They should, but it's only the beginning. The trump administration and the gop are above the law,
SCt orders admin to facilitate return of wrongly deported Maryland man
- Thread starter BradStevens
- Start date
Precedent talks. Nothing stopping the next Administration from deporting Trump to
Just put him in an Iranian prison with guards who don’t speak English. And ear plugs if necessary.
We could send Dennis Rodman to make a personal appeal again.
Did your ideas have trannies or transitioning kids? Reparation themes? DEI success stories? Pronoun drama? If the answer is no, you’d better take them to Jim Caviezel or Mel Gibson…
"Given" insinuates ownership of the intellectual property at some point in time. While we acknowledge you surrendering any and all past and future claims to said IP by saying they have been "given", we in no way acknowledge you in any way ever having a claim to the ideas for these projects we are currently in production on.
We will be glad to hear about some of the new projects that you would like to discuss as soon as we get back from our Italian vacay at Lake Como. Been so good to catch up though.
Sorry, we don't validate parking.
Bro, the extra vowel is brutalYou mean El Salvadoran immigrants.
You were just a bit off. It was $2.3 billion in 2024.
That's not what 2 immigration judges found
"In 2019, Baltimore-based immigration judge Elizabeth Kessler denied Abrego-Garcia’s initial bond request, writing that "the determination that (Abrego-Garcia) is a gang member appears to be trustworthy and is supported by other evidence in the record, namely, information contained in the Gang Field Interview Sheet," referring to the testimony of the people with Abrego-Garcia at the Home Depot. Kessler cast doubt on law enforcement’s reliance on "clothing as an indication of gang affiliation," but she found "the fact that a ‘past, proven, and reliable source of information’ verified the Respondent’s gang membership."
JD Vance falsely said deported man was convicted gang member
Vice President JD Vance tangled with a critic on X over the status of Kilmar Armado Abrego-Garcia, an immigrant living i
www.politifact.com
It's also not in question that he entered the US illegally, which is, itself, a criminal act.
See my reply to Shitter.
2 immigration judges determined he was a gang member, even though he was not convicted of a crime.
It's also not in question that he entered the US illegally.
I wouldn’t have the first issue with his deportation, if he’d have had access to due process. You’re arguing that his situation warranted deportation. I’d say you’re probably right. But that really isn’t the issue.
They can’t just skip over a fundamental right - that, yes, is even afforded to illegal immigrants.
Keep in mind that SCOTUS was unanimous in their finding. So it’s not like this is some kind of debatable matter. It really isn’t.
Based on one person's information.
Think about it, Dan, should everyone on the cooler judge you based on one person's descriptions of you. That person being Aloha.
EDIT: In March 2019, he and several other men were questioned by police at a Home Depot, Abrego-Garcia’s attorneys have said in court filings. When the police asked for information about gang members, Abrego-Garcia said he had no information, but one of the other men accused him of being in a gang.
Yes, I get that the SC ruled 9-0 . I also know they're not infallible and past courts have approved slavery.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact. It's physically impossible to give each of the millions of illegals in this country a trial. If 2 immigration officials determined he's MS-13 - a designated terrorist organization - he and others should be returned. If he's innocent, he can apply to come to the US in the approved fashion.
Last edited:
Whether it's 1 or 100, a judge determined it.
Hell, we have district judges making foreign policy and everything else. If we're going to give these judges power, you can't pick and choose which ones you want to obey.
I'm a US citizen. The law applies differently to me.
Holding the government to procedural fidelity in all cases is our only guarantee that we could expect the same if it became our case.
This is where CoH would typically post a movie clip of A Man For All Seasons.
I suspect the fear is that due process will end up resulting in somebody who shouldn’t be allowed to stay here being allowed to stay here. And I actually do have sympathy with that fear. It’s one of the reasons that faith in our institutions has dropped to dangerously low levels.
But the remedy for that is to improve those institutions so they’re better at enforcing our laws properly…not to just decide to flout them. That’s some really bad juju.
Man…so we’re here already. Defying a 9-0 Supreme Court decision. Awesome. No chance this douche bag of a human…I mean the President…now pushes this on other things. So awesome. I don’t even care about the sludgy thick irony involved here.
This is the right answer. The law is not perfect. When the law unjustly condemns an innocent, you take the time to test and examine the result, and see if it need be reversed. When the law unjustly frees a guilty person, well, that's the price you pay for not living under tyranny, and all you can do is reform the law so it does a better job next time. This was the lesson of Blackstone, which American jurisprudence owes much to.
Give Trump credit, he's chosen to defy the Court using an unsympathetic character so as to keep his supporters from getting too uncomfortable with his lawlessness. We see it right here in this thread.
Worse, he's only unsympathetic because the government storytellers did a better job pushing their narrative quicker and with more force. His narrative is that he was pressured by gangs in El Salvador, and escaped as a teenager in order to be safe from them, whereupon he came to the United States illegally, but eventually earned a place in the asylum seeking process, and a right to work legally, and then started a family, held down a blue-collar job, and paid his taxes. All without any gang connections or criminality.
Ok, but bear in mind that exact argument 100% means that Trump is a convicted felon and has been found guilty of unwanted sexual contact.
If we are going to give these judges power, you can't pick and choose which ones you want to obey.
Pedantic correction, because the Trumpers will jump on this. He wasn't "found guilty" of unwanted sexual contact, because "guilty" implies a criminal proceeding. Rather, he was found liable, because a legally-constituted finder of fact determined that, as a matter of fact, Trump did actually commit the acts alleged. In other words, you're right that, in the eyes of the law, he did it, but by using the word guilty, you are opening yourself up to a giant meaningless dance of dissembling by the cultists.
Let's say you have a farm. 2,000 illegals come in and set up camp on your farm, and they are eating your crops and threatening your family, although they haven't actually done anything yet.
You contact the sheriff and he tells you you will need to file charges against each one and a judge will have to rule after a trial before he can take them away. But, you say, they trespassed! Too bad, they're there illegally but they haven't had their due process.
In the meantime, your farm is being destroyed.
If you had the means, would you remove them or wait for them to have their day in court? Or do you take the chance of being ruined before you take action?
Latest posts
-
-
Hoosiers Get Commitment from DB Lawrence 'Jay' Timmons- Latest: Baller23Boogie
-
-
-