"When a long train of abuses and usurpations evinces a design to reduce them the colonists under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
It's a good time to dust off the declaration of independence to remind ourselves what we had and are losing by the day.
SCOTUS seems intent on making it easier to become a fascist dictatorship, along with the spineless sycophants in congress trying to out-pander one a other for a seat at the buffet table.
For the time being the ones in charge are swooning in such a feeding frenzy of "winning" they seem to all have forgotten that half the population is not on board.
(If the recent town halls are indicative, more than half)
We are a fascist nation now. The majority on the SC are validating the fpotus regime's gestapo tactics. These horror photos of bent over, chained, deported people, prodded and dragged by thugs in masks, is a hideous snapshot brought to us by our cruel, callous, inhumane, "leaders". These deported people are not all criminals, but there is no due process before deportation; and no effort to return those swept up who are innocent. This is beyond disturbing. This fascist regime will not stop with immigrants. They will come after anyone they deem "undesirable".
"We grant the application and vacate the TROs. The detainees seek equitable relief against the implementation of the Proclamation and against their removal under the AEA. They challenge the Government’s interpretation of the Act and assert that they do not fall within the category of re-
movable alien enemies. But we do not reach those arguments."
The Supreme Court did not rule on the issue of the use of the Alien Enemies Act. This order was solely about procedure and due process that is to be afforded under the AEA.
"Challenges to removal under the AEA, a statute which largely “ ‘preclude[s] judicial review,’ ” Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U. S. 160, 163−164, (1948), must be brought in habeas. Cf. Heikkila v. Barber, 345 U. S. 229, 234−235 (1953) (holding that habeas was the only cause of action available to challenge deportation under immigration statutes that “preclud[ed] judicial intervention” beyond what was necessary to vindicate due process rights)."
Of course the Administrative Procedures Act, which was used by the detainees' lawyers, was passed by Congress after Heikkila was decided, so the proper process to challenge the AEA wasn't clear. The majority opinion now clarifies the proper process that needs to be used, and which venue is the proper jurisdiction in which a challenge must be made.
Additionally, the Court was unanimous that the detainees must be given a hearing and a chance to challenge any deportation order via habeas corpus. This is a major loss for Trump on this issue. Whether or not Trump is properly invoking the AEA remains to be determined by the federal courts, but it seems likely that Trump will lose before the Supreme Court on the issue.
I think I understand a little bit of what's going on here. Rightly or wrongly, the Supreme Court is focused on the constitutional provisions. It's not their job to decide whether there exists a state of emergency or war, that's up to Congress.
They're just ruling whether the President has the powers given to him under the constitution.
Which he does, sadly.
Now, if Congress would step up and assert themselves this could be settled in an afternoon.
But that's not going to happen, and even if it did, enforcement through the DOJ is hamstrung.
"It's not their job to decide whether there exists a state of emergency or war, that's up to Congress." Congress has not declared war on anyone. Is it your position that Congress has to continually declare peace on every country in the world, or else we are by default in a state of war?
Then the Court would have been overstepping their constitutional role, which is interpreting the constitution and established law. They don't get to decide much outside of that. The Roberts court has made decisions I wholly disagree with, but they have remained within their purview.
The Supreme Court is not about justice, that's for lower courts to determine. It's about maintaining the structure of the law.
Are they going to get used to violate everything we think are good and right?
Without question. Are several members of the court compromised? No question, it's been documented.
Can we do without them? No. As ugly and abusive as the current administration is, there are few restraints on them. The other two branches of government have been hamstrung, they're our only hope.
"The Roberts court has made decisions I wholly disagree with, but they have remained within their purview." They have multiple ultra vires decisions. For example, they had no business overturning Colorado's decision that Trump was an insurrectionist ineligible to run for President: that is exclusively the role of Congress, and as Madison said (cited in Breyer's dissent to Bush v. Gore) "it would be unthinkable" to give the Supreme Court "as the branch least responsive to the popular will" any role in Presidential elections.
I don't even know what this country has become, we are no longer the shining example of humanity we so proudly touted for the last 80? years. We're going down the path of Nazi Germany and other fascist regimes.
I believe you are very wrong but I'll let the lawyers here take issue, if any do.
"When a long train of abuses and usurpations evinces a design to reduce them the colonists under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
It's a good time to dust off the declaration of independence to remind ourselves what we had and are losing by the day.
SCOTUS seems intent on making it easier to become a fascist dictatorship, along with the spineless sycophants in congress trying to out-pander one a other for a seat at the buffet table.
For the time being the ones in charge are swooning in such a feeding frenzy of "winning" they seem to all have forgotten that half the population is not on board.
