Supreme Court Sides With Wrongly Deported Migrant

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:is there any chance this guy really has ties to MS-13? If he does we are f'd. I really hope this claim was fully investigated before democrats started doubling down on the situation.

here's documentation https://www.justice.gov/ag/media/1396906/dl?inline=

Terrorists dont always have the same "due process" rights as a run of the mill unlawfully present alien.

Everyone on US soil has due process rights. Don’t believe me? Read the 9-0 decision on this from the Supreme Court.

Everyone may have due process but not everyone's due process is identical.

Where’s that exception in the case law? I don’t think it exists. 5A says “person.” Do I need to define that for you?

Does 5A say everyone have identical due process?

if you are a "person" you get due process. Each "person". If you believe there are penumbras and emanations from the word "person" that lodge super-scret footnote exceptions, please do illumonate the crowd here. We haven't your MAGA-vision.

Where did I dispute that each person gets due process? All I said is each person has a different due process. Does that contradict 5A?

A. Show us where this idea comes from. What basis in law is there for taking this position.

B. How does this square with the Equal Protection Clause?

And to answer your question, it does violate the Fifth Amendment. Nowhere does it say that some "persons" merit some due process and others "merit" different due process.

Nowhere in 5A does it say all persons merit the same due process. Having different due processes is 100% compatible with the wording of 5A.

Equal protection clause also implies the simultaneous protection of fellow citizens who would be helped or harmed by the outcome of any judicial proceeding. It would be unjust and unconstitutional for a ruling to narrowly endorse the partisan interest of one individual while inflicting gross injustice on the rest of society.

The basis of my (correct) position is the "Living" nature of the Constitution to serve the needs of the people. The welfare of the people come first, the Constitution is merely instrumental.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:is there any chance this guy really has ties to MS-13? If he does we are f'd. I really hope this claim was fully investigated before democrats started doubling down on the situation.

here's documentation https://www.justice.gov/ag/media/1396906/dl?inline=

Terrorists dont always have the same "due process" rights as a run of the mill unlawfully present alien.

Everyone on US soil has due process rights. Don’t believe me? Read the 9-0 decision on this from the Supreme Court.

Everyone may have due process but not everyone's due process is identical.

Where’s that exception in the case law? I don’t think it exists. 5A says “person.” Do I need to define that for you?

Does 5A say everyone have identical due process?

if you are a "person" you get due process. Each "person". If you believe there are penumbras and emanations from the word "person" that lodge super-scret footnote exceptions, please do illumonate the crowd here. We haven't your MAGA-vision.

Where did I dispute that each person gets due process? All I said is each person has a different due process. Does that contradict 5A?

A. Show us where this idea comes from. What basis in law is there for taking this position.

B. How does this square with the Equal Protection Clause?

And to answer your question, it does violate the Fifth Amendment. Nowhere does it say that some "persons" merit some due process and others "merit" different due process.

Nowhere in 5A does it say all persons merit the same due process. Having different due processes is 100% compatible with the wording of 5A.

Equal protection clause also implies the simultaneous protection of fellow citizens who would be helped or harmed by the outcome of any judicial proceeding. It would be unjust and unconstitutional for a ruling to narrowly endorse the partisan interest of one individual while inflicting gross injustice on the rest of society.

The basis of my (correct) position is the "Living" nature of the Constitution to serve the needs of the people. The welfare of the people come first, the Constitution is merely instrumental.

You stil haven't shown ANY basis in law for your position. Just your self-declared "correct" feels on the issue.

To sum it up, your position is ficticious and ludicrous and has been invented out of thin air.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:is there any chance this guy really has ties to MS-13? If he does we are f'd. I really hope this claim was fully investigated before democrats started doubling down on the situation.

here's documentation https://www.justice.gov/ag/media/1396906/dl?inline=

Terrorists dont always have the same "due process" rights as a run of the mill unlawfully present alien.

Everyone on US soil has due process rights. Don’t believe me? Read the 9-0 decision on this from the Supreme Court.

Everyone may have due process but not everyone's due process is identical.

Where’s that exception in the case law? I don’t think it exists. 5A says “person.” Do I need to define that for you?

Does 5A say everyone have identical due process?

if you are a "person" you get due process. Each "person". If you believe there are penumbras and emanations from the word "person" that lodge super-scret footnote exceptions, please do illumonate the crowd here. We haven't your MAGA-vision.

