Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
On 4/18/2025 at 8:42 PM, gernblansten said:

I just cannot believe where we are as a country when the President does not mind flat out lying about anything and everything and the gullible morons who believe it all. It. Is. All. Just. So. Sad. 

Were you asleep during the pandemic?

Posted (edited)

Here is the government's brief.  https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A1007/356072/20250419170105032_A.A.R.P. Opp. FINAL.pdf

Almost entirely procedural and free of blustery bullshit about executive power.

Expectedly, it pretends that the government's findings that the detainees are TdA are regular and supportable.

What it utterly fails to address is the lawfulness of the invocation of AEA, and the government's position taken elsewhere that once deportation is accomplished, it is irreversible.  A couple of glaring problems.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
29 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

So, Fifth Circuit denied relief last night or yesterday and the SG has filed a brief before SCOTUS, but I can't find any details beyond that.

Apparently some reference by the government to deporting on some basis other than AEA.

Also reports that ICE did turn around buses for the airport after the SCOTUS ruling above.

The fifth circuit denied relief like an hour after SCOTUS put the injunction in place. 

Posted
Just now, Dahobbs said:

The fifth circuit denied relief like an hour after SCOTUS put the injunction in place. 

Surprise.  I unplugged for baseball and other shit yesterday afternoon.  Deets this morning are scant.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
On 4/18/2025 at 4:29 PM, JBJ said:

The effect of the supreme court ruling (besides changing words used) was basically to ask the lower court to better clarify what it wants.  Which the lower court can't do effectively because anything it actually commands, so-to-speak, will get overturned.   So everyone is now playing a game of last liar.

What do you think the SCOTUS ruling did?

It’s becoming very clear that you: a) don’t understand any of this, and b) you’re attempting to repeat something you heard elsewhere, something that was also untrue to begin with, but you have such a poor understanding of the issue that you can’t even properly paraphrase somebody else’s incorrect assertion. 

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 1
Posted
On 4/18/2025 at 7:27 PM, Firemans4Horn said:

Pathetic even by his pathetically low standards. 
 

 

Wait. Did he actually hold this photo up like that? They didn’t even shop it to look like a tattoo. They literally just added text on the photo

Posted
31 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

It’s becoming very clear that you: a) don’t understand any of this, and b) you’re attempting to repeat something you heard elsewhere, something that was also untrue to begin with, but you have such a poor understanding of the issue that you can’t even properly paraphrase somebody else’s incorrect assertion. 

He doesn't understand it and he doesn't want to understand. Despite being proven incorrect every step of the way, he continues to double down on the same conclusion. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Seems the administration made a huge mistake by being so blatant about ignoring the courts. They were given loopholes to exploit, and could’ve stayed in that lane while the courts slowly carved out more and more for them. They’ve now totally lost that ability, at least for the time being. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
5 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

Seems the administration made a huge mistake by being so blatant about ignoring the courts. They were given loopholes to exploit, and could’ve stayed in that lane while the courts slowly carved out more and more for them. They’ve now totally lost that ability, at least for the time being. 

Yeah, I keep thinking that at some point, the supremes are going to have to uphold their own power, and that of the lower federal courts, no matter how badly they want to support or enable Trump or the executive more broadly.

To date, they have mostly endorsed the accretion of executive power at the expense of Congress, but now they're having to confront it at the expense of their own power.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
55 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

It’s becoming very clear that you: a) don’t understand any of this, and b) you’re attempting to repeat something you heard elsewhere, something that was also untrue to begin with, but you have such a poor understanding of the issue that you can’t even properly paraphrase somebody else’s incorrect assertion. 

He does exactly this about once a year regarding whatever the biggest SCOTUS story is at the time.

Posted
1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

He does exactly this about once a year regarding whatever the biggest SCOTUS story is at the time.

And he purports to practice constitutional law. 
 

Maybe it’s John Eastman’s handle?

Posted
1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

And he purports to practice constitutional law. 
 

Maybe it’s John Eastman’s handle?

Wait, does he actually pretend to be a lawyer? 

Posted
2 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

And he purports to practice constitutional law. 
 

Maybe it’s John Eastman’s handle?

Wait, what? I wouldn’t have guessed he attended college much less graduate from law school.



×
×
  • Create New...