Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
On 4/5/2025 at 10:40 AM, Firemans4Horn said:

This shit is beyond fucked up. 
 

 

 

She's such a little cunt.  

That is not going to work in front of Boasberg.  And then we may have our crisis.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
53 minutes ago, Firemans4Horn said:

Just the fucking worst. Any of you Trump fuckers that read my post know that you own this. 
 

 

Saw that on 60 Minutes tonight. Just sickening.

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
43 minutes ago, Firemans4Horn said:

75% had no criminal record. Send these fuckers perpetrating this to The Hague. 
 

 

[MAGAT]Dude...  They were here illegally.  They ARE criminals because of that.[\MAGAT]

Posted

Appalling that the Trump WH is arguing that, while they agree they incorrectly deported someone, the Supreme Court should not order the Administration to return the man to the US.

Basically, yeah we screwed up but the bigger mistake is if you force us to correct our original mistake.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
7 minutes ago, Firemans4Horn said:

Worth reading the judge’s opinion:

 

 

Those are both spot-on, and absolutely correct.  This regime is not just on "the path to perfect lawlessness."  It has arrived at the destination, unpacked, and made itself right at home.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
19 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Appalling that the Trump WH is arguing that, while they agree they incorrectly deported someone, the Supreme Court should not order the Administration to return the man to the US.

Basically, yeah we screwed up but the bigger mistake is if you force us to correct our original mistake.

To MAGA, the greatest sin is to question the Imperial Presidency. Whatever Dear Leader says MUST be the truth.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, Firemans4Horn said:

 

"Going all South Korea" isn't going to get it done.

The only solution will be some version of going all Romania 1989.

A madman has taken the country and world hostage, and is destroying both in massive fell swoops.

This ends in either the death of this regime, or the death of millions.  Maybe both.  History tells us so.

Posted

Why not start sending any American citizen to El Salvador without due process, and then declare that the govt has zero duty to work to return them. Let the person fight it out with the El Salvadoran courts, which of course have zero jurisdiction in the matter as well. 

Posted
13 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Let’s see what the supreme court does- I’m looking for the rare Gorsuch face turn here. 


it should be 9-0. At best we can hope for is 7-2

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

I’m sure the White House doesn’t want Abrego Garcia back on American soil where he can talk about the atrocities at CECOT, but it won’t move the needle for the people that need to be reached because he’s just a dirty immigrant to them.

Posted

SMH at the MAGA folks who argue that non-citizens have zero constitutional protection especially due process. When prompted about how do we know that the person is an undocumented worker and that due process can be utilized for a court to make that determination, they argue against that path. They effectively want to empower ICE to make the determination without allowing the person to argue their case. It's like some bad Cheech music video with Jan-Michael Vincent as the judge, jury and executioner.

Posted
5 minutes ago, royiv said:

I’m sure the White House doesn’t want Abrego Garcia back on American soil where he can talk about the atrocities at CECOT, but it won’t move the needle for the people that need to be reached because he’s just a dirty immigrant to them.

The admin will have him murdered in prison before they allow him to be returned.

We are already disappearing people.

If you think that systematic extermination of enemies of the regime isn't coming, you haven't ready a single history book.

Posted

Has the WH said, on TV or press briefing, that some innocent people were wrongly deported? I know the blonde propagandist made some comment about a clerical error but she followed that up by saying that the people involved were definite gang members/terrorists. Which makes no sense. Which is it?

Posted
Just now, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Has the WH said, on TV or press briefing, that some innocent people were wrongly deported? I know the blonde propagandist made some comment about a clerical error but she followed that up by saying that the people involved were definite gang members/terrorists. Which makes no sense. Which is it?


Vance was drunk texting on Twitter at 1am  last week that one of the innocent people that was sent over there wasn’t a great guy because he had speeding tickets. 

Posted
SMH at the MAGA folks who argue that non-citizens have zero constitutional protection especially due process. When prompted about how do we know that the person is an undocumented worker and that due process can be utilized for a court to make that determination, they argue against that path. They effectively want to empower ICE to make the determination without allowing the person to argue their case. It's like some bad Cheech music video with Jan-Michael Vincent as the judge, jury and executioner.