Where did I dispute that each person gets due process? All I said is each person has a different due process. Does that contradict 5A?

A. Show us where this idea comes from. What basis in law is there for taking this position.

B. How does this square with the Equal Protection Clause?

And to answer your question, it does violate the Fifth Amendment. Nowhere does it say that some "persons" merit some due process and others "merit" different due process.

Nowhere in 5A does it say all persons merit the same due process. Having different due processes is 100% compatible with the wording of 5A.

Equal protection clause also implies the simultaneous protection of fellow citizens who would be helped or harmed by the outcome of any judicial proceeding. It would be unjust and unconstitutional for a ruling to narrowly endorse the partisan interest of one individual while inflicting gross injustice on the rest of society.

The basis of my (correct) position is the "Living" nature of the Constitution to serve the needs of the people. The welfare of the people come first, the Constitution is merely instrumental.

You stil haven't shown ANY basis in law for your position. Just your self-declared "correct" feels on the issue.

To sum it up, your position is ficticious and ludicrous and has been invented out of thin air.

Lol you're hopeless. All of your meretricious legal wordplay will just result in the continued downfall of this country. The word is out to all the world, loot America while you still can!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:is there any chance this guy really has ties to MS-13? If he does we are f'd. I really hope this claim was fully investigated before democrats started doubling down on the situation.

here's documentation https://www.justice.gov/ag/media/1396906/dl?inline=

Terrorists dont always have the same "due process" rights as a run of the mill unlawfully present alien.

Everyone on US soil has due process rights. Don’t believe me? Read the 9-0 decision on this from the Supreme Court.

Everyone may have due process but not everyone's due process is identical.

Where’s that exception in the case law? I don’t think it exists. 5A says “person.” Do I need to define that for you?

Does 5A say everyone have identical due process?

if you are a "person" you get due process. Each "person". If you believe there are penumbras and emanations from the word "person" that lodge super-scret footnote exceptions, please do illumonate the crowd here. We haven't your MAGA-vision.

Where did I dispute that each person gets due process? All I said is each person has a different due process. Does that contradict 5A?

A. Show us where this idea comes from. What basis in law is there for taking this position.

B. How does this square with the Equal Protection Clause?

And to answer your question, it does violate the Fifth Amendment. Nowhere does it say that some "persons" merit some due process and others "merit" different due process.

Nowhere in 5A does it say all persons merit the same due process. Having different due processes is 100% compatible with the wording of 5A.

Equal protection clause also implies the simultaneous protection of fellow citizens who would be helped or harmed by the outcome of any judicial proceeding. It would be unjust and unconstitutional for a ruling to narrowly endorse the partisan interest of one individual while inflicting gross injustice on the rest of society.

The basis of my (correct) position is the "Living" nature of the Constitution to serve the needs of the people. The welfare of the people come first, the Constitution is merely instrumental.

You stil haven't shown ANY basis in law for your position. Just your self-declared "correct" feels on the issue.

To sum it up, your position is ficticious and ludicrous and has been invented out of thin air.

Lol you're hopeless. All of your meretricious legal wordplay will just result in the continued downfall of this country. The word is out to all the world, loot America while you still can!

You pine for the presence of a real dicator. I suggest you book one-way airfare to Russia, Belarus, North Korea or Venezuela.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:is there any chance this guy really has ties to MS-13? If he does we are f'd. I really hope this claim was fully investigated before democrats started doubling down on the situation.

here's documentation https://www.justice.gov/ag/media/1396906/dl?inline=

Terrorists dont always have the same "due process" rights as a run of the mill unlawfully present alien.

Everyone on US soil has due process rights. Don’t believe me? Read the 9-0 decision on this from the Supreme Court.

Everyone may have due process but not everyone's due process is identical.

Where’s that exception in the case law? I don’t think it exists. 5A says “person.” Do I need to define that for you?

Does 5A say everyone have identical due process?

if you are a "person" you get due process. Each "person". If you believe there are penumbras and emanations from the word "person" that lodge super-scret footnote exceptions, please do illumonate the crowd here. We haven't your MAGA-vision.

Where did I dispute that each person gets due process? All I said is each person has a different due process. Does that contradict 5A?

A. Show us where this idea comes from. What basis in law is there for taking this position.

B. How does this square with the Equal Protection Clause?

And to answer your question, it does violate the Fifth Amendment. Nowhere does it say that some "persons" merit some due process and others "merit" different due process.

