What are the chances you think the court says "no, you have to let the appellate court rule first?"

The Circuit Court already ruled. It denied the requested stay.

Not sure why you are trying to do a whataboutism with this. The law is bad and enabled the mass incarceration without due process of 120,000+ people. The vast majority of those were Japanese which is why I said Japanese internment. All of it is bad and I even said in what was quoted that No one should be treated as sub human. Weird thing to focus on out of all of this.

The same law is being used in both instances to strip basic right of the Constitution. Due Process and Unlawful search and seizure among them. Not sure why that is so hard for some on here to grasp.

KillerAg21 said:

---

Not sure why you are trying to do a whataboutism with this. The law is bad and enabled the mass incarceration without due process of 120,000+ people. The vast majority of those were Japanese which is why I said Japanese internment. All of it is bad and I even said in what was quoted that No one should be treated as sub human. Weird thing to focus on out of all of this.

---

Its law of the land if you dont like work to get it changed its not a hard concept

This is a law that has been misused and abused EVERY time it's been enacted. If you are a citizen who likes their rights we should all agree it's bad.

KillerAg21 said:

---

This is a law that has been misused and abused EVERY time it's been enacted. If you are a citizen who likes their rights we should all agree it's bad.

---

It's a short, good law, even if Democrats have abused it over the years, and are now histrionic about it's usage by a Republican.

Ironically, these laws helpfully led to a 'self deportation' of many French (Philly was once around 10% French in the late 18th century), and this cured a lot of the problems caused by our…porous borders.

I'm not an alien, nor a seditionist fwiw, and don't see it as a constraint in any way on my rights, but rather a protection of them.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/100th-congress/house-bill/442

I can dunk on you all day about this.

LOL. Not worth anything else.

KillerAg21 said:

---

https://www.congress.gov/bill/100th-congress/house-bill/442

I can dunk on you all day about this.

---

You think proving him right that it was abused by a Democrat before is dunking?

SCOTUS appeal field.

The Administration has filed a motion for an emergency stay with the Supreme Court to block the TROs imposed on its Venezuelan gang member removals under the Alien Enemies Act. Just starting to read the brief now.

But it is noteworthy IMO that the emphasis of hte argument seems…

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) March 28, 2025

Popcorn ready.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/alien-enemies-act-explained

Those who throw stones should not live in glass houses.

What does party affiliation have to do with the government mistreatment of its citizens? If it bad, it should be called out and rectified regardless of political affiliation.

If you are saying that because you are assuming I am a democrat you would be wrong.

KillerAg21 said:

---

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/alien-enemies-act-explained

Those who throw stones should not live in glass houses.

---

Brennan Center for Justice? LOLOL. Could Soros himself not have been cited to somehow 'dunk on me?'

Read what the Soros Democracy Alliance Trump Resistance’s, Brennan Center, did during the 2020 election and get back to me.

Yeah and the ACLU, who worked the Georgia polls, was there too. @CanariesBlue https://t.co/sW8Lta5wL7 pic.twitter.com/odIUFjUjjF

— Bad Kitty Unleashed 🦁💪🏻 (@pepesgrandma) February 27, 2025

The Brennan Center is not an honest broker. It is a George Soros-funded left wing outfit which campaigns against voter ID and promotes every other Democrat dirty trick which befouled the 2020 election, especially racializing the act of voting. But @axios accepts their word as… pic.twitter.com/Rz1hABTMO7

— Miranda Devine (@mirandadevine) September 8, 2024

🔥🔥🔥The Brennan Center has been proven by me to be a part of the Soros Democracy Alliance Trump Resistance.

They spent 4 billion dollars. And incorporated Mail-in ballots and drop boxes. Biden won.

Who here wants an investigation into what happened here? Why should billions… https://t.co/sW8Lta5wL7

— Bad Kitty Unleashed 🦁💪🏻 (@pepesgrandma) February 27, 2025

Thank you for the entertainment this am.

Staff clean up is needed stat!

To the poster that just got buried on this thread... I blocked you for your awful sports takes, and now I see that those takes don't stop at sports. Honestly, kind of impressive if it wasn't so sad.

There is no way you are using a Twitter thread as a legitimate source.

Thank you for providing me with this entertainment this morning. I'm accused of being a democrat who is not in favor of a law used by former democrats to misuse citizens and their Constitution rights. Then the source you are trying to discredit, which by the way gives every source to Supreme Court cases and evidence isn't enough.

https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/PDF/LSB11269/LSB11269.2.pdf

Edit:Here is even more if you refuse to believe anything

https://www.mofirst.org/docs/Sedition_Act_cases-2.pdf

KillerAg21 said:

---

There is no way you are using a Twitter thread as a legitimate source.

