quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):
I finally get it! Leftists can't read ..Ms Bondi has certainly cleared up and patiently TRIED to explain why this proven POS should not be allowed back into this country..should not have been here in the first place

She, through her delegated attorney, made her best arguments to the judge. And lost.

So you believe in the rule of law or not?

The Regime lost another appeal today before the 4th Cir. Ct. That is 2 S. Ct., and 1 Cir. Ct., losses in less than 60 days.

No need to answer retorical questions The president took an oath to protect That means protect AMERICA and it's citizens . What part don't you understand?

The asshole is a proven and ranked gang member...did you miss that part too?


I'm happy to see the effort to remove these ACP (American Communist Party) judges that assume they can dictate foreign poilicy

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):
No need to answer retorical questions The president took an oath to protect That means protect AMERICA and its citizens . What part don't you understand?
When has Trump ever honoured an oath? Pro tip - ask his three wives.

The asshole is a proven and ranked gang member...did you miss that part too?
The reports provide no other information beyond the clothing and confidential informant to justify the claim that Abrego Garcia is a ranking gang member.

I'm happy to see the effort to remove these ACP (American Communist Party) judges that assume they can dictate foreign poilicy

Who do you feel has the ultimate authority, POTUS or SCOTUS?

If POTUS overrules SCOTUS, what would be the correct name for that form of government?

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):
No need to answer retorical questions The president took an oath to protect That means protect AMERICA and it's citizens . What part don't you understand?

The asshole is a proven and ranked gang member...did you miss that part too?


I'm happy to see the effort to remove these ACP (American Communist Party) judges that assume they can dictate foreign poilicy

The oath requires the Presto how to the protections and checks and balances of the Constitution.

Judges are independent. The only people deserving of removal are the heads of this Regime.

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):
No need to answer retorical questions The president took an oath to protect That means protect AMERICA and it's citizens . What part don't you understand?

The asshole is a proven and ranked gang member...did you miss that part too?


I'm happy to see the effort to remove these ACP (American Communist Party) judges that assume they can dictate foreign poilicy

Proven gang member? Please cite such proof because I’ve been unable to find it. Tattoes don’t constitute proof of anything except poor judgment…

Dems will doom this country to hell
That’s a fact

Our Constitution does not grant rights. It acknowledges them.
It defines the powers of government, in some detail.
Deporting people without due process does not appear to be one of the allowed powers.

Do illegals get here due through process?
I do understand the process, I don’t agree with it, it’s wrong in that particular matter

Yes. I have have given you the Supreme Court cases going back to the 50s.

This S. Ct., majority has ruled due process has to be provided.

Even enemy combatants houses outside the territorial jurisdiction of the YS where we have de facto sovereignty receive civil trials, lawyers, potential for bond, and juries, and a neutral arbitrator of the law (a judge). Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004); and Boumediene v. Bush, (2008).

The Constitution applies where the U.S. is governs.

There is a case from 1972 that even forbids states from not providing public education to illegal non-resident children.


SHAUGHNESSY v. UNITED STATES EX REL. MEZEI., 345 U.S. 206, 212 (1952).

Page 212

It is true that aliens who have once passed through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed in due process of law. The Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U. S. 86, 100-101 (1903); Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U.S. 33, 49-50 (1950); Kwong Har Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590, 598 (1953).

Where was there a due process failure? Apparently not in his original immigration hearing that allowed his deportation out of the U.S. The second hearing also provided due process, never changed the governments right to deport but limited that finding to exclude El Salvadore.

So, I have a query (and accepting arguento that that due process required a hearing to send Garcia back home) : If Garcia had been deported to Peru, which agreed to accept him… was a hearing required to enforce the 2019 findings.

The due process failures were deporting him so reporting his case as required by federal law. I have outlined that previously, and in violation of the court’s order.

Even this S. Ct., majority 9-0 has ordered this Administration to facilitate his return.

This S. CT., majority held emailer this year deportations wo hearings are a violation.

A hearing means you can lose.

Didn’t he have a due process compliant deportation hearing during which the immigration judge found that he was deportable and wasn’t the only restriction in the subsequent bond hearing appeal was that he could not be deported back to El Salvador? tHe change of destination to El Salvador was not compliant and did need a hearing to effect, but, couldn’t he have been deported to a gang friendlier country as his deportable status was already determined.

. . . amazing that some folks apparently do not realize that the SCOTUS decision was unanimous. That means you actually had Thomas and Kagan agreeing. But the TDS to defend Trump is strong. Really strong. Trump Delusion Syndrome is alive and well here . . . any pronouncement by the Orange Messiah is gospel.

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):
No need to answer retorical questions The president took an oath to protect That means protect AMERICA and it's citizens . What part don't you understand?

The asshole is a proven and ranked gang member...did you miss that part too?


I'm happy to see the effort to remove these ACP (American Communist Party) judges that assume they can dictate foreign poilicy

You're wrong on all three of your points. At least you're consistent.

First, the president swore an oath to uphold the Constitution...not to subvert it. The federal courts have the role of interpreting and applying the Constitution.

Second, the man who was seized and deported was not proved to be a gang member. The federal judge ruled he is entitled to due process on that allegation, among other issues. The judge was upheld on appeal; and on appeal again to the US Supreme Court.

Finally, this is not foreign policy. Immigration law is domestic policy. So is legal action in our federal courts.

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
Didn’t he have a due process compliant deportation hearing during which the immigration judge found that he was deportable and wasn’t the only restriction in the subsequent bond hearing appeal was that he could not be deported back to El Salvador? tHe change of destination to El Salvador was not compliant and did need a hearing to effect, but, couldn’t he have been deported to a gang friendlier country as his deportable status was already determined.

That is how I read it.

So, we may presume from the above post that you can and do read, selectively.

What part of the "S. Ct., majority 9-0 has ordered this Administration to facilitate his return" didn't you understand?

========================================

The way I read it is that you do understand, and support defiance anyway, and all your BS is just excuses and justifications - just like the Trump admin.

That being, then where is your Rubicon?

IMO, you crossed it long ago.
==============================================

You say that you sit upon several boards and committees. What if one of the companies got a court ORDER, not a suggestion but an order? What would you recommend - compliance or defiance?

Why would you advocate running the country differently?

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
So, we may presume from the above post that you can and do read, selectively.

What part of the "S. Ct., majority 9-0 has ordered this Administration to facilitate his return" didn't you understand?

========================================

The way I read it is that you do understand, and support defiance anyway, and all your BS is just excuses and justifications - just like the Trump admin.

That being, then where is your Rubicon?

IMO, you crossed it long ago.

Please tell me exactly what that means.

It means the S. Ct., unanimously ruled the man was illegally deported by this Administration, and that the S. Ct., has directed this Administration to attempt, in good faith, to bring him back.

However, you can read. Thus, you know this.

You also know that in the case immediately preceding this one the S. Cr., ruled all those the Administration seeks to deport through that 1798 law are entitled to hearing before an arbitrator of law that is neutral. That means the Government can lose those hearings.

quote:

Originally posted by M.Shy:
Dems will doom this country to hell
That’s a fact

If any of it is left after the MAGA ARSEHOLE is finished with it!

This Regime tyrannical and lawless attempt to seize power from the Constitution is dooming this nation.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
It means the S. Ct., unanimously ruled the man was illegally deported by this Administration, and that the S. Ct., has directed this Administration to attempt, in good faith, to bring him back.

However, you can read. Thus, you know this.

You also know that in the case immediately preceding this one the S. Cr., ruled all those the Administration seeks to deport through that 1798 law are entitled to hearing before an arbitrator of law that is neutral. That means the Government can lose those hearings.

Specifically, what actions does “facilitate” compel the executive branch to take?

They cannot compel the executive branch to engage in diplomatic actions.

So again, tell me what specific actions is the executive branch compelled to do by this ruling?

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):
No need to answer retorical questions The president took an oath to protect That means protect AMERICA and it's citizens . What part don't you understand?

The asshole is a proven and ranked gang member...did you miss that part too?


I'm happy to see the effort to remove these ACP (American Communist Party) judges that assume they can dictate foreign poilicy

WTF is wrong with you? This isn't about whether or not the guy is a gang member. It's about a POTUS who is openly defying an order from the United States Supreme Court. Do you not understand what a big deal that is? Do you not understand that it creates a constitutional crisis?

trump isn't a fucking king. He's an elected official and a citizen who is subject, just like all the rest of us, to the Rule of Law. The goddamn system doesn't work without it.

Specifically, what order did the Administration NOT comply with, so we can all be on the same page.

He is subject to the limitations and checks and balances of the Constitution as applied by the federal courts. A check and balance enshrined by constitutional jurisprudence.

The great danger is an Executive being able to unilaterally declare people “undesirables,” seizing them, and making them disappear inspire if the FS t those people are entitled to due process by the Constitution as amended. That the Executive can summarily declare some unfit to reside in the realm.

If we can ignore due process where due process applies to one group. Due Process can be denied to all and any where it applies.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Specifically, what order did the Administration NOT comply with, so we can all be on the same page.

The Order not to deport him. That would have required the Court to order his deportation after a hearing.

His limited protected status was mandated by federal law. Of course, that has been explained to you already.

Ask another stupid question.

Specifically, what actions is the administration compelled to take in this matter now?

We know for a fact that the court has no authority to compel diplomacy.

I am waiting for the Lord of Louisville to lay out step by step what the administration is not doing that it should be.

Well, that is what we are going to find out with these depositions.

What the Regime cannot do is do nothing.

At the very least, the President should demand through formal channels Garcia’s return and propose a plan to obtain him.

How about you answer some questions you refuse to answer.

What is your next stupid question.

quote:

At the very least, the President should demand through formal channels Garcia’s return and propose a plan to obtain him.

I believe it is unconstitutional for a court to order a POTUS to engage in such diplomacy.

Yes, we will find out. Now you have finally stopped your lying and getting down to the nut cutting…maybe the judicial branch has no authority here. Time will tell.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trum...n/story?id=120822855


Judge in Abrego Garcia case blasts DOJ's inaction, orders officials to testify under oath
Kilmar Abrego Garcia is entering his second month in an El Salvador mega-prison.

ByLaura Romero, James Hill, and Katherine Faulders
April 15, 2025, 7:05 PM

Saying "The Supreme Court has spoken," U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ordered expedited discovery -- in which officials are put under oath -- in order to "apply the law to the facts."

"You made your jurisdictional arguments, you made your venue arguments," Judge Xinis told the DOJ attorneys. "You made your arguments on the merits. You lost. This is now about the scope of the remedy."

In her subsequent written order granting expedited discovery, Judge Xinis said the Trump administration remains obligated to "take steps available to them toward aiding, assisting, or making easier Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador."

"Defendants appear to have done nothing to aid in Abrego Garcia's release from custody and return to the United States," Xinis wrote, saying that discovery is necessary in light of the Trump administration's refusal to disclose "what it can" or present justification for what they cannot disclose.

Judge Xinis said Abrego Garcia is "indisputably" entitled to the due process the government has denied him and to be free from the risk "of grave injury" resulting from his detention in a notorious Salvadoran prison.

==============================================

https://www.politico.com/news/...eported-man-00291942

Also: Judge finds probable cause for contempt

https://www.google.com/search?...sclient=gws-wiz-serp

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

At the very least, the President should demand through formal channels Garcia’s return and propose a plan to obtain him.

I believe it is unconstitutional for a court to order a POTUS to engage in such diplomacy.

Yes, we will find out. Now you have finally stopped your lying and getting down to the nut cutting…maybe the judicial branch has no authority here. Time will tell.

Oh, the Judicial Branch has no authority to order the Executive to follow due process. I’ll make that at argument at my trial next week.

The Court has spoken 9-0.

You are the lier.

You asked what the Executive should specifically do. I answered.

The Executive is being forced to testify in their efforts or lack thereof under the threat of bringing held in Contempt.

The Executive is not superior to the requirements of the Constitution.

You are a morally and intellectually bankrupt person. You are a lier. You are a fake conservative who would bestow unilaterally power on the Executive based on nothing more than you like the political end. There’s until the next Executive uses that precedent on you.

What prevents the Executive from seizing you and making you disappear dispute due process rights mandated by the Constitution and enforced by the courts. The answer is the rule of law that restrains.

Your argument is nothing more than an argument of might. It is not the law. It is not the Constitution.

You condemn yourself before this body politic with your own words calling for Tyranny.

It was not Dem president that sought to void the a constitutional precedent with an executive order hose Dem presidents disagreed with. It was your take conservatism that did. Lowe never granted nor vested being welded by this Regime with the leader of the fake conservatives blessing.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

At the very least, the President should demand through formal channels Garcia’s return and propose a plan to obtain him.

I believe it is unconstitutional for a court to order a POTUS to engage in such diplomacy.

Yes, we will find out. Now you have finally stopped your lying and getting down to the nut cutting…maybe the judicial branch has no authority here. Time will tell.

The S. Ct., just told you 9-0, you are wrong.

Clown.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

How about you answer some questions you refuse to answer.

