDS, where they will attempt to stop any initiative or policy proposed by President Trump, or, more likely, they are knowingly and intentionally trying to undermine the rule of law and destroy this nation. They should be impeached.
Impeached? Because you think they’re a threat to a madman’s despotic rule?
Obviously you were never a wise lawyer.
good morning Anonymous
obviously your in the grip of TDS, get back on your meds immidiately
Good morning Anonymous!
Was gonna say the same thing to you.
Clean up your grammar before commenting. Not a good look. People will think you’re illiterate.
think?
Re: Impeached? Take this, and the rest of its issue from whence it comes, ya’ll. The existential threats to our Constitutional Republic dwell in the mindsets of this lot, and they would have in their thrall if we bend to them.
Ya”ll own guns? Thought so. Then you’re as much of a threat as those transsexual mass murderers making you a clear and present danger to all Americans. Existential like. Ya feel me? And good morning to you.
People of your mindset are the greatest threat to our Republic in history. It is the 2nd amendment that ensures the first amendment and so much more. Without the 2nd amendment and the weapons we possess People with your mindset would have already created a dictatorship in the USA. Molon Labe.
And what mindset is that good sir? You are clearly an existential threat to society.
Molon Labe huh? You clown. Why don’t you go take a bullet for us then eh?
I’m guessing you’re a 5’1″ little person with a mighty big attitude problem. So, do you sleep with your guns or just or brothers in arms?
“People of your mindset are the greatest threat to our Republic in history. ”
They are, but possibly not only for the reasons typically assumed. Ever consider that he/she/it might want the rest of us disarmed to give free reign to the proliferation of woke/tranny mass murderers currently on the loose? If they can’t out-vote us, maybe they figure they can kill us all. They cannot possibly do that, but may be too demented to realize that.
“madman’s despotic rule” The TDS is strong with this one today!
Maybe its just being provocative and you fell for it.
Please cite a consequential instance when the FINAL decision of the cours – i.e. the decision of SCOTUS has been for
these despotic madman judges ?
When has Trump/DOJ lost a consequential SCOTUS case ?
IT is clear who is a madman and who is depsotic and who is power grabbing and lawless and it is judges who think they run the country.
Yeah, maybe, But if Jefferson couldn’t get Samuel Chase impeached & convicted for far greater abuses than these, we both know conviction won’t happen.
“As Chief Justice William Rehnquist noted in his book, Grand Inquests, some people expressed opinions at the time of Chase’s trial that the Senate had absolute latitude in convicting a jurist it found unfit, but the acquittal set an unofficial precedent that judges would not be impeached based on their performance on the bench. All judges impeached since Chase have been accused of outright criminality.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_impeachment_investigations_of_United_States_federal_judges (yeah, I know – lousy source as a cite, but it was early, still sleepy, and operating without caffeine at this point)
Great research. Let wikipedia do the heavy lifting.
Question, what was your area of law? Small claims?
. What a grand football game! The left and right want to know if the left and lawless can scuttle the United States.
Lawlessness itself suffices. Congratulations for the suffering and what is to come.
Saturation accomplished, nation destroyed. This must be reconstruction.