Thank you for providing me with this entertainment this morning. I'm accused of being a democrat who is not in favor of a law used by former democrats to misuse citizens and their Constitution rights. Then the source you are trying to discredit, which by the way gives every source to Supreme Court cases and evidence isn't enough.

https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/PDF/LSB11269/LSB11269.2.pdf

---

We're coming to find that so-called Conservatives treat the Constitution exactly like the Democrats/liberals do. "It's okay as long as our guy is doing it. Nothing bad will happen."

Precedent goes against Trump's use of the law.

KillerAg21 said:

---

What does party affiliation have to do with the government mistreatment of its citizens? If it bad, it should be called out and rectified regardless of political affiliation.

If you are saying that because you are assuming I am a democrat you would be wrong.

---

Just commenting that what you posted was not a dunk in any way.

It was a confirmation of what he said...

If this was a right wing agiator on a student visa left wouldnt care! They would be screaming get the Nazi out of here!

" I'm not an alien, nor a seditionist fwiw, and don't see it as a constraint in any way on my rights, but rather a protection of them."

This comment is directly contradiction so the cute posted by Congress. If you don't see it then I can't help you.

KillerAg21 said:

---

" I'm not an alien, nor a seditionist fwiw, and don't see it as a constraint in any way on my rights, but rather a protection of them."

This comment is directly contradiction so the cute posted by Congress. If you don't see it then I can't help you.

---

"…so the cute posted by congress?" No, I don't see it, and am highly skeptical you can help me.

KillerAg21 said:

---

" I'm not an alien, nor a seditionist fwiw, and don't see it as a constraint in any way on my rights, but rather a protection of them."

This comment is directly contradiction so the cute posted by Congress. If you don't see it then I can't help you.

---

How in the **** did what you posted have to do with that sentence?

KillerAg21 said:

---

There is no way you are using a Twitter thread as a legitimate source.

Thank you for providing me with this entertainment this morning. I'm accused of being a democrat who is not in favor of a law used by former democrats to misuse citizens and their Constitution rights. Then the source you are trying to discredit, which by the way gives every source to Supreme Court cases and evidence isn't enough.

https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/PDF/LSB11269/LSB11269.2.pdf

Edit:Here is even more if you refuse to believe anything

https://www.mofirst.org/docs/Sedition_Act_cases-2.pdf

---

Why are you just posting links? Do you know how to embed them?

Anyway, your CRS link is correct, Ludecke now controls right this 200+ year old law's interpretation. Trump administration brief supports the view held by the Executive that Venezuela was using TdA as a proxy invasion tool/force of the United States. Per the link to the brief;

I'm not going to try to persuade you good analysis is available/valid via X, but yes, the gov't's brief is going to warrant SCOTUS taking this up, imho.

2/ The brief is excellent and includes extensive analysis, but the bottom line is simple: Judge Boesberg LACKED jurisdiction. That's all that matters & Judge Henderson ignored that flaw. pic.twitter.com/qubIoS7Vb6

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) March 28, 2025

4/4 SCOTUS could easily start to crack down on injunctions by saying lower court's must FIRST assure themselves of jurisdiction and when there is another basis, it cannot be the Administrative Procedure Act. MANY of other injunctions are wrongly premised on APA. pic.twitter.com/fuMdNNET3g

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) March 28, 2025

I'm moderately entertained by your outlook/opinions/'research' here.

From the Brennan Center Article

"The president may invoke the Alien Enemies Act in times of "declared war" or when a foreign government threatens or undertakes an "invasion" or "predatory incursion" against U.S. territory."

"The president has inherent authority to repel these kinds of sudden attacks an authority that necessarily implies the discretion to decide when an invasion or predatory incursion is underway."

To me both of these statements support the President's position. The first statement says in times of "declared war" OR an invasion/predatory incursion. Half the article states only valid during time of Declared War by Congress.

The second statement speaks for itself and like the first statement contradicts the entire article.

I would implore you to read a book on the incredibly poor treatment Americans citizens got from this law and Executive Prder 9066. No one in U.S. history has used the invasion clause of this law. It truly blows my mind people are holding water to less protections against the government instead of more. This law destroyed those involved for generations, many of which never recovered and died in destitute poverty because their assets, homes, and communities were seized without due process.

The Supreme Court ruling stated above grants this as a wartime power. Unless the Constitution changed, Congressional approval is needed.

The humor is also not lost on me you are linking Twitter posts to an analysis that judges are misusing the Administrative Procedure Act.

TRO extended!

JUST IN: Judge Boasberg has extended his restraining order against Alien Enemies Act removals through April 12. https://t.co/JOBo8q9Awe pic.twitter.com/hDkU4xPLnK

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) March 28, 2025

KillerAg21 said:

---

The humor is also not lost on me you are linking Twitter posts to an analysis that judges are misusing the Administrative Procedure Act.

---

I appreciate good humor but would note regardless of the medium it's the analysis and credibility of the analyst/writer that largely matters. Margot Cleveland, Bill Shipley etc. are more credible than…basically any legal analyst I would expect to find if I for some reason listened to NPR/CNN/MSNBC etc. The Congressional Research Service is by comparison a relatively useless source of information when it comes to analysis, let alone a highly biased source such as the Brennan center for justice.

