Reply to Republicans want a civil war. Especially while they are in power and control the military.

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Republicans want a civil war. Especially while they are in power and control the military."

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Prove me wrong. They are doing everything in their power to incite violence within our own country.

What's happening in Minneapolis can happen anywhere. And the Republicans in Congress are just allowing it. The Supreme Court is allowing it. The entire powers in charge right now are allowing it.

They want this[/quote]

Maybe the left could just let law enforcement do its job and stop confronting them and creating chaos and violent confrontations. If there's an argument to be made, make the argument in [b]court[/b]. But of course, they want the violent confrontation and chaos, so it will continue. Hard to see how you conclude that "Republicans want civil war" because of this. [/quote]

How many court orders has DHS and DOJ violated?

How many laws does DHS/ICE violate on a daily basis?[/quote]What you have are Democrat district court judges, who do not have jurisdiction over immigration, issuing orders as part of the resistance.  These get overturned eventually on appeal, but the goal is to slow down Trump.  Shame on John Roberts for not putting a stop to it.[/quote]

"Except as otherwise provided in this section, no court shall have jurisdiction, by habeas corpus ... or by any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), to review such an order or such questions of law or fact."[/quote]

NP: You know that's not the full statute right? What else is in that paragraph?

"...except as provided in subparagraph (D),"

What does D say?

“(D) [b]Judicial review [/b]of certain legal claims {well loook ther actual IS judicial review}
Nothing in subparagraph (B) or (C), or in any other provision of this chapter (other than this section) which limits or eliminates judicial review, shall be construed as precluding review of [b]constitutional claims[/b] or questions of law raised upon a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals in accordance with this section.”

Then there is this whole section below it titled:”(b) Requirements for review of orders of removal”  [gosh that would be a silly section to have if no review was ever allowed, huh? /s]

And then, there that whole section on what the reviewing courts should do if the defendant says they actually are a citizen. Why would that section be there, if as PP says none of it is reviewable by any court? Odd. Especially odd to have it written into the law if infallible ICE never took a citizen into custody illegally. /s

Shall we continue to subection (e), or do you just want to concede that your quote is cherry picked to be grossly misleading and is not the whole statement of the law?[/quote]Only appeals courts have jurisdiction, not district courts.[/quote]

You need to read the entire statute.  You are embarrassing yourself and are doubling down on your stupid.[/quote]

See the Khalil case.  The appeals court ruled the district court did not have jurisdiction.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics