Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PSA all: disappear is NOT a verb. Stop using it as one. Thank you.

PSA: yes it is. You are a moron.

Angry little baby. I hope you have a horrible day.

DP but the little baby is right and you're wrong.
“ disappear verb
dis·​ap·​pear ˌdis-ə-ˈpir
disappeared; disappearing; disappears
Synonyms of disappear
intransitive verb
1
: to pass from view
The moon disappeared behind a cloud.
2
: to cease to be : pass out of existence or notice
dinosaurs disappeared from the earth
My keys seem to have disappeared again.
transitive verb
: to cause (someone or something) to disappear:
a
: to abduct and kill or imprison (someone, such as a political dissident) while withholding information about the person's fate
Her son was disappeared during Argentina's so-called 'Dirty War.'
—Associated Press
Under his repressive regime, tens of thousands of Chileans were "disappeared," tortured and killed; hundreds of thousands were forced into exile.
—Mandalit del Barco
Fearing that he would be kidnapped or "disappeared" in Syria under some false pretext, Mr. Omar made a video, which he posted on YouTube, to establish that he had defected.
—Dan Bilefsky


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disappear

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the surpeme court has made it legal for the government to simply snatch people off the streets and out of their homes and throw them into gulags in central America.

And if you think this stops with "illegals," think again. ANYONE is at risk.

No. They didn't. They ruled 5-4 that the suit was brought in the wrong venue. That it should have been brought in Texas, not DC. The court ruled 9-0 that the Alien Enemy Act requires due process. What due process? We have to wait and see.

Due Process can be met in a variety of ways.

DP. The whole point of using the AEA was to avoid due process. The Supreme Court basically rejected that and said that due process is required. The Supreme Court didn't outright overturn the invocation of the AEA, but they basically defanged its use.

At first glance, this looks like a win for the Trump administration. But actually, they lost.

The real purpose of AEA was to get Venezuela to take its people back. They had agreed to do so, then refused. Once they saw the alternative was their people would be in El Salvador they agreed to take their citizens again. These alleged anti-Maduro folks are being greeted with fanfare by the regime.

That's why they sent Abrego Garcia there?

The whole point was optics. To show a big win. To threaten immigrants and American citizens.

It's working. We're scared.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the surpeme court has made it legal for the government to simply snatch people off the streets and out of their homes and throw them into gulags in central America.

And if you think this stops with "illegals," think again. ANYONE is at risk.

No. They didn't. They ruled 5-4 that the suit was brought in the wrong venue. That it should have been brought in Texas, not DC. The court ruled 9-0 that the Alien Enemy Act requires due process. What due process? We have to wait and see.

Due Process can be met in a variety of ways.

DP. The whole point of using the AEA was to avoid due process. The Supreme Court basically rejected that and said that due process is required. The Supreme Court didn't outright overturn the invocation of the AEA, but they basically defanged its use.

At first glance, this looks like a win for the Trump administration. But actually, they lost.

This was available nearly a month ago. The district judge blocked the AEA entirely.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the surpeme court has made it legal for the government to simply snatch people off the streets and out of their homes and throw them into gulags in central America.

And if you think this stops with "illegals," think again. ANYONE is at risk.

No. They didn't. They ruled 5-4 that the suit was brought in the wrong venue. That it should have been brought in Texas, not DC. The court ruled 9-0 that the Alien Enemy Act requires due process. What due process? We have to wait and see.

Due Process can be met in a variety of ways.

DP. The whole point of using the AEA was to avoid due process. The Supreme Court basically rejected that and said that due process is required. The Supreme Court didn't outright overturn the invocation of the AEA, but they basically defanged its use.

At first glance, this looks like a win for the Trump administration. But actually, they lost.

The real purpose of AEA was to get Venezuela to take its people back. They had agreed to do so, then refused. Once they saw the alternative was their people would be in El Salvador they agreed to take their citizens again. These alleged anti-Maduro folks are being greeted with fanfare by the regime.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the surpeme court has made it legal for the government to simply snatch people off the streets and out of their homes and throw them into gulags in central America.

And if you think this stops with "illegals," think again. ANYONE is at risk.

No. They didn't. They ruled 5-4 that the suit was brought in the wrong venue. That it should have been brought in Texas, not DC. The court ruled 9-0 that the Alien Enemy Act requires due process. What due process? We have to wait and see.

Due Process can be met in a variety of ways.

While your statement is true, it is rather broad. And reading the opinion is really important (despite how difficult Repubs find reading - and understanding). Here's the quote though.