I mean, the DP clause says “persons” and not citizens, so it’s really not complicated. They choose not to read the worlds and admit what they mean.
Posted

 

Supreme Court Temporarily Blocks Order Requiring Return of Wrongly Deported Migrant


The chief justice, acting on his own, issued an “administrative stay,” a brief pause meant to give the court time to consider the matter. The justices are expected to act in the coming days.

Free link.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/07/us/politics/supreme-court-wrongly-deported.html?unlocked_article_code=1.904.Pg8Q.aX0B7vYDaOwJ&smid=url-share

 

Posted

I will now provide the list of things preventing The Regime from snatching any one of you off the street at any moment, restraining you, shoving you onto a flight to El Salvador, and having you locked away in a Salvadoran prison - with no chance of return or getting you out - within a matter of hours:

1) You shooting your way out of the attempted detention.

That's it.  That's your sole means of redress left.  The law is powerless.  The courts are powerless.  The Regime has complete and total power to disappear any person they want, and there's nothing you can do about it.  Your only possible way out -- slim and shitty as it is -- is to defend yourself with deadly force.  And yes, you will surely be met with deadly force, and if you survive, face the full weight of the law.  Ironically, the law that offers you zero protections.

The District Court understood what this practice means.  The 4th Circuit understood what it means.  The SCOTUS...also understood what it means.  And what it means to them is the opportunity to crown Trump king, subject to no laws.  Thus completing the journey they began when they wrote complete and total immunity for the POTUS into the Constitution where it does not exist.

Posted

Supposedly blocked on the grounds of which court should hear the case. Meanwhile, they'll continue deporting people, who I'm sure will get their own judicial review after they've wasted away for months/years in a Salvadoran gulag under the guise of the Venezuelan war we find ourselves fighting. 

image.thumb.png.109c93373f64ecf606b409d549b0121b.png
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/07/us/politics/supreme-court-trump-venezuelan-deportations.html

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday night that the Trump administration could continue to deport Venezuelan migrants based on a wartime powers act for now, overturning a lower court that had put a temporary stop to the deportations.

The decision marks a victory for the Trump administration, although the ruling is narrow and focused on the proper venue for the cases, rather than on the administration’s use of a centuries-old law to justify its decision to send planeloads of Venezuelans to El Salvador with little to no due process.

The justices did not address the question of whether the Trump administration improperly categorized the Venezuelans as deportable under the Alien Enemies Act, finding the migrants had improperly challenged their deportations in Washington, D.C. The justices determined that the migrants should have raised challenges in Texas, where they were being held.

“The detainees are confined in Texas, so venue is improper in the District of Columbia,” according to the court’s order, which was brief and unsigned, as is typical in such emergency applications.

In a concurrence, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh stressed that the justices were in agreement that the migrants should receive judicial review, but that they were divided over where the case should be heard.

“As the court stresses, the court’s disagreement with the dissenters is not over whether the detainees receive judicial review of their transfers — all nine members of the court agree that judicial review is available,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote. “The only question is where that judicial review should occur.”

The case is perhaps the most high-profile of the eight emergency applications the Trump administration has filed with the Supreme Court so far, and it presents a direct collision between the judicial and executive branches.

The administration had asked the justices to weigh in on its effort to use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport more than 100 Venezuelans to a prison in El Salvador.

The administration claims the migrants are all members of Tren de Aragua, a violent street gang rooted in Venezuela, and that their removals are allowed under the act, which grants the president authority to detain or deport citizens of enemy nations. The president may invoke the law in times of “declared war” or when a foreign government invades the United States.

On March 14, President Trump signed a proclamation that targeted members of Tren de Aragua, claiming that there was an “invasion” and a “predatory incursion” underway as he invoked the wartime law. In the proclamation, Mr. Trump claimed that the gang was “undertaking hostile actions” against the United States “at the direction, clandestine or otherwise” of the Venezuelan government.

Lawyers representing some of those targeted then challenged the order in federal court in Washington.

That same day, planeloads of the deportees were sent to El Salvador, which had entered an agreement with the Trump administration to take the Venezuelans and detain them.

