Texas Contingent and those who want to destroy due process lose again.

rarely invoked wartime power to deport migrants in Northern Texas and said administration officials had not given those targeted for removal last month sufficient time to challenge their deportations.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Texas Contingent and those who want to destroy due process lose again.

rarely invoked wartime power to deport migrants in Northern Texas and said administration officials had not given those targeted for removal last month sufficient time to challenge their deportations.

ohhh.. scarey .. 18th century law, rarely used (like the lacey act) -- you know what's older? just the constitution -- you won't listen ,but it is funny

even funnier? the court didn't find using an old dusty law was wrong, BY YOUR OWN STATEMENT, it said they didn't provide "sufficient notice" .. guess what, notice has been served by the ruling -

you just can't help yourself ...

if Texas isn't special, even in your heart, why do you keep calling it out?

corrected post "AEA notice has been served, you have (time limit) to get out of the country before notice period has taken effect

Here's a link to a news report. https://www.reuters.com/world/...time-law-2025-05-16/

Predictably, Alito and Thomas dissented.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Texas Contingent and those who want to destroy due process lose again.

rarely invoked wartime power to deport migrants in Northern Texas and said administration officials had not given those targeted for removal last month sufficient time to challenge their deportations.

ohhh.. scarey .. 18th century law, rarely used (like the lacey act) -- you know what's older? just the constitution -- you won't listen ,but it is funny

even funnier? the court didn't find using an old dusty law was wrong, BY YOUR OWN STATEMENT, it said they didn't provide "sufficient notice" .. guess what, notice has been served by the ruling -

you just can't help yourself ...

if Texas isn't special, even in your heart, why do you keep calling it out?

corrected post "AEA notice has been served, you have (time limit) to get out of the country before notice period has taken effect

It is scary like the Alien and Sedition Act.

Trump’s winning does not extend to the federal courts.

Notice, that the ruling is based on the Regime’s failure to provide orders hearing required by the 5th Amendment.

So, no fault in using a "dusty" law, merely in notifications? Like exactly what I said, not a fault in the law like you said? Wow, the "bring" 100% wrong quickly turns..

Did ANY of the previous administration's have to have judicial review or "due process" to remove illegal aliens????

Answer that junior!

Yes.

And

When other administrations failed to provide due process mandated by the 5th Amendment administration by the courts, those administrations would be subject to review.

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:
Did ANY of the previous administration's have to have judicial review or "due process" to remove illegal aliens????

Answer that junior!

Deporting two year old American citizen!

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
So, no fault in using a "dusty" law, merely in notifications? Like exactly what I said, not a fault in the law like you said? Wow, the "bring" 100% wrong quickly turns..

Due process by misapplication of this law was violated. The Court has held and it is resolved, the Regime must provides a basic level of due process. A requirement mandated by the 5th Amendment and recognized since at least 1952.

That is the beginning and end of this conversation.

The failure to provide advertise hearing to allow this class of people to challenge the class assigned to them by the Regime is not constitutional use of the Executive’s power.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
So, no fault in using a "dusty" law, merely in notifications? Like exactly what I said, not a fault in the law like you said? Wow, the "bring" 100% wrong quickly turns..

Due process by misapplication of this law was violated. The Court has held and it is resolved, the Regime must provides a basic level of due process. A requirement mandated by the 5th Amendment and recognized since at least 1952.

That is the beginning and end of this conversation.

The failure to provide advertise hearing to allow this class of people to challenge the class assigned to them by the Regime is not constitutional use of the Executive’s power.

and yet the title of this thread isn't "must provide due process in order to use AEA"

it reads

quote:

S. Ct., blocks Trump’s use of rarely invoked wartime power to deport migrants

And yet, a critical flaw identified by the Court was not providing due process this Court ordered last month.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
And yet, a critical flaw identified by the Court was not providing due process this Court ordered last month.

a correctable one -- sure - done - next

technically the finding was not providing enough TIME, meaning the DP window was too short ... oh, and not providing directions how to fight it --

no flaw in using the AEA, just alter the tie window -- so, not blocked, merely corrected

Provide the due process and remove the issue.

President Trump’s administration won’t. That is because this Regime seeks to destroy those checks and balances and constitutional restraints.

All you are doing is enforcing the impression you care more about concentration of power in an Executive the Constitution does not allow.

I am about following the rule of law. Which the scotus says is a longer notice period, not block use of a law. Facts

Fact. The S. Ct., says dye prices applies. That person the Court requires adversarial hearing to challenge assertions of the Executive. Fact.

