obama judge micro manages trump to return illegal abrego garcia

89,456 Views | 1075 Replies | Last: 1 day ago by will25u
flown-the-coop
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:49p, 4/15/25
AG
Regardless of what this Maryland judge concocts today in her undoubtedly long and not based on the US Constitution, common law, English law, the Magna Carta, the Bible, the Koran or the MS13 Guidebook to US Deportation Law, the facts of the case are clear.

He was ordered removed from the US.

He was an admitted member of a gang. He appealed this, was determined to still be a gang member, and has admitted that the basis for his claim that he should not be returned to El Salvador is based on that gang affiliation, specifically MS13.

POTUS has declared MS13 a foreign terrorist organization. Senor Garcia is now a terrorist, no different than a member of the Houthis, Al Qaeda, etc.

He was deported for being a terrorist in this Country despite an order to deport.

The ONLY matter to even be debated was where he "could" be sent on a now irrelevant Judge's order - made irrelevant by the terrorist designation.

SCOTUS gave the Maryland judge an out to have them clarify "effectuate". If judge says that means to return him to US, SCOTUS will tell the Maryland judge "no dice, that's an Article II" role.

Folks clamoring for him to be returned need to read paragraphs 8 and 9 as indicated above. Its the only legal remedies available, which is sort of irrelevant because Garcia is not a US citizen and is NOT a subject under the US Constitution. He is now a rando hanging out in a prison in El Salvador.

Whether El Salvador has him justly detained is a topic for the UN to address with Bukele. Bukele agrees with the US that this guy is a terrorist. I imagine El Salvador has laws regarding this and he is subject to them.

The Senator thinking he will re-enact some Congressman Leo Ryan savior attempt by going down there will likely result in a similar outcome. Death for him and the people he is trying to arrest.

Hell, Trump would be within his powers to shoot any plane ferrying a terrorist into the US smooth out of the air, regardless of a US Senator being on board.

Those are your apples, like them or not.
Reply Quote
12
CampSkunk
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to GenericAggie • 5:02p, 4/15/25
AG
GenericAggie said:
Ya'll are arguing against basically 1 person on this board. Stop feeding the beast. He's not going to listen to anything you say because he's "well read"
Not sure why you choose to mock me, but I suppose it's better to cite what I read on Facebook, like most of the people in this thread. I'm sorry the truth hurts, and the other guy is right - my mind is not going to be changed. You might learn something if you actually read the court opinions. Here's the links, if you feel like bothering with it. Then you too will be well read.

ON APPLICATION TO VACATE INJUNCTION ENTERED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-1345

Reply Quote
1
newbie11
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to flown-the-coop • 5:04p, 4/15/25
flown-the-coop said:
Regardless of what this Maryland judge concocts today in her undoubtedly long and not based on the US Constitution, common law, English law, the Magna Carta, the Bible, the Koran or the MS13 Guidebook to US Deportation Law, the facts of the case are clear.

He was ordered removed from the US.

He was an admitted member of a gang. He appealed this, was determined to still be a gang member, and has admitted that the basis for his claim that he should not be returned to El Salvador is based on that gang affiliation, specifically MS13.

POTUS has declared MS13 a foreign terrorist organization. Senor Garcia is now a terrorist, no different than a member of the Houthis, Al Qaeda, etc.

He was deported for being a terrorist in this Country despite an order to deport.

The ONLY matter to even be debated was where he "could" be sent on a now irrelevant Judge's order - made irrelevant by the terrorist designation.

SCOTUS gave the Maryland judge an out to have them clarify "effectuate". If judge says that means to return him to US, SCOTUS will tell the Maryland judge "no dice, that's an Article II" role.

Folks clamoring for him to be returned need to read paragraphs 8 and 9 as indicated above. Its the only legal remedies available, which is sort of irrelevant because Garcia is not a US citizen and is NOT a subject under the US Constitution. He is now a rando hanging out in a prison in El Salvador.

Whether El Salvador has him justly detained is a topic for the UN to address with Bukele. Bukele agrees with the US that this guy is a terrorist. I imagine El Salvador has laws regarding this and he is subject to them.