A federal judge, James E. Boasberg, directed the administration to stop the flights. He subsequently issued a written order temporarily pausing the administration’s plan while the court case proceeded.

The Trump administration appealed Judge Boasberg’s temporary restraining order, and a divided panel of three appellate court judges in Washington sided with the migrants, keeping the pause in place. One judge wrote that the government’s deportation plan had denied the Venezuelans “even a gossamer thread of due process.”

At that point, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to weigh in, arguing in its application that the case presented “fundamental questions about who decides how to conduct sensitive national-security-related operations in this country.”

Lawyers for the migrants responded sharply, arguing that the temporary pause by Judge Boasberg was “the only thing” standing in the way of the government sending migrants “to a prison in El Salvador, perhaps never to be seen again, without any kind of procedural protection, much less judicial review.”

The American Civil Liberties Union and Democracy Forward, the groups representing the Venezuelan migrants, said that the president had bent the law in an “effort to shoehorn a criminal gang” into the wartime law in a manner that was “completely at odds with the limited delegation of wartime authority Congress chose to give him through the statute.”

Lawyers for the migrants said the migrants sent to El Salvador “have been confined, incommunicado, in one of most brutal prisons in the world, where torture and other human rights abuses are rampant.”

The Trump administration replied on Wednesday in a brief that contended that the government was not denying that the Venezuelan migrants should receive “judicial review.”

“They obviously do,” the acting solicitor general, Sarah M. Harris, wrote.

Rather, the government argued, that “the pressing issues right now are ‘procedural issues’ about where and how detainees should challenge their designations as enemy aliens.” Ms. Harris argued that the migrants should have filed their legal challenge in Texas, where they had been detained before the deportation flights, rather than in Washington.

She asked the justices to lift the temporary block on Mr. Trump’s order, calling the pause “an intolerably long time for a court to block the executive’s conduct of foreign-policy and national-security operations.”

Ms. Harris claimed that the migrants’ lawyers had offered a “sensationalized” narrative.

She added that the government denied that the migrants might face torture in El Salvador, writing that the government’s position is “to abhor torture, not to invite brutalization.”

Posted
7 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Has the WH said, on TV or press briefing, that some innocent people were wrongly deported? I know the blonde propagandist made some comment about a clerical error but she followed that up by saying that the people involved were definite gang members/terrorists. Which makes no sense. Which is it?

They sent out this guy… 

image.jpeg.6e82bc3cf3898e6fdd2317555a03a651.jpeg

 

Posted
35 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Supposedly blocked on the grounds of which court should hear the case. Meanwhile, they'll continue deporting people, who I'm sure will get their own judicial review after they've wasted away for months/years in a Salvadoran gulag under the guise of the Venezuelan war we find ourselves fighting. 

image.thumb.png.109c93373f64ecf606b409d549b0121b.png
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/07/us/politics/supreme-court-trump-venezuelan-deportations.html

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday night that the Trump administration could continue to deport Venezuelan migrants based on a wartime powers act for now, overturning a lower court that had put a temporary stop to the deportations.

The decision marks a victory for the Trump administration, although the ruling is narrow and focused on the proper venue for the cases, rather than on the administration’s use of a centuries-old law to justify its decision to send planeloads of Venezuelans to El Salvador with little to no due process.

The justices did not address the question of whether the Trump administration improperly categorized the Venezuelans as deportable under the Alien Enemies Act, finding the migrants had improperly challenged their deportations in Washington, D.C. The justices determined that the migrants should have raised challenges in Texas, where they were being held.

“The detainees are confined in Texas, so venue is improper in the District of Columbia,” according to the court’s order, which was brief and unsigned, as is typical in such emergency applications.

In a concurrence, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh stressed that the justices were in agreement that the migrants should receive judicial review, but that they were divided over where the case should be heard.

“As the court stresses, the court’s disagreement with the dissenters is not over whether the detainees receive judicial review of their transfers — all nine members of the court agree that judicial review is available,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote. “The only question is where that judicial review should occur.”

The case is perhaps the most high-profile of the eight emergency applications the Trump administration has filed with the Supreme Court so far, and it presents a direct collision between the judicial and executive branches.