Like this one:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

You say that you sit upon several boards and committees. What if one of the companies got a court ORDER, not a suggestion but an order? What would you recommend - compliance or defiance?

Why would you advocate running the country differently?

You say Trump being a businessman runs the country like a business.

Are you a hypocrite too?

It thus one

Why should we advocate for an Executive defying constitutional precedent re-enforced by this S. Ct., majority that those who are in the nation, regardless of documented status, are entitled to due process through the 5th Amendment?


Or

Why should we allow an Executive to void controlling constitutional S. Ct., precedent conferring rights through the 14th Amendment, but not allow an Executive to void Heller and McDonald conferring a constitutional right through the 14th Amendment?

The answer is only bc Dr. Easter is not anchored in the Constitution or the law. He cares only about seeking his ends enforced. The law and the Constitution can burn in the fires of tyranny and lawlessness.

What this President has done is engaged in proscriptions.

If the President can ignore constitutional on mandates due process to these people, he can deny constitutional due process to all of us.

Dr. Easter’s argument that the Judicial Branch will not hold the President or his exec heads in contempt, or if the Judicial Branch does folks like his friends and neighbors are justified in violence is not an argument in law.

Likewise, because the Congress, as it sets now, is not interested in enforcing constitutional due process to this class of people through impeachment does not disprove the constitutional mandates due process was not violated.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
It means the S. Ct., unanimously ruled the man was illegally deported by this Administration, and that the S. Ct., has directed this Administration to attempt, in good faith, to bring him back.

However, you can read. Thus, you know this.

You also know that in the case immediately preceding this one the S. Cr., ruled all those the Administration seeks to deport through that 1798 law are entitled to hearing before an arbitrator of law that is neutral. That means the Government can lose those hearings.

Specifically, what actions does “facilitate” compel the executive branch to take?

They cannot compel the executive branch to engage in diplomatic actions.

So again, tell me what specific actions is the executive branch compelled to do by this ruling?

I suppose they could send some Navy seals to go in at night and get him out. Bukele doesn't have to smuggle him in. He could put him on any plane headed to the U.S. trump could probably ask for his release and get it, but it's likely he's not willing to do that since he'll never admit that he was wrong or made a mistake.

The order specified facilitating his return. It didn't specify that it had to be done diplomatically.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Specifically, what actions is the administration compelled to take in this matter now?

We know for a fact that the court has no authority to compel diplomacy.

I am waiting for the Lord of Louisville to lay out step by step what the administration is not doing that it should be.

How about some action to facilitate his return, as ordered, rather than doing nothing. If trump told Bukele to shit, he would squat and start grunting. Lane, you're not being clever...just obtuse.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

At the very least, the President should demand through formal channels Garcia’s return and propose a plan to obtain him.

I believe it is unconstitutional for a court to order a POTUS to engage in such diplomacy.

Yes, we will find out. Now you have finally stopped your lying and getting down to the nut cutting…maybe the judicial branch has no authority here. Time will tell.

No, what is unconstitutional is for a POTUS to defy a SCOTUS order.

Lane has friends in low anti-constitutional places:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...999fd1&ei=10#image=6

Federal Judge Suffers Blow Amid Criminal Contempt Ruling
Story by James Edwards • 1d

The feds didn’t produce the guy for a court hearing. They shipped him out before his court date.

That is the violation.

As has been pointed out, this is a violation of the rules of due process. It’s wrong. There should be a price to pay for doing it once it’s determined EXACTLY who knew and did what. If this was Trump personally ordering Garcia to be deported directly and against the court order, well, Garcia is screwed. Near as I can tell, Trump can at most be impeached for it. That’s all the courts can do to him as chief executive.

If someone under him made a decision to interpret his general directive as doing this then whoever made that call can be held in contempt. They can also be found guilty of violating civil rights and the legal ramifications thereof. Problem will be identifying who exactly made the decision.

Another possibility is that it was a bureaucratic error. I kind of doubt this given all the defending of what happened, but it’s possible.

The remedy?

SCOTUS said Trump should facilitate his return. Near as I can tell, that’s court-speak for we have no authority over the person now. We can’t force anything, but the guy’s rights were violated.

Waiting to see if the depositions will be thwarted by claims of executive privilege.

Trump is playing fast and loose with the courts. I hope the judges figure out a way to spank him for it.

They are really not depositions.

They are in camera hearing where testimony as to what the Executive is doing to facilitate shall be taken.

I misspoke calling it a deposition.