The Senator thinking he will re-enact some Congressman Leo Ryan savior attempt by going down there will likely result in a similar outcome. Death for him and the people he is trying to arrest.

Hell, Trump would be within his powers to shoot any plane ferrying a terrorist into the US smooth out of the air, regardless of a US Senator being on board.

Those are your apples, like them or not.
Exactly. Come here illegally get deported. I don't care where. Be illegal somewhere else. Join a gang. Poor choice made.
Reply Quote
11
flown-the-coop
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CampSkunk • 5:14p, 4/15/25
AG
CampSkunk said:
GenericAggie said:
Ya'll are arguing against basically 1 person on this board. Stop feeding the beast. He's not going to listen to anything you say because he's "well read"
Not sure why you choose to mock me, but I suppose it's better to cite what I read on Facebook, like most of the people in this thread. I'm sorry the truth hurts, and the other guy is right - my mind is not going to be changed. You might learn something if you actually read the court opinions. Here's the links, if you feel like bothering with it. Then you too will be well read.

ON APPLICATION TO VACATE INJUNCTION ENTERED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-1345

Just want to point out that judges' opinions can often be... WRONG.

That is the case here. Why should people read the opinions of a judge who has no effing clue as to the law, the US Constitution, separation of powers, immigration laws, sovereignty and due process?

Is this one of those weird judges that never went to law school?

Most on this thread have a deeper understanding of our laws and Constitution than this judge could ever hope for.

It can no longer be claimed Garcia was not afforded a habeas hearing. He was. Even granted an appeal.

He lost both.

He made false statements.

And he is a verified member of a designated foreign terrorist organization.

Even still, Trump has made the ask to Bukele who denied to return him.

Garcia is now subject to the government of El Salvador. He is no longer subject to the laws and procedures of the United States - regardless of any court opinions including that of SCOTUS.

Don't like it? Put your impeachment britches on or cool the jets until January 21, 2029.
Reply Quote
14
1 edit
Ag with kids
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to fredfredunderscorefred • 5:14p, 4/15/25
AG
fredfredunderscorefred said:
ThunderCougarFalconBird said:
DOJ status report for today basically says: we'll admit him into us if he presents at a port of entry. He will immediately be detained and deported to a third country or back to El Salvador. lol.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.77.0.pdf

paragraphs 8 and 9---bienvenido...y adios
Ouch.

That's gotta hurt.

Basically told the judge that even if he comes back he's immediately leaving AND not coming into her court for any reason (not that she has any jurisdiction anyways)...
Reply Quote
12
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CampSkunk • 5:21p, 4/15/25
CampSkunk said:

Not sure why you choose to mock me, but I suppose it's better to cite what I read on Facebook, like most of the people in this thread. I'm sorry the truth hurts, and the other guy is right - my mind is not going to be changed. You might learn something if you actually read the court opinions. Here's the links, if you feel like bothering with it. Then you too will be well read.

ON APPLICATION TO VACATE INJUNCTION ENTERED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-1345

Is the guy back here?
Reply Quote
3
flown-the-coop
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ellis Wyatt • 5:31p, 4/15/25
AG
Ellis Wyatt said:
CampSkunk said:

Not sure why you choose to mock me, but I suppose it's better to cite what I read on Facebook, like most of the people in this thread. I'm sorry the truth hurts, and the other guy is right - my mind is not going to be changed. You might learn something if you actually read the court opinions. Here's the links, if you feel like bothering with it. Then you too will be well read.

ON APPLICATION TO VACATE INJUNCTION ENTERED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-1345

Is the guy back here?
Schedule him on one of those flights Boasburg ordered to be turned around.

Brief reminder that foreign gang members (now terrorists) residing in the United States represent a clear & present danger to you and your family.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndtx/pr/cartel-boss-tied-southlake-murder-hire-among-defendants-extradited-mexico

Many posters here visit this shopping area on a regular basis. Though the guy above has been extradited back to face judgment for his crimes, I am perfectly fine with both of these fellas rotting away (quickly I pray) in an El Salvador prison for terrorists.