Nowhere in 5A does it say all persons merit the same due process. Having different due processes is 100% compatible with the wording of 5A.

Equal protection clause also implies the simultaneous protection of fellow citizens who would be helped or harmed by the outcome of any judicial proceeding. It would be unjust and unconstitutional for a ruling to narrowly endorse the partisan interest of one individual while inflicting gross injustice on the rest of society.

The basis of my (correct) position is the "Living" nature of the Constitution to serve the needs of the people. The welfare of the people come first, the Constitution is merely instrumental.

You stil haven't shown ANY basis in law for your position. Just your self-declared "correct" feels on the issue.

To sum it up, your position is ficticious and ludicrous and has been invented out of thin air.

Lol you're hopeless. All of your meretricious legal wordplay will just result in the continued downfall of this country. The word is out to all the world, loot America while you still can!

You pine for the presence of a real dicator. I suggest you book one-way airfare to Russia, Belarus, North Korea or Venezuela.

Democracy would work perfectly fine for me too. Not rule by ideological tyrants in the courts. Again you're hopeless, and you betrayed the well being of your posterity for nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:is there any chance this guy really has ties to MS-13? If he does we are f'd. I really hope this claim was fully investigated before democrats started doubling down on the situation.

here's documentation https://www.justice.gov/ag/media/1396906/dl?inline=

Terrorists dont always have the same "due process" rights as a run of the mill unlawfully present alien.

Everyone on US soil has due process rights. Don’t believe me? Read the 9-0 decision on this from the Supreme Court.

Everyone may have due process but not everyone's due process is identical.

Where’s that exception in the case law? I don’t think it exists. 5A says “person.” Do I need to define that for you?

Does 5A say everyone have identical due process?

if you are a "person" you get due process. Each "person". If you believe there are penumbras and emanations from the word "person" that lodge super-scret footnote exceptions, please do illumonate the crowd here. We haven't your MAGA-vision.

Where did I dispute that each person gets due process? All I said is each person has a different due process. Does that contradict 5A?

A. Show us where this idea comes from. What basis in law is there for taking this position.

B. How does this square with the Equal Protection Clause?

And to answer your question, it does violate the Fifth Amendment. Nowhere does it say that some "persons" merit some due process and others "merit" different due process.

Nowhere in 5A does it say all persons merit the same due process. Having different due processes is 100% compatible with the wording of 5A.

Equal protection clause also implies the simultaneous protection of fellow citizens who would be helped or harmed by the outcome of any judicial proceeding. It would be unjust and unconstitutional for a ruling to narrowly endorse the partisan interest of one individual while inflicting gross injustice on the rest of society.

The basis of my (correct) position is the "Living" nature of the Constitution to serve the needs of the people. The welfare of the people come first, the Constitution is merely instrumental.

You stil haven't shown ANY basis in law for your position. Just your self-declared "correct" feels on the issue.

To sum it up, your position is ficticious and ludicrous and has been invented out of thin air.

Lol you're hopeless. All of your meretricious legal wordplay will just result in the continued downfall of this country. The word is out to all the world, loot America while you still can!

You pine for the presence of a real dicator. I suggest you book one-way airfare to Russia, Belarus, North Korea or Venezuela.

Democracy would work perfectly fine for me too. Not rule by ideological tyrants in the courts. Again you're hopeless, and you betrayed the well being of your posterity for nothing.

You don't want a democracy. You like your tyrant in the White House.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:is there any chance this guy really has ties to MS-13? If he does we are f'd. I really hope this claim was fully investigated before democrats started doubling down on the situation.

He did not contest it in 2019 over two hearings. Instead he filed a claim in a different hearing that a different gang would hurt him and that he fled because they were threatening him and wanted money from his mom's pupusa business.

At the time an informant gave his gang name and rank, and he was wearing clothes associated with the gang. Not just Bulls but a no snitching hoodie.

And then the arresting officer was found to have been trading sex for information, making the informant’s information suspect, at best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:is there any chance this guy really has ties to MS-13? If he does we are f'd. I really hope this claim was fully investigated before democrats started doubling down on the situation.

here's documentation https://www.justice.gov/ag/media/1396906/dl?inline=

Terrorists dont always have the same "due process" rights as a run of the mill unlawfully present alien.

