Anonymous wrote:Lets let a minor judge dictate foreign policy...lol

this another one of those 90/10 issues where liberals are the 10% supporting a criminal with ties to MS13 who likes to beat women and get arrested.

Good luck with that strategy Cotton

Anonymous wrote:Lets let a minor judge dictate foreign policy...lol

this another one of those 90/10 issues where liberals are the 10% supporting a criminal with ties to MS13 who likes to beat women and get arrested.

Good luck with that strategy Cotton

Anonymous wrote:Lets let a minor judge dictate foreign policy...lol

this another one of those 90/10 issues where liberals are the 10% supporting a criminal with ties to MS13 who likes to beat women and get arrested.

Good luck with that strategy Cotton

Anonymous wrote:
Boasberg finds probable cause to hold Trump administration in contempt for violating deportation order.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/news/content/ar-AA1D2XPc?ocid=sapphireappshareBoasberg

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone think Senator Van Hollen will have any luck?

He will get a good photo op.
Interesting that he's willing to go to El Salvador to stage a photo op in front of a prison holding a presumed gang member and illegal migrant. Yet, he refused to stand for Laken Riley's family.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone think Senator Van Hollen will have any luck?

He will get a good photo op.
Interesting that he's willing to go to El Salvador to stage a photo op in front of a prison holding a presumed gang member and illegal migrant. Yet, he refused to stand for Laken Riley's family.

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone think Senator Van Hollen will have any luck?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What Judge Xinis is banking on is that the government does not want to spend two weeks in discovery. Two big things can happen:

(1) They just make the call and get him back

(2) They spend two weeks creating a public record of their own screw-ups and then get sanctioned and then hope he is still alive and get him back.

God forbid he gets killed in prison, the backlash will be tremendous. It is already brewing.

Not really. With all due respect, she has to tread very carefully so as not to violate separation of powers. The Supreme Court has already admonished the district court (albeit politely). If the district court does it again through pursuing discovery to compel executive actions, that will not be a good look. This entire situation turns on the word "facilitate"

Perhaps the contract with El Salvador allows the US to ask for the return of someone improperly deported there. Even if it does, that may be of little use if the El Salvador government determines that such return would violate itsn own laws

She is allowing discovery to determine what was done to facilitate his return. Failing to answer that as the administration (and you) have done is not a good look, as you say.

She's free to do that, within the bounds of separation of powers.

There is no separation of powers issue in asking information about whether the government is complying with the order. SCOTUS itself told the government to provide that information. Stop being stupid.

Again, she can order discovery, but if the goal is to impose contempt if the US Government doesn't exercise its Article II powers, that's a problem.

Serious question. If the President of El Salvador has refused to release him, what more can the judge order that doesn't violate separation of powers? Perhaps discovery may reveal that the US has a contractual right to ask for his return. But the El Salvador Government has already said no. One of the reasons given by the El Salvador Government is that the man is a member of MS-13, which has been deemed a foreign terrorist organization by the US. Is the judge going to order the President of the US to lift that declaration for him?

You don’t seem to understand the basic concept that you are using to argue your BS point. Even the executive branch needs to follow the law. Why do you think this is not the case?

They did not follow the law. The issue at this point is how to fix it? Courts cannot order the President's foreign policy. this isn't foreign policy
Right now, DOJ is focused on protecting the President's authority rather than fixing this guy's incorrect deportation. the president's legitimacy is in his oath to office, which he is currently violating
So far it has been assumed that the government is paying El Salvador for his imprisonment not assumed, it is documented, but this might not be the case it is the case. The payments are for Venezuelans.

Anonymous wrote:

Because they accidentally deported an illegal immigrant he had legal TPS status, not illegal (who is an abuser no proof of this and gang member no proof of this) to the wrong country? Sorry, not up in arms. Mistakes happen it wasn't a mistake and mistakes should be corrected. Now of this was someone who is supposed to remain in the US he is, he has legal TPs, then that would obviously be a different story so not a different story. But certainly go ahead and push this issue. Amusing to watch.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I put my money on he is as already dead and was . probably murdered the day he arrived at Trump's direction.

Me too unfortunately

MD senator Van Hollen is on the way to El Salvador to check up on Abrego Garcia.

His "Home" is El Salvador, no need to "fight"

Well, Justice Department lawyers argued in a hearing yesterday that they are complying with the ruling to return Abrego Garcia because if he happened to show up at a US port of entry, agents would let him back into the US. Why would they let him back into the US if he did not have some legal status here? Keep up with the facts. Your feelings are not fact.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What Judge Xinis is banking on is that the government does not want to spend two weeks in discovery. Two big things can happen:

(1) They just make the call and get him back

(2) They spend two weeks creating a public record of their own screw-ups and then get sanctioned and then hope he is still alive and get him back.

God forbid he gets killed in prison, the backlash will be tremendous. It is already brewing.

Not really. With all due respect, she has to tread very carefully so as not to violate separation of powers. The Supreme Court has already admonished the district court (albeit politely). If the district court does it again through pursuing discovery to compel executive actions, that will not be a good look. This entire situation turns on the word "facilitate"

Perhaps the contract with El Salvador allows the US to ask for the return of someone improperly deported there. Even if it does, that may be of little use if the El Salvador government determines that such return would violate itsn own laws

She is allowing discovery to determine what was done to facilitate his return. Failing to answer that as the administration (and you) have done is not a good look, as you say.

She's free to do that, within the bounds of separation of powers.

There is no separation of powers issue in asking information about whether the government is complying with the order. SCOTUS itself told the government to provide that information. Stop being stupid.

Again, she can order discovery, but if the goal is to impose contempt if the US Government doesn't exercise its Article II powers, that's a problem.

Serious question. If the President of El Salvador has refused to release him, what more can the judge order that doesn't violate separation of powers? Perhaps discovery may reveal that the US has a contractual right to ask for his return. But the El Salvador Government has already said no. One of the reasons given by the El Salvador Government is that the man is a member of MS-13, which has been deemed a foreign terrorist organization by the US. Is the judge going to order the President of the US to lift that declaration for him?

You don’t seem to understand the basic concept that you are using to argue your BS point. Even the executive branch needs to follow the law. Why do you think this is not the case?

Anonymous wrote:So Dems are dying on the hill of an abusive illegal immigrant gang member who will be legally departed immediately if he ever steps foot on U.S. soil. Interesting strategy Cotton.