Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You do understand this is an ultra violent criminal gang, right?

I can’t tell if you guys are really this dense or if you are pretending not to understand. No one is against gang bangers being deported. But we are pro-due process. Otherwise, anyone can be accused of anything and sent to a gulag in El Salvador. Do you understand this?

They were not deported. They were abducted. If they had been deported, they would have had due process.

We need to be more specific with our language. These people were ABDUCTED.

He was ordered deported, why can’t you get that? The only administrative mistake here was sending him to El Salvador. It’s up to that country to release him or send him back (where he will promptly and lawfully get deported yet again).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You do understand this is an ultra violent criminal gang, right?

I can’t tell if you guys are really this dense or if you are pretending not to understand. No one is against gang bangers being deported. But we are pro-due process. Otherwise, anyone can be accused of anything and sent to a gulag in El Salvador. Do you understand this?

They were not deported. They were abducted. If they had been deported, they would have had due process.

We need to be more specific with our language. These people were ABDUCTED.

He was ordered deported, why can’t you get that? The only administrative mistake here was sending him to El Salvador. It’s up to that country to release him or send him back (where he will promptly and lawfully get deported yet again).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You do understand this is an ultra violent criminal gang, right?

I can’t tell if you guys are really this dense or if you are pretending not to understand. No one is against gang bangers being deported. But we are pro-due process. Otherwise, anyone can be accused of anything and sent to a gulag in El Salvador. Do you understand this?

They were not deported. They were abducted. If they had been deported, they would have had due process.

We need to be more specific with our language. These people were ABDUCTED.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And now the White House has confirmed Republicans are looking at ways to report American citizens.

Warned you all before the election, but did you listen?

If you identity or appear to the Hispanic, be careful out there.

It only STARTS with Hispanics. Once they can do this and get away with it, it’ll be anyone. Political dissenters and protestors - anyone. If one doesn’t have due process, none have due process. They won’t even bother with the “alleged to be in MS13” excuses after awhile.

Anonymous wrote:And now the White House has confirmed Republicans are looking at ways to report American citizens.

Warned you all before the election, but did you listen?

If you identity or appear to the Hispanic, be careful out there.

Anonymous wrote:The courts need to stop playing and order Pam Bindi to appear in court herself on Monday morning with Garcia by her side being released from custody. Otherwise she will be held in contempt of court, fined, and throw in prison until Garcia is returned.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The courts need to stop playing and order Pam Bindi to appear in court herself on Monday morning with Garcia by her side being released from custody. Otherwise she will be held in contempt of court, fined, and throw in prison until Garcia is returned.

The courts are getting to that. But let's be accurate - Pam Bondi and the DOJ here are not the problem. They are trying to get their client, here DHS and the State Department, to follow the court order. The courts can summon people from there and ask them what they are doing to effectuate his return. Because right now, it looks like they are doing not much.

I can't follow who "they" is. Are you blaming Trump's buddy Bukele?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The courts need to stop playing and order Pam Bindi to appear in court herself on Monday morning with Garcia by her side being released from custody. Otherwise she will be held in contempt of court, fined, and throw in prison until Garcia is returned.

The courts are getting to that. But let's be accurate - Pam Bondi and the DOJ here are not the problem. They are trying to get their client, here DHS and the State Department, to follow the court order. The courts can summon people from there and ask them what they are doing to effectuate his return. Because right now, it looks like they are doing not much.

Anonymous wrote:The courts need to stop playing and order Pam Bindi to appear in court herself on Monday morning with Garcia by her side being released from custody. Otherwise she will be held in contempt of court, fined, and throw in prison until Garcia is returned.