People think these cartels and gang members are not walking amongst us. But I had dinner about a year ago at Benihanas in Las Colinas next to a table populated by 3 cartel guys, their 'wives' and their kids.

They were overall pleasant and we discussed which spicy sauces to use, but their hand tattoos, knives on their belts and noticeable bulges indicated a less than law abiding presence.

These people are dangerous. They have to go, though I would prefer a more permanent relocation of these filthy thugs.
Reply Quote
5
Ag with kids
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CampSkunk • 5:34p, 4/15/25
AG
CampSkunk said:
GenericAggie said:
Ya'll are arguing against basically 1 person on this board. Stop feeding the beast. He's not going to listen to anything you say because he's "well read"
Not sure why you choose to mock me, but I suppose it's better to cite what I read on Facebook, like most of the people in this thread. I'm sorry the truth hurts, and the other guy is right - my mind is not going to be changed. You might learn something if you actually read the court opinions. Here's the links, if you feel like bothering with it. Then you too will be well read.

ON APPLICATION TO VACATE INJUNCTION ENTERED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-1345

We HAVE read them. They've been posted numerous times on this board. Don't act like you're the only person here who is "well read"...
Reply Quote
9
CampSkunk
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to flown-the-coop • 5:36p, 4/15/25
AG
I don't disagree with you. The problem is that he hasn't lost, yet. Both opinions I linked reach that conclusion. I don't support impeachment, since I like Trump and voted for him three times. I do support the Fifth Amendment, which states, in part, that "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". In this case, the judiciary has concluded, at all levels, that he was denied due process. It doesn't matter that everybody in this thread might think that he has received due process. He hasn't, in the opinion of the courts.
Reply Quote
1
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ag with kids • 5:38p, 4/15/25
AG
Quote:
Basically told the judge that even if he comes back he's immediately leaving AND not coming into her court for any reason (not that she has any jurisdiction anyways)...
Let the judge throw her little hissy, stompy foot fit. She doesn't have jurisdiction.

She is in when-a-tree-falls-in-the-forest territory.

Reply Quote
10
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CampSkunk • 5:41p, 4/15/25
AG
Quote:
I do support the Fifth Amendment, which states, in part, that "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". In this case, the judiciary has concluded, at all levels, that he was denied due process.
You really are stuck on due process but do you even understand what that legal concept entails in the case at bar?

Methinks you do not.
Reply Quote
13
Troy91
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 5:43p, 4/15/25
AG
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
I do support the Fifth Amendment, which states, in part, that "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". In this case, the judiciary has concluded, at all levels, that he was denied due process.
You really are stuck on due process but do you even understand what that legal concept entails in the case at bar?

Methinks you do not.
well read and arguing with the attorneys who actually understand the concepts under discussion.

I look forward to his next user name.
Reply Quote
8
CampSkunk
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ag with kids • 5:44p, 4/15/25
AG
Why do you call it "acting". I'm stating my thoughts on a message board. By the way, I had not previously posted the 4th Circuit opinion. Somebody implied that I was talking nonsense, so I posted my citations. Is that a bad thing?
Reply Quote
Ag with kids
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CampSkunk • 5:45p, 4/15/25
AG
CampSkunk said:
I don't disagree with you. The problem is that he hasn't lost, yet. Both opinions I linked reach that conclusion. I don't support impeachment, since I like Trump and voted for him three times. I do support the Fifth Amendment, which states, in part, that "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". In this case, the judiciary has concluded, at all levels, that he was denied due process. It doesn't matter that everybody in this thread might think that he has received due process. He hasn't, in the opinion of the courts.
SCOTUS said:

Quote:
ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador
Well, here is how the government says his case would be handled if he had not been sent to El Salvador:

Quote:
9. I have been authorized to represent that if Abrego Garcia does present at a port of entry, he would become subject to detention by DHS. In that case, DHS would take him into custody in the United States and either remove him to a third country or terminate his removal of withholding because of his membership in MS-13, a designated foreign terrorist organization, and remove him to El Salvador.
Only you and a lot of people on the left are insisting that he should get ADDITIONAL due process since he's already had it twice.
Reply Quote
13
ThunderCougarFalconBird
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 5:46p, 4/15/25
AG
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
I do support the Fifth Amendment, which states, in part, that "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". In this case, the judiciary has concluded, at all levels, that he was denied due process.
You really are stuck on due process but do you even understand what that legal concept entails in the case at bar?