The law is in opposition to you and this Regime. Fact.

This Regime has sought to destroy constitutional checks and balances, and deny due process on violation of the courts and our Constitution. Fact.

To paraphrase Napoleon, “Hail the United States. The land of due process.”

It was violations (perceived) that provided the legal underpinning to the Revolution.

The disbandment of colonial legislature by the Crown and modifications to colony charter by the Crown were due process arguments. The taxation crises prior was a due prices argument. All based in procedural due process arguments.

I say the Crown. They were Acts of Parliament.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Fact. The S. Ct., says dye prices applies.

but they didn't -- when you are going to be specialist and corrective, check your spelling

"dye prices" .. WOW - didn't know courts cared about dye prices

Baby, you have typo typo from this week.

The S. Ct., has consistently held for at least 73 years due process applies to those undocumented within the United States. Fact.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Baby, you have typo typo from this week.

The S. Ct., has consistently held for at least 73 years due process applies to those undocumented within the United States. Fact.

or was it dye prices? that i quote YOUR typos isn't MY typos .. i don't "bring" the "lit" to try and make my points -- you really should GAF about your audience and sounding, well, intelligent --

when YOU are being corrective, you should try harder -- oh, and own your mistakes . No, seriously, this is a flaw your therapist should help with

*I* typo from time to time, YOU are renown for your colossal lack of caring - that's a narcissistic trait - might look into that --

an ADULT would say "i misspoke, allow me to restate" .. you don't CARE --

but my statement that the SCOTUS did NOT say dye prices applies is true -- address that, like an adult and peer --

or act like a surly teenager about it

I not being corrective in my last post.

I’ll be corrective now, the S. Cr., has told this Executive twice now in 2 months that adversarial hearing must be provided as a requirement of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution. Since, we want to be grammatically correct, I will not use the one word delectation as a sentence. I will instead use a full Denice s follows. That is the controlling fact of this decision and conversation.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I not being corrective in my last post.

I’ll be corrective now, the S. Cr., has told this Executive twice now in 2 months that adversarial hearing must be provided as a requirement of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution. Since, we want to be grammatically correct, I will not use the one word delectation as a sentence. I will instead use a full Denice s follows. That is the controlling fact of this decision and conversation.

I don't know a

quote:

Denice

as this time - How's she doing?

you are attempting to be corrective in this post, and MISSED, again

the SCOTUS said "24 hours is too short" and gave no further guidance - compliance COULD look like 24:00:1.

However, the SCOTUS did NOT, under any circumstances, give opinion of the validity of using the AEA --

there's advice often offered, and nearly as often ignored - "quit while you are behind"

Those Denices can change everything......

The lack of providing adversarial hearings makes the Regimes actions unconstitutional.
So holds the S. Ct., twice now in 2 months.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The lack of providing adversarial hearings makes the Regimes actions unconstitutional.
So holds the S. Ct., twice now in 2 months.

which STILL doesn't confirm YOUR title

quote:

S. Ct., blocks Trump’s use of rarely invoked wartime power to deport migrants

they SAID it was just fine, with more time for notification---

"dye prices" indeed

"Regimes "

funny, you used to use "the Party" and "the Faction" when the OTHER party was in power --

what changed? as today the roles are reversed

"wrdz" matter

I've tried to read the OP report vs the subsequent arguments, and while the OP report summary on the SCOTUS decision makes sense, I think the arguments are nonsense, look petty or silly, and not intended in good faith towards answers or understanding of the underlying significance of the S.C.'s decision.

Anyway, in an attempt towards understanding, significance and perspective:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...10c4e6be2f01de&ei=33

A showdown unleashed by Trump's outrage is coming | by Robert Reich • 2h •
4 min read

The showdown is nearly upon us. Friday's decision by the Supreme Court needs to be understood in this larger context. The coming showdown between Trump and the Supreme Court will be the largest stress test yet of our constitutional system.

Friday the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump regime cannot deport a group of Venezuelans while the matter is being litigated in the courts. The regime can’t merely allege that they’re members of a violent gang; it must give them sufficient time to challenge their deportations. And it can’t merely assume that the 18th-century Alien Enemies Act gives it authority. Both the facts of these cases and the law have to be hashed out in lower courts.

The justices called the detainees’ interests “particularly weighty” because of the risk of removal to a notorious prison in El Salvador where the migrants could face indefinite detention.

