Reply to Supreme Court Sides With Wrongly Deported Migrant

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Supreme Court Sides With Wrongly Deported Migrant"

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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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. [/quote]

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

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

Everyone on US soil has due process rights. Don’t believe me? Read the 9-0 decision on this from the Supreme Court. [/quote]
Everyone may have due process but not everyone's due process is identical. [/quote]

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? [/quote]
Does 5A say everyone have identical due process?[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/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