Methinks you do not.
don't bash him. He went to Hollywood Upstairs College of Law.
Reply Quote
8
CampSkunk
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 5:47p, 4/15/25
AG
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
I do support the Fifth Amendment, which states, in part, that "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". In this case, the judiciary has concluded, at all levels, that he was denied due process.
You really are stuck on due process but do you even understand what that legal concept entails in the case at bar?

Methinks you do not.
Well thank you for offering to explain it to me. I'm here to learn (not really, I read TexAgs for the entertainment). And if I'm wrong, I will admit it.
Reply Quote
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CampSkunk • 5:50p, 4/15/25
You are aware that quite a few judges have been ruling based on their political wishes, not the law, aren't you?

As Hawg said above, this judge does not even have jurisdiction. Most of these judges have been issuing rulings on cases they have no jurisdiction over.They are very deliberately gumming up the works and overwhelming the system.
Reply Quote
12
1 edit
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CampSkunk • 6:16p, 4/15/25
AG
CampSkunk said:
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
I do support the Fifth Amendment, which states, in part, that "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". In this case, the judiciary has concluded, at all levels, that he was denied due process.
You really are stuck on due process but do you even understand what that legal concept entails in the case at bar?

Methinks you do not.
Well thank you for offering to explain it to me. I'm here to learn (not really, I read TexAgs for the entertainment). And if I'm wrong, I will admit it.
Son, I took semesters in Con Law and Crim Law,Crim Procedure Law. But here's a thumbnail sketch on those complexities.

FIRST, this is not a criminal case, despite the term of illegal alien. Yes he broke the law by entering and remaining illegally but he is not being "prosecuted" for that. His case is handled administratively, not by Article III courts. So he doesn't have full Miranda nor even Gideon, nor even Brady rights. Rights under the Bill of Rights are collectively called "substantive due process" rights that a citizen has.

How those substantive rights have been ensured through various SCOTUS opinions over two centuries has been developed by procedural rules being changed as a result. Miranda and Gideon did not come down until the 1960s, for instance. Cops do not properly Mirandize a defendant in custody? Anything that defendant says is excluded from evidence, if the police ask him questions, a/k/a interrogate.

OTOH, police can cuff, transport to the station but ask for nothing other their name and birthdate but the suspect is jabbering in the back of the squad car (which is always recording) that is admissible. But again, that is procedural due process adopted towards providing substantive due process for those accused of a crime and being arrested for same.

NONE of that applies in immigration cases, under the immigration statutes, since they are administrative law, not criminal justice law. Beyond a reasonable doubt IS NOT the standard. Never has been in immigration cases.

Let me ask you this simple question. Does anyone being sued in civil court have 5th Amendment rights to not be called as a witness for the plaintiff? No, they do not. BUT they can assert that right, as a citizen...in front of the bench and a jury. Seldom goes well in a civil trial.

When you mindlessly cite the 5th, you do not understand the differences between admin immigration law and criminal law. Different procedures. different standards for burden of proof. Different legal animal.

I have tried to inform you of where your conclusions were incorrect. Hope this one helps to get over your resistance to the law.
Reply Quote
16
1 edit
flown-the-coop
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 6:25p, 4/15/25
AG
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
I do support the Fifth Amendment, which states, in part, that "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". In this case, the judiciary has concluded, at all levels, that he was denied due process.
You really are stuck on due process but do you even understand what that legal concept entails in the case at bar?

Methinks you do not.
Edit: Below reply before your more comprehensive reply above.

Thanks Ms Hawg.

My understanding of due process is the application of the law to the particular rights and circumstances of the issue the law is being applied to.