Score a big one for the rule of law.

Of course, Justice Samuel Alito dissented, joined by Clarence Thomas. The two have moved so far into the dense fog of irrational right-wing legal blather that they have lost all credibility.

The big news is that the three Trump appointees — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — joined the chief justice and the three Democratic appointees to set a limit on Trump.

I call this a showdown because Trump cannot abide limits.

He reacted in fury to the ruling: “THE SUPREME COURT WON’T ALLOW US TO GET CRIMINALS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!” he wrote on social media, and in a subsequent post said, “The Supreme Court of the United States is not allowing me to do what I was elected to do.” And he called it “a bad and dangerous day for America.”

Trump’s outrage has three unfortunate consequences.

It establishes that Trump and the nation’s highest court are on a collision course on what Trump considers a central goal of his regime — what he “was elected to do.”

It also increases the possibility that Trump will do what JD Vance and others in the White House have urged him to do all along — announce that he will not be bound by the court’s rulings.

This would be momentous. If enough Americans (and their constituents) are horrified by this — as we should be — it could spell the end of Trump. Openly defying a Supreme Court decision is surely enough to warrant an impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate.

The third consequence of Trump’s rage is to expose the nine justices — and the judiciary in general — to even more harassment, including death threats. Online threats toward judges and justices are growing.

Last Sunday, Trump criticized what he called “a radicalized and incompetent Court System,” which he said was standing in the way of his mass deportation agenda.

Paul Redmond Michel, a former federal appeals court judge appointed by Ronald Reagan, said the increasing threats to judges highlighted an urgent need for Trump, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and other administration officials to make clear that they will follow court orders, regardless of the outcome, and prioritize judges’ safety.

“We know from the January 6, 2021, rioters that there are people out there who are perfectly prepared to be extremely violent and damaging and threatening,” said Michel. “Judges have to feel confident enough in being protected that they can make decisions without looking over their shoulders and worrying about whether the decision, if it’s unpleasing to the administration, might cause them some kind of harm.”

This week, U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), ranking member of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, asked.pdf) Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel to investigate the increasing number of threats to federal judges, which “threaten not only judges and their families, but also judicial independence and the rule of law,” Durbin wrote.

But there’s no question what’s fueling the threats — as Trump’s outburst against the Supreme Court’s ruling yesterday shows.

The Trump regime is not content to merely castigate judges and justices. It is now arresting judges.

On Tuesday, it indicted Judge Hannah C. Dugan of the Milwaukee County Circuit Court on charges of obstructing federal agents from arresting a suspected undocumented immigrant who was appearing in her courtroom.

In fact, Dugan was simply trying to maintain the legal sanctity of that courtroom.

Attorney General Bondi says the regime will target judges who oppose the president’s growing immigration crackdown:

“What has happened to our judiciary is beyond me. The [judges] are deranged is all I can think of. I think some of these judges think that they are beyond and above the law. They are not, and we are sending a very strong message today ... if you are harboring a fugitive… we will come after you and we will prosecute you. We will find you.”

Judges and justices cannot be “beyond and above the law” because they are the final arbiters of the law. They have also become the last firewall against a Trump dictatorship — which presumably is why the regime is now taking them on.

Friday's decision by the Supreme Court needs to be understood in this larger context. The coming showdown between Trump and the Supreme Court will be the largest stress test yet of our constitutional system.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...00e8833bfdbcdf&ei=31

Trump endorses idea that Supreme Court ruling blocking his deportations under Alien Enemies Act is ‘illegal’
Story by Ariana Baio • 18h •
3 min read

On Truth Social on Saturday, Trump reposted two posts made by attorney Mike Davis, a close Trump ally and the founder of the Article III project, calling the court’s recent decision “illegal” and claiming it was “heading down a perilous path” by not allowing Trump to continue a constitutionally questionable action.

“The Supreme Court still has an illegal injunction on the President of the United States, preventing him from commanding military operations to expel these foreign terrorists,” Davis wrote.

He continued, “The President should house these terrorists near the Chevy Chase Country Club, with daytime release.”

Chevy Chase Country Club is located in Maryland, near the homes of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the nation and has the final say on legal disputes involving constitutional or federal law challenges.

The Texas contingent eats such idiocy up endorsing it with statements as follows:

“The S. Ct., is not the final arbitrator (of constitutional application).”

“The S. Ct., can’t tell Texas what to do.”

“Due process does not matter.”

And arguments that unilateral secession is constitutional.