He's dead

CampSkunk said:

---

Honey,

---

Well, aren't you precious, bless your little heart.

Have trouble with the Bar Exam, did we?

What gives this court jurisdiction to even hear this case, anyways? Hopefully you can leverage that law degree that you got (or didn't get? Not sure) and educate me as to why this case is properly before her.

BusterAg said:

---

CampSkunk said:

---

Honey,

---

Well, aren't you precious, bless your little heart.

Have trouble with the Bar Exam, did we?

What gives this court jurisdiction to even hear this case, anyways? Hopefully you can leverage that law degree that you got (or didn't get? Not sure) and educate me as to why this case is properly before her.

---

No trouble with the bar exam because I never bothered with it, because while I was in school I took a much better job with much higher pay and I no longer felt the need. But I did go ahead and finish, because my new employer paid for it. I was in the part time program, so I worked all day, went to UH at night, and at the time our three sons were in grade school. Sometimes I wonder whether I should have sacrificed and taken on the life as a young associate. But I didn't, and it turned out good in the end.

As for jurisdiction, I don't know, but if the court had no jurisdiction, don't you think the government lawyers would have raised that point? Or maybe they did raise it and lost.

CampSkunk said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

CampSkunk said:

---

Honey,

---

Well, aren't you precious, bless your little heart.

Have trouble with the Bar Exam, did we?

What gives this court jurisdiction to even hear this case, anyways? Hopefully you can leverage that law degree that you got (or didn't get? Not sure) and educate me as to why this case is properly before her.

---

No trouble with the bar exam because I never bothered with it, because while I was in school I took a much better job with much higher pay and I no longer felt the need. But I did go ahead and finish, because my new employer paid for it. I was in the part time program, so I worked all day, went to UH at night, and at the time our three sons were in grade school. Sometimes I wonder whether I should have sacrificed and taken on the life as a young associate. But I didn't, and it turned out good in the end.

As for jurisdiction, I don't know, but if the court had no jurisdiction, don't you think the government lawyers would have raised that point? Or maybe they did raise it and lost.

---

You mean a judge that doesn't have jurisdiction, yet continues the case, denied the government's claim of no jurisdiction? Say it ain't so.

agracer said:

---

CM and liberals have spent more time crying about an illegal alien MS-13 gang member on this thread, and in the media, then they did about Laken Riley.

---

Keep in mind that great Senator from Maryland who is headed to El Salvador to join Garcia cannot be bothered to address the story of Rachel Morin. He only cares about his MS-13 gang member "constituent" who was "abducted".

Forget about the mom of 5 who was raped and murdered by Garcia's 'familia'.

Hawg, what's your view on McCarthy's latest. He's touching on some points you have made.

Quote:

---

Rubio went on a ridiculous rant about how the foreign policy of the United States is run by the president, not by a judge. As the former senator is surely aware, the withholding of removal remedy was enacted by Congress. (See Title 8, U.S. Code, 1231(b)(3), "Restriction on removal to a country where alien's life or freedom would be threatened.") In this instance, withholding of removal was ordered by an immigration judge, not by Judge Xinis, the Supreme Court, or some other Article III tribunal. That is, it was ordered by an executive branch officer in the first Trump administration. What is stymying the president here is statutory law and the actions and inactions of his own administrations, not a federal judge.

---

Quote:

---

Nor is this anything close to a judicial usurpation of the president's power to conduct U.S. foreign policy. To repeat (see here and here), the courts have not interfered at all with the power of the president to make a bilateral agreement with a foreign head of state in which the foreign country agreed to cooperate with the federal government regarding the custody of prisoners. Whether to make or not make such an agreement is entirely up to the president. On the other hand, if a litigant in the United States has a legitimate claim that is cognizable in federal court, the executive branch may not obstruct the litigant. Pursuant to his oath of office, the president must conduct foreign policy, just as he must carry out all executive duties, consistent with the laws of the United States.

---

Quote:

---

It is inconceivable that the United States secretary of state is unaware that Abrego Garcia had a legal right against deportation to El Salvador that was enforceable in federal court. The Trump Justice Department confessed as much to the Supreme Court. See Noem v. Abrego Garcia (April 10, 2025): "The United States acknowledges that Abrego Garcia was subject to a withholding order forbidding his removal to El Salvador, and that the removal to El Salvador was therefore illegal."

A federal court's vindication of a person's legal rights is not a matter of the judge trying to wrest control of foreign policy. It's the law.

---

You should probably stop wasting your time with National Review. It has become just another ****ty political tabloid.

I don't know - they are spot on with the transgender issue, abortion, DOGE, and Harvard. I would like to try others though. What do you like? I've also been visiting Citi Journal a lot, ever since I saw Christopher Rufo talking about the Texas Children's Hospital transgender lies.

Listen to Mark Levin. He is a constitutional expert who has worked in the WH and argued cases before the Supreme Court. He will explain it to you.

McCarthy supported impeachment of Trump over Jan 6th speech and was also wrong (woefully) on his takes regarding classified docs at M-A-L.

He tries to strike a line of popularity not legal analysis in an attempt, desperate as it may be, to remain relevant to either the left or the right.

The lefties may want to refresh their memory of McCarthy and his takes on Islam before hanging their hat on his poor takes on Executive power & privilege.

He has historically been wrong on his Trump legal takes. He strikes me as a shallow thinker, putting too much weight in the moment and not enough weight to context and history.

agracer said:

---

CM and liberals have spent more time crying about an illegal alien MS-13 gang member on this thread, and in the media, then they did about Laken Riley.

---

Excuse me, that's Lincoln Riley - Biden.

Clown world .