It is also my understanding from reading this thread and watching the updates on this case that the due process applicable to Senor Garcia are limited for an illegal alien - that his due process is the subject of Article II courts overseen by "executive agents" (based on Congress essentially delegating these powers to the Executive on many if not most matters regarding immigration, border control, deportation, etc).

Further that SCOTUS has traditionally upheld this arrangement including their opinion in this very case.

Garcia was able to get a judge to agree that he should not be sent to El Salvador, but it seems that determination may not have been appropriate and regardless still resided within the Executive and could then be decided differently by the Executive and regardless was made moot by the terrorist organization designation.

And as of now, Garcia was afforded due process and has expended all of his due process rights under our Constitution and is now the subject of the sovereign nation of El Salvador.

What Garcia defenders to the end want is some additional due process though they cannot point to what, where or why this additional due process is, what it is based on, and what ultimate remedy they want.

If I have messed up any of the above, I am open ears to understanding what I may be misunderstanding.
Reply Quote
6
1 edit
lcraggie
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:39p, 4/15/25
AG
CampSkunk-- would you trade places for sentencing if your boy commits a crime in the US? It is Easter season. Would you sacrice yourself or just rather haveinnocent Americans face the violence from MS-13?

Have you ever seen violence first hand?
Rangers Lead the Way, NSDQ


Reply Quote
7
Ag with kids
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CampSkunk • 6:55p, 4/15/25
AG
CampSkunk said:
Why do you call it "acting". I'm stating my thoughts on a message board. By the way, I had not previously posted the 4th Circuit opinion. Somebody implied that I was talking nonsense, so I posted my citations. Is that a bad thing?
Well, let's start HERE...

Quote:
You might learn something if you actually read the court opinions. Here's the links, if you feel like bothering with it. Then you too will be well read.
BTW, my quote was:

Quote:
Don't act like you're the only person here who is "well read"...
Reply Quote
5
Ag with kids
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 7:35p, 4/15/25
AG
aggiehawg said:
CampSkunk said:
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
I do support the Fifth Amendment, which states, in part, that "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". In this case, the judiciary has concluded, at all levels, that he was denied due process.
You really are stuck on due process but do you even understand what that legal concept entails in the case at bar?

Methinks you do not.
Well thank you for offering to explain it to me. I'm here to learn (not really, I read TexAgs for the entertainment). And if I'm wrong, I will admit it.
Son, I took semesters in Con Law and Crim Law,Crim Procedure Law. But here's a thumbnail sketch on those complexities.

FIRST, this is not a criminal case, despite the term of illegal alien. Yes he broke the law by entering and remaining illegally but he is not being "prosecuted" for that. His case is handled administratively, not by Article III courts. So he doesn't have full Miranda nor even Gideon, nor even Brady rights. Rights under the Bill of Rights are collectively called "substantive due process" rights that a citizen has.

How those substantive rights have been ensured through various SCOTUS opinions over two centuries has been developed by procedural rules being changed as a result. Miranda and Gideon did not come down until the 1960s, for instance. Cops do not properly Mirandize a defendant in custody? Anything that defendant says is excluded from evidence, if the police ask him questions, a/k/a interrogate.

OTOH, police can cuff, transport to the station but ask for nothing other their name and birthdate but the suspect is jabbering in the back of the squad car (which is always recording) that is admissible. But again, that is procedural due process adopted towards providing substantive due process for those accused of a crime and being arrested for same.

NONE of that applies in immigration cases, under the immigration statutes, since they are administrative law, not criminal justice law. Beyond a reasonable doubt IS NOT the standard. Never has been in immigration cases.

Let me ask you this simple question. Does anyone being sued in civil court have 5th Amendment rights to not be called as a witness for the plaintiff? No, they do not. BUT they can assert that right, as a citizen...in front of the bench and a jury. Seldom goes well in a civil trial.

When you mindlessly cite the 5th, you do not understand the differences between admin immigration law and criminal law. Different procedures. different standards for burden of proof. Different legal animal.