The administration had asked the justices to weigh in on its effort to use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport more than 100 Venezuelans to a prison in El Salvador.

The administration claims the migrants are all members of Tren de Aragua, a violent street gang rooted in Venezuela, and that their removals are allowed under the act, which grants the president authority to detain or deport citizens of enemy nations. The president may invoke the law in times of “declared war” or when a foreign government invades the United States.

On March 14, President Trump signed a proclamation that targeted members of Tren de Aragua, claiming that there was an “invasion” and a “predatory incursion” underway as he invoked the wartime law. In the proclamation, Mr. Trump claimed that the gang was “undertaking hostile actions” against the United States “at the direction, clandestine or otherwise” of the Venezuelan government.

Lawyers representing some of those targeted then challenged the order in federal court in Washington.

That same day, planeloads of the deportees were sent to El Salvador, which had entered an agreement with the Trump administration to take the Venezuelans and detain them.

A federal judge, James E. Boasberg, directed the administration to stop the flights. He subsequently issued a written order temporarily pausing the administration’s plan while the court case proceeded.

The Trump administration appealed Judge Boasberg’s temporary restraining order, and a divided panel of three appellate court judges in Washington sided with the migrants, keeping the pause in place. One judge wrote that the government’s deportation plan had denied the Venezuelans “even a gossamer thread of due process.”

At that point, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to weigh in, arguing in its application that the case presented “fundamental questions about who decides how to conduct sensitive national-security-related operations in this country.”

Lawyers for the migrants responded sharply, arguing that the temporary pause by Judge Boasberg was “the only thing” standing in the way of the government sending migrants “to a prison in El Salvador, perhaps never to be seen again, without any kind of procedural protection, much less judicial review.”

The American Civil Liberties Union and Democracy Forward, the groups representing the Venezuelan migrants, said that the president had bent the law in an “effort to shoehorn a criminal gang” into the wartime law in a manner that was “completely at odds with the limited delegation of wartime authority Congress chose to give him through the statute.”

Lawyers for the migrants said the migrants sent to El Salvador “have been confined, incommunicado, in one of most brutal prisons in the world, where torture and other human rights abuses are rampant.”

The Trump administration replied on Wednesday in a brief that contended that the government was not denying that the Venezuelan migrants should receive “judicial review.”

“They obviously do,” the acting solicitor general, Sarah M. Harris, wrote.

Rather, the government argued, that “the pressing issues right now are ‘procedural issues’ about where and how detainees should challenge their designations as enemy aliens.” Ms. Harris argued that the migrants should have filed their legal challenge in Texas, where they had been detained before the deportation flights, rather than in Washington.

She asked the justices to lift the temporary block on Mr. Trump’s order, calling the pause “an intolerably long time for a court to block the executive’s conduct of foreign-policy and national-security operations.”

Ms. Harris claimed that the migrants’ lawyers had offered a “sensationalized” narrative.

She added that the government denied that the migrants might face torture in El Salvador, writing that the government’s position is “to abhor torture, not to invite brutalization.”

Yeah, this is a different case from Abrego.  As I said elsewhere, there's a jurisdiction issue that kind of taints the one before Boasberg.

But they need to slap down this "foreign-policy/national security" shit with haste.  Don't know that they will but they should.

Posted
11 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, this is a different case from Abrego.  As I said elsewhere, there's a jurisdiction issue that kind of taints the one before Boasberg.

But they need to slap down this "foreign-policy/national security" shit with haste.  Don't know that they will but they should.

No no no no, I have it on good authority that acting with haste is what the bad guys do, and therefore we cannot do anything but let them run roughshod over justice.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Has the WH said, on TV or press briefing, that some innocent people were wrongly deported? I know the blonde propagandist made some comment about a clerical error but she followed that up by saying that the people involved were definite gang members/terrorists. Which makes no sense. Which is it?

Govt lawyers have admitted they shouldn't have deported him because there was an immigration judge's order blocking his deportation. But they say he's a gang member. Evidence: a Chicago Bulls hat and an alleged confidential informant who says he was part of a NY gang (dude has never even been to NY). 