There is a lot about this case that you don't know. That doesn't stop you from being very confident in your unsupported opinions though.

McCarthy hates Trump. For whatever reason, most of National Review does. It has gone to **** since covid.

Trump has gotten democrats to the position of demanding that we return an illegal alien gang member TO the USA. I know we joke about 4-D chess....but this might be it.

He does have some TDS tendencies, but beyond that he just doesn't seem like a critical thinker.

Turley is the much better, more thoughtful of the Fox News legal pundits.

And did Dershowitz get accidentally deported? Have not seen him pop up much on these legal challenges.

Marvin_Zindler said:

---

Trump has gotten democrats to the position of demanding that we return an illegal alien gang member TO the USA. I know we joke about 4-D chess....but this might be it.

---

I try to always think about what if the situation was reversed and that's a good rule of thumb for all issues but I can't envision a scenario where I would ever be championing bringing back an illegal alien gang member to this country. It truly is Bizzaro World stuff.

If Trump supported it he would lose support so quick it would make his head spin. Of course libs claim MAGA is a cult and would blindly follow anything he does...that's complete horse****, especially for this issue.

Quote:

---

On the other hand, if a litigant in the United States has a legitimate claim that is cognizable in federal court, the executive branch may not obstruct the litigant.

---

That is where McCarthy goes off course, in my view. He is ignoring which court has jurisdiction. Since the only justiciable issue lies in habeas, it is the location of the custodian that determines jurisdiction. And that jurisdiction either vests upon filing or not.

BusterAg said:

---

Clown world .

There is a lot about this case that you don't know. That doesn't stop you from being very confident in your unsupported opinions though.

---

How would you refute McCarthy's statements? Is there something to support your belief that what he says about the statute applying in this case untrue?

What I don't understand is the politics of this for Trump. His DOJ is keeping this in the news cycle, when they could bring him back, give him his hearing, and get him deported to somewhere else which doesn't violate the 2019 order. Also, I did some searching and found that order, here. It doesn't conclude that he was a member of a gang, and it said instead that he had to flee to escape a Salvadoran gang.

I just landed in San Salvador a little while ago, and I look forward to meeting with the team at the U.S. embassy to discuss the release of Mr. Abrego Garcia.

I also hope to meet with Salvadoran officials and with Kilmar himself. He was illegally abducted and needs to come home. pic.twitter.com/MzKe7U8Wwr

— Senator Chris Van Hollen (@ChrisVanHollen) April 16, 2025

salvadorian pres should have him escorted back to the airport

Hawg has very good analysis on why jurisdiction in this case doesn't exhist for this court. Very recent SCOTUS case makes it super clear.

As for the news cycle, it's good for Trump that the dems are fighting so hard to get this illegal gang banger back into the US. Most of the people that voted for Trump, which is enough to win all congress and POTUS, support Trump here.

Finally, relying on McCarthy for legal analysis is not a good starting point.

Pretty easy to put an ad together about a local who was raped/murdered/sex trafficed by an illegal alien gang member then put a picture of this guy or whomever else saying they'll fly them back along with 530k of their nearest and dearest into your neighborhood and then hide from you with a picture of Whitmer behind her folder.

This is crazy. Who the hell is advising these people?

CampSkunk said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Clown world .

There is a lot about this case that you don't know. That doesn't stop you from being very confident in your unsupported opinions though.

---

How would you refute McCarthy's statements? Is there something to support your belief that what he says about the statute applying in this case untrue?

What I don't understand is the politics of this for Trump. His DOJ is keeping this in the news cycle, when they could bring him back, give him his hearing, and get him deported to somewhere else which doesn't violate the 2019 order. Also, I did some searching and found that order, here. It doesn't conclude that he was a member of a gang, and it said instead that he had to flee to escape a Salvadoran gang.

---

I don't believe this was his original removal order.

This is to get relief from the existing order IIRC.

CampSkunk said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Clown world .

There is a lot about this case that you don't know. That doesn't stop you from being very confident in your unsupported opinions though.

---

How would you refute McCarthy's statements? Is there something to support your belief that what he says about the statute applying in this case untrue?

What I don't understand is the politics of this for Trump.

---

Trump has full authority here. This court doesn't even have jurisdiction. That matters.

And no, the gang member was not illegally abducted. Hoping Van Hollen gets locked up in El Salvador for life. He has no legal role in this process.

MarkTwain said:

---

damiond said:

---

I just landed in San Salvador a little while ago, and I look forward to meeting with the team at the U.S. embassy to discuss the release of Mr. Abrego Garcia.

I also hope to meet with Salvadoran officials and with Kilmar himself. He was illegally abducted and needs to come home. pic.twitter.com/MzKe7U8Wwr

— Senator Chris Van Hollen (@ChrisVanHollen) April 16, 2025

salvadorian pres should have him escorted back to the airport

---

Charge this Dbag with violating the Logan Act for trying to circumvent US policy without the consent of the executive branch.

---

How very seditionist of him.

Ag with kids said:

---

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?

---

You and Hawg are,

This Senator must not have watched the embassy motorcade scene from Clear and Present Danger.

If this is true, this is an even worse look for the Democrats.

Charge this Dbag with violating the Logan Act for trying to circumvent US policy without the consent of the executive branch.

This. I hope he gets in big trouble when he gets back. I also hope the president of El Salvador tells him to pound sand. And here's the thing, even if he brings him back he's going to be deported again. This is just a big photo op for this *******.

I hope El Salvador takes Van Hollen into custody for fraud charges, given that's he's demonstrating authority he does not have.

Let him rely on Trump Admin to decide how much it's worth to get him back