I have tried to inform you of where your conclusions were incorrect. Hope this one helps to get over your resistance to the law.
This is something I didn't realize until I heard something about this earlier today about this case.

The immigration courts are ARTICLE II courts. Which mean they are under the direction of the EXECUTIVE branch, not the JUDICIAL branch.

These district court judges are WAY over the top of their skis on this...
Reply Quote
18
BadMoonRisin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:36p, 4/15/25
AG
Reply Quote
13
Dirty_Mike&the_boys
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:17p, 4/15/25
"We're going to turn this red Prius into a soup kitchen!"
Reply Quote
14
BusterAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CampSkunk • 9:35p, 4/15/25
AG
Part of being "well read" is comprehension, something that I believe that you are lacking in.
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
Reply Quote
8
CampSkunk
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 9:41p, 4/15/25
AG
Honey, I also took con law and criminal law. In fact, I got an A in con law from David Dow at the UH Law Center. But I have never practiced, and I accept everything you said is true. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that due process considerations may constrain the government's exercise of its immigration power, and of course there are disputes over whether these constraints may apply to aliens. I have no doubt that the district court judge in this case is trying to get an outcome she wants. But it's clear that the government proceeded with an appeal of the district court's order, and that both the Fourth Circuit and the Supreme Court sent the case right back to the same judge.

The due process I'm referencing is the notice and opportunity to be heard before a court. Right or wrong, the case is before that court, and there is no doubt that he was sent away, in the opinion of these judges, in a manner that violated whatever rights he had. Otherwise, the case would be dismissed. And as far as I can tell, the judge is asking about the facts of a legal agreement between the government and El Salvador regarding the detention of a guy entitled to legal proceedings in a federal court. If he is entitled to be in federal court, which the courts have concluded, he is entitled to due process.

What I would like to see is the government release all the details of this confinement agreement and explain what it has done to "effectuate" or "facilitate" his return, however you want to define those terms. In other words, answer the question. Then if the judge enters another wrongful order, perhaps the appeals process will overrule the judge and the case will get thrown out. What action do you think they should take?
Reply Quote
Rockdoc
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CampSkunk • 9:47p, 4/15/25
AG
He ain't coming back.
Reply Quote
6
flown-the-coop
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:49p, 4/15/25
AG
Let's just say the judge got what they asked for… the government provides all the requested detail.

So what. It is not up to the judge to rule whether that detail is sufficient and whether the Executive made the "right" decision.

It is the SOLE preview of the Executive to make the determination. The judge is only entitled to ask "did you give him a chance to provide evidence proving he was not MS13?".

If the Executive says "yes, judge." That's it. That is all the due process there is.

Is there indication this judge has some sort of special powers to argue that the Executive did not have enough? Because she has no authority to do so.

Edited to Add: As it is on Garcia to prove he was not what he is accused of, has he provided a single shred of evidence indicating he is not, has never been and has no known associations to any El Salvadoran gang? Seems to me he has actually provided evidence confirming he is.
Reply Quote
6
1 edit
mjschiller
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:56p, 4/15/25
AG
This is what you get from a marxist judge. Garbage
Marvin J. Schiller
Reply Quote
8
samurai_science
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CampSkunk • 9:58p, 4/15/25
CampSkunk said:
What action do you think they should take?
Nothing, he gone.
Reply Quote
8
ThunderCougarFalconBird
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CampSkunk • 10:01p, 4/15/25
AG
There is no "confinement agreement." Even if there was, this whole thing is non-justiciable. Go back to the premium board or Hollywood Upstairs College of Law.
Reply Quote
8
Reginald Cousins
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CampSkunk • 10:10p, 4/15/25
S
CampSkunk said:
GenericAggie said:
CampSkunk said:
ThunderCougarFalconBird said:
CampSkunk said:
Yes. If I have control over the prisoners, even if I choose to house them in a prison by contract, they are still in federal custody. Do you think prisoners are not still the responsibility of the state when they are housed in Harris County. Can Harris County say no when the state comes and gets them? Of course not. By law they are still considered to be in our custody.
did you go to Hollywood Upstairs College of Law????
No, I actually read the opinion of people who know what they are talking about, sometimes called subject matter experts. But back to my original point - all Trump has to do is follow the rules, and I wish he would do it.