"Although judicial review under the AEA is limited, we have held that an individual subject to detention and removal under that statute is entitled to “‘judicial review’” as to “questions of interpretation and constitutionality” of the Act as well as whether he or she “is in fact an alien enemy fourteen years of age or older.” Ludecke, 335 U. S., at 163−164, 172, n. 17."

Seems clear cut. You get your day in court, yes?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the surpeme court has made it legal for the government to simply snatch people off the streets and out of their homes and throw them into gulags in central America.

And if you think this stops with "illegals," think again. ANYONE is at risk.

No. They didn't. They ruled 5-4 that the suit was brought in the wrong venue. That it should have been brought in Texas, not DC. The court ruled 9-0 that the Alien Enemy Act requires due process. What due process? We have to wait and see.

Due Process can be met in a variety of ways.

DP. The whole point of using the AEA was to avoid due process. The Supreme Court basically rejected that and said that due process is required. The Supreme Court didn't outright overturn the invocation of the AEA, but they basically defanged its use.

At first glance, this looks like a win for the Trump administration. But actually, they lost.

Again, it all depends on what "Due Process" means here. It could be as simple as holding a short hearing before deportation.

Yes, a hearing challenging nationality or belonging to tda could be due process.

The Trump administration wanted to avoid all of that using the unreviewable AEA. The Supreme Court didn't review the AEA one way or the other but instead said it is challengeable.

Now explain the distinction between reviewable and challengeable and how that [non-existent] distinction helps the government. Answer: it doesn't. It is the opposite of what they wanted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PSA all: disappear is NOT a verb. Stop using it as one. Thank you.

PSA: yes it is. You are a moron.

Angry little baby. I hope you have a horrible day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the surpeme court has made it legal for the government to simply snatch people off the streets and out of their homes and throw them into gulags in central America.

And if you think this stops with "illegals," think again. ANYONE is at risk.

No. They didn't. They ruled 5-4 that the suit was brought in the wrong venue. That it should have been brought in Texas, not DC. The court ruled 9-0 that the Alien Enemy Act requires due process. What due process? We have to wait and see.

Due Process can be met in a variety of ways.

DP. The whole point of using the AEA was to avoid due process. The Supreme Court basically rejected that and said that due process is required. The Supreme Court didn't outright overturn the invocation of the AEA, but they basically defanged its use.

At first glance, this looks like a win for the Trump administration. But actually, they lost.

Again, it all depends on what "Due Process" means here. It could be as simple as holding a short hearing before deportation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the surpeme court has made it legal for the government to simply snatch people off the streets and out of their homes and throw them into gulags in central America.

And if you think this stops with "illegals," think again. ANYONE is at risk.

No. They didn't. They ruled 5-4 that the suit was brought in the wrong venue. That it should have been brought in Texas, not DC. The court ruled 9-0 that the Alien Enemy Act requires due process. What due process? We have to wait and see.

Due Process can be met in a variety of ways.

DP. The whole point of using the AEA was to avoid due process. The Supreme Court basically rejected that and said that due process is required. The Supreme Court didn't outright overturn the invocation of the AEA, but they basically defanged its use.

At first glance, this looks like a win for the Trump administration. But actually, they lost.

It does sound like the Supreme Court decided that judge shopping is frowned upon.

STOMP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the surpeme court has made it legal for the government to simply snatch people off the streets and out of their homes and throw them into gulags in central America.

And if you think this stops with "illegals," think again. ANYONE is at risk.

No. They didn't. They ruled 5-4 that the suit was brought in the wrong venue. That it should have been brought in Texas, not DC. The court ruled 9-0 that the Alien Enemy Act requires due process. What due process? We have to wait and see.

Due Process can be met in a variety of ways.

Anonymous wrote:the surpeme court has made it legal for the government to simply snatch people off the streets and out of their homes and throw them into gulags in central America.

And if you think this stops with "illegals," think again. ANYONE is at risk.

No. They didn't. They ruled 5-4 that the suit was brought in the wrong venue. That it should have been brought in Texas, not DC. The court ruled 9-0 that the Alien Enemy Act requires due process. What due process? We have to wait and see.

the surpeme court has made it legal for the government to simply snatch people off the streets and out of their homes and throw them into gulags in central America.

And if you think this stops with "illegals," think again. ANYONE is at risk.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Supreme Court also threw Judge Boasberg off the case for the Venezuelans being deported under Alien Enemies Act.
These courts lack jurisdiction to hear the case, and have been issuing TROs regardless.
Contracts have to go to federal court of claims.
These guys have to go to court where they are being held.

Let’s see if the government stops hiding these people from their attorneys.

File that one under: “things which never happened.

I encourage you to listen to the last 10-15 min of the oral arguments in the appellate court.