Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why are you scared? You not here legally?

The WH press secretary said today they’re looking at deporting U.S. citizens. Legal or not, no one should be ok with this.

So everything said from the podium must be believed (assuming this is accurate)? So where was everyone when Republicans complained about what was said there during the Biden administration?

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.

Wait, why is it being reported as the opposite?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why are you scared? You not here legally?

The WH press secretary said today they’re looking at deporting U.S. citizens. Legal or not, no one should be ok with this.

So everything said from the podium must be believed (assuming this is accurate)? So where was everyone when Republicans complained about what was said there during the Biden administration?

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why are you scared? You not here legally?

The WH press secretary said today they’re looking at deporting U.S. citizens. Legal or not, no one should be ok with this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why are you scared? You not here legally?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why are you scared? You not here legally?

Anonymous wrote:

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:

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.

Use of AEA is not reviewable. Individuals being listed as a member of the group under AEA can challenge their particular membership.
Class action not available, only individual review. Which is what the government conceded to begin with.

Anonymous wrote:Did Leavitt just not admit that they are considering sending US citizens to prisons in El Salvador? How can anyone still argue that bypassing due process is ok? That any of this is ok? First it was criminal illegals, then illegals, then people here legally with hearings pending, then….How do you not know how this ends?

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.

Wait, why is it being reported as the opposite?

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.

Because Trump administration got what they were looking for, lower court ruling thrown out.

Wait, why is it being reported as the opposite?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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.