Making sure I'm listening to a SME. What type of law do you practice?

Not trying to be passive aggressive. Truly want to know.
I do not practice, and I have never claimed to practice. But I do claim to be well read, and extremely conservative. To me, snatching someone off the street and sending them away, without due process, is just as bad as jack-booted government thugs banging down your door without a warrant. Due process simply means that all legal rights of the individual are respected, and we didn't respect them in this case. So, Trump should fix it and deport him after following all the rules. I don't care if the guy they snatched is scum. I mean, I also want Laken Riley's killer to be tried before he is executed.
Reply Quote
Ag with kids
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CampSkunk • 10:14p, 4/15/25
AG
CampSkunk said:
Honey, I also took con law and criminal law. In fact, I got an A in con law from David Dow at the UH Law Center. But I have never practiced, and I accept everything you said is true. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that due process considerations may constrain the government's exercise of its immigration power, and of course there are disputes over whether these constraints may apply to aliens. I have no doubt that the district court judge in this case is trying to get an outcome she wants. But it's clear that the government proceeded with an appeal of the district court's order, and that both the Fourth Circuit and the Supreme Court sent the case right back to the same judge.

The due process I'm referencing is the notice and opportunity to be heard before a court. Right or wrong, the case is before that court, and there is no doubt that he was sent away, in the opinion of these judges, in a manner that violated whatever rights he had. Otherwise, the case would be dismissed. And as far as I can tell, the judge is asking about the facts of a legal agreement between the government and El Salvador regarding the detention of a guy entitled to legal proceedings in a federal court. If he is entitled to be in federal court, which the courts have concluded, he is entitled to due process.

What I would like to see is the government release all the details of this confinement agreement and explain what it has done to "effectuate" or "facilitate" his return, however you want to define those terms. In other words, answer the question. Then if the judge enters another wrongful order, perhaps the appeals process will overrule the judge and the case will get thrown out. What action do you think they should take?
What the SCOTUS said was that this district court judge needed to DEFINE what she meant by "effectuate". In none of her rulings since it's been remanded back to her has she actually defined "effectuate" as the SCOTUS directed...
Reply Quote
6
Ag with kids
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BadMoonRisin • 10:16p, 4/15/25
AG
BadMoonRisin said:
This is what the GOP needs to be rolling on video loop all during the midterm elections.

Democrats are for criminals and terrorists.

The Republicans want to get rid of criminals and terrorists...

Don't get complicated with the message.
Reply Quote
5
Ag with kids
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CampSkunk • 10:18p, 4/15/25
AG
CampSkunk said:
Honey, I also took con law and criminal law. In fact, I got an A in con law from David Dow at the UH Law Center. But I have never practiced, and I accept everything you said is true. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that due process considerations may constrain the government's exercise of its immigration power, and of course there are disputes over whether these constraints may apply to aliens. I have no doubt that the district court judge in this case is trying to get an outcome she wants. But it's clear that the government proceeded with an appeal of the district court's order, and that both the Fourth Circuit and the Supreme Court sent the case right back to the same judge.

The due process I'm referencing is the notice and opportunity to be heard before a court. Right or wrong, the case is before that court, and there is no doubt that he was sent away, in the opinion of these judges, in a manner that violated whatever rights he had. Otherwise, the case would be dismissed. And as far as I can tell, the judge is asking about the facts of a legal agreement between the government and El Salvador regarding the detention of a guy entitled to legal proceedings in a federal court. If he is entitled to be in federal court, which the courts have concluded, he is entitled to due process.

What I would like to see is the government release all the details of this confinement agreement and explain what it has done to "effectuate" or "facilitate" his return, however you want to define those terms. In other words, answer the question. Then if the judge enters another wrongful order, perhaps the appeals process will overrule the judge and the case will get thrown out. What action do you think they should take?
Could you highlight these parts of the SCOTUS ruling so we understand how you're coming to this conclusion?
Reply Quote
4
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.