Everyone on US soil has due process rights. Don’t believe me? Read the 9-0 decision on this from the Supreme Court.

Everyone may have due process but not everyone's due process is identical.

Where’s that exception in the case law? I don’t think it exists. 5A says “person.” Do I need to define that for you?

Does 5A say everyone have identical due process?

if you are a "person" you get due process. Each "person". If you believe there are penumbras and emanations from the word "person" that lodge super-scret footnote exceptions, please do illumonate the crowd here. We haven't your MAGA-vision.

Where did I dispute that each person gets due process? All I said is each person has a different due process. Does that contradict 5A?

A. Show us where this idea comes from. What basis in law is there for taking this position.

B. How does this square with the Equal Protection Clause?

And to answer your question, it does violate the Fifth Amendment. Nowhere does it say that some "persons" merit some due process and others "merit" different due process.

Nowhere in 5A does it say all persons merit the same due process. Having different due processes is 100% compatible with the wording of 5A.

Equal protection clause also implies the simultaneous protection of fellow citizens who would be helped or harmed by the outcome of any judicial proceeding. It would be unjust and unconstitutional for a ruling to narrowly endorse the partisan interest of one individual while inflicting gross injustice on the rest of society.

The basis of my (correct) position is the "Living" nature of the Constitution to serve the needs of the people. The welfare of the people come first, the Constitution is merely instrumental.

Once again, I get the feeling that some of the Trump coterie rehearse their lines on dcum before going public.

No, pp. Not how it works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:is there any chance this guy really has ties to MS-13? If he does we are f'd. I really hope this claim was fully investigated before democrats started doubling down on the situation.

here's documentation https://www.justice.gov/ag/media/1396906/dl?inline=

Which another judge said was BS, essentially.

In a decision on appeal from the 2019 decision that he is MS 13 (terrorist)? Oh right, no, it's not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:is there any chance this guy really has ties to MS-13? If he does we are f'd. I really hope this claim was fully investigated before democrats started doubling down on the situation.

here's documentation https://www.justice.gov/ag/media/1396906/dl?inline=

Terrorists dont always have the same "due process" rights as a run of the mill unlawfully present alien.

Everyone on US soil has due process rights. Don’t believe me? Read the 9-0 decision on this from the Supreme Court.

Everyone may have due process but not everyone's due process is identical.

Where’s that exception in the case law? I don’t think it exists. 5A says “person.” Do I need to define that for you?

Does 5A say everyone have identical due process?

if you are a "person" you get due process. Each "person". If you believe there are penumbras and emanations from the word "person" that lodge super-scret footnote exceptions, please do illumonate the crowd here. We haven't your MAGA-vision.

Where did I dispute that each person gets due process? All I said is each person has a different due process. Does that contradict 5A?

A. Show us where this idea comes from. What basis in law is there for taking this position.

B. How does this square with the Equal Protection Clause?

And to answer your question, it does violate the Fifth Amendment. Nowhere does it say that some "persons" merit some due process and others "merit" different due process.

Nowhere in 5A does it say all persons merit the same due process. Having different due processes is 100% compatible with the wording of 5A.

Equal protection clause also implies the simultaneous protection of fellow citizens who would be helped or harmed by the outcome of any judicial proceeding. It would be unjust and unconstitutional for a ruling to narrowly endorse the partisan interest of one individual while inflicting gross injustice on the rest of society.

The basis of my (correct) position is the "Living" nature of the Constitution to serve the needs of the people. The welfare of the people come first, the Constitution is merely instrumental.

Your feelings don’t change case law. Get out of here with this bullshit. No one is buying it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A deportable person was deported. To the wrong country. That does not mean Garcia belongs in the US.

I don't understand why Democrats are using this situation on an issue for which they are not popular (immigration). Even if characterized as a "Due Process" or "Rule of Law" situation, Democrats aren't trusted due to a perception that they engaged in law fare to either imprison President Trump or keep him off the ballot.

The smart move for Democrats would be to find a young(er), charismatic leader who can speak to Americans about kitchen table issues. Bill Clinton was quite adept at this, and it's time for Democrats to find someone like him again.

It’s not the democrats - judges appointed by Republicans are also reacting to the gross abuses and definance of the courts.

[Anonymous]

Says the appeals court:
"If today the Executive claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport American citizens and then disclaim responsibility to bring them home?"