Jurisdiction, and the APA matter, yes. It's pretty obvious to many at this point that the rush to approve via party line votes Biden judges late (as Schumer has admitted) has put some incompetent folks on the bench.

This one is free for all -- no paywall.

If you like this content, please subscribe.

The Administration Goes To the Supreme Court Over Removal Of Venezuelan Gang Members As Alien Enemies., by @shipwreckedcrew https://t.co/Ao4gaFtAcg

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) March 28, 2025

From the link:

Quote:

---

Now taking up the Venezuelan TdA removal case is an expression of Executive power under Article II to deal with national security threats within our borders, involving citizens of quasi-hostile foreign countries who have been identified based on their dangerousness, not their nationality. The district judge has rushed in to assert that their individual rights to the extent alien enemies sent to unlawfully enter the United States by a hostile foreign government have any rights are elevated above the power of the Executive Branch to deal with the threat they pose.

The Executive's default position is "We've identified them as alien enemies who pose a threat to the peace and safety of U.S. citizens and must be removed."

The Judges' default position is "They are immigrants living in the United States who are entitled to be processed through a legal system until it is proven to our satisfaction that they aren't."

What the Administration's motion to the Supreme Court has done is take up two key issues not resolved by the Appeals Court where one of the Judges acknowledged her own failure to address the issues and asserts that her failures are the reasons why the Circuit Court came to the wrong decision in denying the stay over errors made by the District Court.

Simply put, here are the two issues and what the DOJ claims was Judge Henderson's failure to even confront them in reaching her decision:

[ol]

Whether the only basis for jurisdiction in any federal district court on an AEA claim would be "based in habeas," and if so, the only district court with proper venue would be in Texas where the five named plaintiffs were detained. Judge Henderson wrote in her statement that she "assume[d]" the district court had jurisdiction without addressing the dispute raised by the Government on that question. Federal courts are supposed to determine that they have actual jurisdiction before taking any action that prejudices either party.

Whether the decision by the district court to certify as a provision class all Venezuelan citizens who are members of Tren de Aragua without following the type of procedures normally associated with class certification was error, when the only purpose of the certification was to extend the TRO nationwide. Judge Henderson again failed to even consider the procedural irregularities, saying she was "pass[ing] on the class action 'fit' of the plaintiffs' claims." Judge Millett stated that the "swift class action" was necessary to protect the alien enemies' rights.

[/ol]Here is the crux of the argument the Administration is making to the Court on the issue of jurisdiction in the D.C. Court:

Quote:

---

Only this Court can stop rule-by-TRO from further upending the separation of powersthe sooner, the better. Here, the district court's orders have rebuffed the President's judgments as to how to protect the Nation against foreign terrorist organizations and risk debilitating effects for delicate foreign negotiations. More broadly, rule-by-TRO has become so commonplace among district courts that the Executive Branch's basic functions are in peril. In the two months since Inauguration Day, district courts have issued more than 40 injunctions or TROs against the Executive Branch. Whereas "district courts issued 14 universal injunctions against the federal government through the first three years of President Biden's term," they issued 15 universal injunctions (or temporary restraining orders) against the current Administration in February 2025 alone."

---

---

More at the link, if that is up to your standards of legal analysis. My projection is that ultimately Boasberg is going to…lose this, bigly.

As I have stated several times, "jurisdiction" means different things within the law. But whether a court has jurisdiction over a specific matter is a fundamental question. In the intro to all pleadings initiating a case, there is a recitation of that particular court's authority to preside in that case.

Now while it is true that lack of jurisdiction can be waived in certain civil cases by lawyers entering a general appearance instead of a special appearance to contest jurisdiction over a specific defendant, that is not the case with habeas cases. Different legal animal, as it were. And that cannot be waived in habeas cases because the improper parties are before the court when filed in a district wherein the actual custodian is not located.

Further, a removal order is non-justiciable.

Lastly, the attempt to use a class action, did not follow...say with me again...THE PROPER PROCEDURE. Again, class actions are a different legal animal. Different rules apply.

HTownAg98 said:

---

What are the chances you think the court says "no, you have to let the appellate court rule first?"

---

If there is any case SCOTUS takes up at the TRO stage, it's this one. It's different than the rest given the "'non-justiciable" issue and for all the reasons aggiehawg just iterated

Could this be done?

How about an executive order that requires a 5 panel judge review before an injunction or stay can be enacted. Then if a single judge tries you ignore it for not following the EO. Or go crazy and say 50 panel. Just something to force it.

Here's the problem: these judges that are obstructing Trump
don't care what the law is.

KillerAg21 said:

---

No one in U.S. history has used the invasion clause of this law.

---

How many presidents have funded an invasion of this country like your boy did? It's never happened before and it is an act of sedition.