(If the recent town halls are indicative, more than half)
We are a fascist nation now. The majority on the SC are validating the fpotus regime's gestapo tactics. These horror photos of bent over, chained, deported people, prodded and dragged by thugs in masks, is a hideous snapshot brought to us by our cruel, callous, inhumane, "leaders". These deported people are not all criminals, but there is no due process before deportation; and no effort to return those swept up who are innocent. This is beyond disturbing. This fascist regime will not stop with immigrants. They will come after anyone they deem "undesirable".
Zzz
A
It is proving a grave mistake to have granted Sir absolute "I'm Rubber You're Glue" status.
"We grant the application and vacate the TROs. The detainees seek equitable relief against the implementation of the Proclamation and against their removal under the AEA. They challenge the Government’s interpretation of the Act and assert that they do not fall within the category of re-
movable alien enemies. But we do not reach those arguments."
The Supreme Court did not rule on the issue of the use of the Alien Enemies Act. This order was solely about procedure and due process that is to be afforded under the AEA.
"Challenges to removal under the AEA, a statute which largely “ ‘preclude[s] judicial review,’ ” Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U. S. 160, 163−164, (1948), must be brought in habeas. Cf. Heikkila v. Barber, 345 U. S. 229, 234−235 (1953) (holding that habeas was the only cause of action available to challenge deportation under immigration statutes that “preclud[ed] judicial intervention” beyond what was necessary to vindicate due process rights)."
Of course the Administrative Procedures Act, which was used by the detainees' lawyers, was passed by Congress after Heikkila was decided, so the proper process to challenge the AEA wasn't clear. The majority opinion now clarifies the proper process that needs to be used, and which venue is the proper jurisdiction in which a challenge must be made.
Additionally, the Court was unanimous that the detainees must be given a hearing and a chance to challenge any deportation order via habeas corpus. This is a major loss for Trump on this issue. Whether or not Trump is properly invoking the AEA remains to be determined by the federal courts, but it seems likely that Trump will lose before the Supreme Court on the issue.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a931_2c83.pdf
Ta, Marcie. I'm crying.
Here's the deal. While Sir is asleep we superglue his asshole shut and then -- Stand Back!
I think I understand a little bit of what's going on here. Rightly or wrongly, the Supreme Court is focused on the constitutional provisions. It's not their job to decide whether there exists a state of emergency or war, that's up to Congress.
They're just ruling whether the President has the powers given to him under the constitution.
Which he does, sadly.
Now, if Congress would step up and assert themselves this could be settled in an afternoon.
But that's not going to happen, and even if it did, enforcement through the DOJ is hamstrung.
Waiting for the midterms.
"It's not their job to decide whether there exists a state of emergency or war, that's up to Congress." Congress has not declared war on anyone. Is it your position that Congress has to continually declare peace on every country in the world, or else we are by default in a state of war?
My position is that until Congress explicitly declares war, then there is peace.
That Trump is assuming unrestrained authority only given to him in the state of war is a failure of Congress, not the Supreme Court.
It’s a failure of the Court as well.
Nah. The four no votes are also 'the Supreme Court'. If there had been five, what would that do to your argument?
Then the Court would have been overstepping their constitutional role, which is interpreting the constitution and established law. They don't get to decide much outside of that. The Roberts court has made decisions I wholly disagree with, but they have remained within their purview.
The Supreme Court is not about justice, that's for lower courts to determine. It's about maintaining the structure of the law.
Are they going to get used to violate everything we think are good and right?
Without question. Are several members of the court compromised? No question, it's been documented.
Can we do without them? No. As ugly and abusive as the current administration is, there are few restraints on them. The other two branches of government have been hamstrung, they're our only hope.
"The Roberts court has made decisions I wholly disagree with, but they have remained within their purview." They have multiple ultra vires decisions. For example, they had no business overturning Colorado's decision that Trump was an insurrectionist ineligible to run for President: that is exclusively the role of Congress, and as Madison said (cited in Breyer's dissent to Bush v. Gore) "it would be unthinkable" to give the Supreme Court "as the branch least responsive to the popular will" any role in Presidential elections.
Best argument I've ever seen for the worst decisions I've ever seen!
Trump is converting the USA from the "Shining City on the Hill" to "The Old Shack Down by the River"
The GOP/MAGA immigration plan is to make the USA so undesirable that more pople are trying to leave rather than come in.
The Roberts Legacy ~ Fascist Enabler.
I don't even know what this country has become, we are no longer the shining example of humanity we so proudly touted for the last 80? years. We're going down the path of Nazi Germany and other fascist regimes.
*swipes back of hand under chin*
Hey, Sfachime -- this is what "vergogna" ACTUALLY looks like.
i still maintain that old "balls-and-strikes" should be struck firmly in the balls every time he coddles t'RUMP!