This week an American citizen was held by ICE. It was resolved in less than 48 hours, but there WILL be situations where the facts of someone's citizenship will not be as easily recovered--someone who is unable to communicate for any number of reasons, including physical disability; someone without close ties in the community to come forward--a homeless individual, perhaps. Eventually, if this goes on, a citizen WILL be deported, quite possibly to El Salvador given its eagerness to court Trump and be paid in US dollars.

And then, if Trump were to claim the right to imprison US citizens in El Salvador--or elsewhere--what happens with appeals, habeas petitions, wrongful convictions in those cases?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:is there any chance this guy really has ties to MS-13? If he does we are f'd. I really hope this claim was fully investigated before democrats started doubling down on the situation.

He did not contest it in 2019 over two hearings. Instead he filed a claim in a different hearing that a different gang would hurt him and that he fled because they were threatening him and wanted money from his mom's pupusa business.

At the time an informant gave his gang name and rank, and he was wearing clothes associated with the gang. Not just Bulls but a no snitching hoodie.

And then the arresting officer was found to have been trading sex for information, making the informant’s information suspect, at best.

And the informant said he was active in New York where he has never lived.

But you know what, pp knows this. It's been stated over and over. We have also explained the low bar in bond hearings, the fact that immigration judges essentially work for the administration, the fact that a federal judge, with a higher bar, says there is no actual evidence. The administration (minus Trump who is more indifferent and clueless by the day) knows this. They are opting to continue lying

Pp would like to villanize the man to make it seem OK for trump to break the law.

The man is innocent AND he has a right to due process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:is there any chance this guy really has ties to MS-13? If he does we are f'd. I really hope this claim was fully investigated before democrats started doubling down on the situation.

here's documentation https://www.justice.gov/ag/media/1396906/dl?inline=

Which another judge said was BS, essentially.

Honestly it doesn't matter if he was or wasn't MS-13, America should not send people to death camps, period.

Regardless of whether they were or were not in the country illegally, regardless or whether they were part of a gang, you cannot call yourself a patriot, a true American, a believer in our country's ideals if you support snatching a person off the street in America and sending them to a country where we know they will be sent to a death camp with zero due process.

I don't care if he murdered 150 people, he should get his day in court and if tried and duly convicted he should spend the rest of his life confined in conditions that don't constitute cruel and unusual punishment. If you don't agree with that don't you dare call yourself a patriot or loyal American.

'death camp' is a false statement according to the court record. It is an irrelevant point.

It's a camp where people are imprisoned without due process that they will never leave alive. If you don't believe that's a death camp you're either irredeemably stupid or irredeemably evil.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:is there any chance this guy really has ties to MS-13? If he does we are f'd. I really hope this claim was fully investigated before democrats started doubling down on the situation.

He did not contest it in 2019 over two hearings. Instead he filed a claim in a different hearing that a different gang would hurt him and that he fled because they were threatening him and wanted money from his mom's pupusa business.

At the time an informant gave his gang name and rank, and he was wearing clothes associated with the gang. Not just Bulls but a no snitching hoodie.

And then the arresting officer was found to have been trading sex for information, making the informant’s information suspect, at best.

And the informant said he was active in New York where he has never lived.

But you know what, pp knows this. It's been stated over and over. We have also explained the low bar in bond hearings, the fact that immigration judges essentially work for the administration, the fact that a federal judge, with a higher bar, says there is no actual evidence. The administration (minus Trump who is more indifferent and clueless by the day) knows this. They are opting to continue lying

Pp would like to villanize the man to make it seem OK for trump to break the law.

The man is innocent AND he has a right to due process.

The court is saying no evidence because they are repeating what Garcia's lawyers are telling him.
The informant did not say he lived in New York or was active in New York.
He said he was in the Westerns Clique with rank of Cheoque.
The lawyer lied and said this is New York, and he has never lived there.
Besides the fact that New York is not that far from Maryland, there is the issue of whether Westerns Clique of MS-13 is limited to New York.
It is not. DOJ listed Westerns as one of six groups operating in DC in a RICO case a few years ago.

There is literally nothing tying this guy to MS-13 despite you and the administration jumping up and down and falsely claiming it. This is why DUE PROCESS is necessary in every case. Democrats are not defending criminals, democrats are defending the same rule of law that Anton Scalia defended. Why is this so hard to understand?