Edited by Hookah Horns
Posted

We can rest easy knowing if it had been a rich, white guy picked up by mistake then Seal Team Six and Delta Force would have been sent down there to bust him out within hours.

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
Yeah, this is a different case from Abrego.  As I said elsewhere, there's a jurisdiction issue that kind of taints the one before Boasberg.
But they need to slap down this "foreign-policy/national security" shit with haste.  Don't know that they will but they should.

You know they fucking won’t. Just stop. You know as well as I do: the rule of law is dead.
This regime could grab YOU, sitting on your couch watching basketball, hogtie you, put you on a plane to a foreign prison, and you would be getting your head shaved and ass beaten before tonight’s trophy presentation is over….and there’s NOTHING YOU OR ANYONE ELSE COULD DO ABOUT IT. The admin will say “so sad, too bad, we can’t get Twice back,” and it’s done - YOU’RE done.
“Disappearing” people - any person, for any reason - is now functionally legal. You have no way to stop it, save one: arm yourself. And defend yourself. That’s where we are left.
Stop pretending that any vestige of the rule of law remains.
Posted
11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


You know they fucking won’t. Just stop. You know as well as I do: the rule of law is dead.
This regime could grab YOU, sitting on your couch watching basketball, hogtie you, put you on a plane to a foreign prison, and you would be getting your head shaved and ass beaten before tonight’s trophy presentation is over….and there’s NOTHING YOU OR ANYONE ELSE COULD DO ABOUT IT. The admin will say “so sad, too bad, we can’t get Twice back,” and it’s done - YOU’RE done.
“Disappearing” people - any person, for any reason - is now functionally legal. You have no way to stop it, save one: arm yourself. And defend yourself. That’s where we are left.
Stop pretending that any vestige of the rule of law remains.

I wonder when we start to watch what we say and begin to self-censor, even here on Surly. Almost all of us could be traced—if one had the means and were so inclined—in some way or another through our IP addresses, our 3.50 subscriptions, emails used to sign up, etc.

Obviously, we're not that big of a deal and could be pretty far down on a watch list, but we also have some connected people and some stark-raving lunatic true believers who might have some other dubious connections.

Posted (edited)

Ummm, we are kind of a big deal here at Texas. What starts here changes the world, So Fuck Trump!

 

I'm happy to add fighting fascism to my resume. I had a grandfather that lived to be 100, his unit was responsible for liberating the first Nazi camp by US troops.

Edited by Irwin F Fletcher
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
16 minutes ago, bolverk said:

I wonder when we start to watch what we say and begin to self-censor, even here on Surly. Almost all of us could be traced—if one had the means and were so inclined—in some way or another through our IP addresses, our 3.50 subscriptions, emails used to sign up, etc.

Obviously, we're not that big of a deal and could be pretty far down on a watch list, but we also have some connected people and some stark-raving lunatic true believers who might have some other dubious connections.


I will not live afraid.

Im going to shit on Trump, shit on aggy, and watch as much fucking porn as I can in the stolen time I get shitting on the toilet allows me like the goddamn American man that I am.

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Drool 1
Posted (edited)
On 4/5/2025 at 10:43 AM, David Dennison said:

Sadly, cruelty is the point has become cliche.

It shows that you're badass. Get tough on crime. Get tough on immigrants. Encourage horror in American prisons. Delight in sending these people:

3CXGUSZLFJLA7N32KXPBAZH4ZQ.jpg

to a hell hole in El Salvador (anyone for irony? Not the Magas) to share space with violent gang members jammed in like passengers on a Japanese commuter train.

Sentences beginning with "I have no sympathy for..." are the mark of the pseudo badass when referring to common people. 

I love that the Hands Off demonstrations happened. It's the tiniest glimmer of hope in Hurricane Shit Head Shit Storm.

ETA:

On Trump wanting to send American convicts to El Salvador. This bonespur pussy can only feel like a man if he plays the badass game described above.

image.png.825df70d4a9e8e9b1b833087cb39607f.png

His mentor:

image.png.f2a21fba6a0e4075a9fa04afd79d4e65.png

 

Edited by RomaVicta


×
×
  • Create New...