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 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

  • Haha 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
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.

Posted
4 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

its hard to emphasize how jarring this is. DOJ attorneys had a reputation of operating in good faith and largely had extremely smart and dedicated attorneys. Intentionally misquoting the Supreme Court to shirk responsibility for failing to do anything after disappearing Garcia is awful. These attorneys should lose their licenses. 
 

Oh and the reason why they won’t bring him back is because if they did, they lose the ability to disappear anyone else. Their whole strategy depends on the fiction that they’re powerless to do anything despite the contract where the government is paying for the detention 

Yep, this is what you get with political hacks instead of civil servants.

 

  • Like 2
Posted

Where is the contract with the government of El Salvador to hold these detainees? I would assume that would come up in discovery in the Abrego Garcia case. Not that I wouldn’t put it past this regime, but surely we’re not just sending people to El Salvador on a handshake with Bukele. 

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted

I’m so sick of hearing stuff like “Trump’s controversial immigration plans”. We’re sending people not accused of committing crimes to a camp, where no one leaves until they die. That really has nothing to do with “immigration”. Any more than me throwing random kids over a cliff is child care.

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, royiv said:

Where is the contract with the government of El Salvador to hold these detainees? I would assume that would come up in discovery in the Abrego Garcia case. Not that I wouldn’t put it past this regime, but surely we’re not just sending people to El Salvador on a handshake with Bukele. 

I have a good buddy down there. An advisor to their police. He said there are rumors of one, but no one has seen it. $6M a month is the gossip.

The question is what Agency is paying it? DHS? DOS? DOJ?

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

its hard to emphasize how jarring this is. DOJ attorneys had a reputation of operating in good faith and largely had extremely smart and dedicated attorneys. Intentionally misquoting the Supreme Court to shirk responsibility for failing to do anything after disappearing Garcia is awful. These attorneys should lose their licenses. 
 

Oh and the reason why they won’t bring him back is because if they did, they lose the ability to disappear anyone else. Their whole strategy depends on the fiction that they’re powerless to do anything despite the contract where the government is paying for the detention 

While it's true that the DOJ has mis-attributed that statement to the SCOTUS order, it looks like Xinis may have given the DOJ some wiggle room in her April 10th order, which states "To this end, the Court hereby amends the Order to DIRECT that Defendants take all available steps to facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia to the United States as soon as possible."  Still, disingenuous as fuck, but when dealing with this administration, Courts have to be exceedingly precise or risk getting stuck in the mud arguing over the meanings of words.

Posted
7 minutes ago, royiv said:

Where is the contract with the government of El Salvador to hold these detainees? I would assume that would come up in discovery in the Abrego Garcia case. Not that I wouldn’t put it past this regime, but surely we’re not just sending people to El Salvador on a handshake with Bukele. 

Such a contract would seem to be in the nature of a treaty, and thus subject to ratification by 2/3 of the Senate.

Existing law acknowledges that Presidents may make "lesser" international agreements without ratification.  The enforceability of them as federal or international law is questionable, and it seems clear that such agreements are voided when the President leaves office.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Red Five said:

I’m so sick of hearing stuff like “Trump’s controversial immigration plans”. We’re sending people not accused of committing crimes to a camp, where no one leaves until they die. That really has nothing to do with “immigration”. Any more than me throwing random kids over a cliff is child care.

Yea, the framing of this by the media is horseshit. "Trump's illegal kidnapping scheme" would be a more accurate description.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, Gap03 said:

While it's true that the DOJ has mis-attributed that statement to the SCOTUS order, it looks like Xinis may have given the DOJ some wiggle room in her April 10th order, which states "To this end, the Court hereby amends the Order to DIRECT that Defendants take all available steps to facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia to the United States as soon as possible."  Still, disingenuous as fuck, but when dealing with this administration, Courts have to be exceedingly precise or risk getting stuck in the mud arguing over the meanings of words.

And they love "facilitate" because they claim it has a meaning, without citation, that is to "remove domestic barriers."

Posted
8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Such a contract would seem to be in the nature of a treaty, and thus subject to ratification by 2/3 of the Senate.

Existing law acknowledges that Presidents may make "lesser" international agreements without ratification.  The enforceability of them as federal or international law is questionable, and it seems clear that such agreements are voided when the President leaves office.

Why isn’t someone investigating where this agreement lives and filing a FOIA for us to see it? It seems strange to me that we haven’t heard anyone question the details of agreements we’ve made with El Salvador. 

  • Like 1
Posted
19 minutes ago, royiv said:

Where is the contract with the government of El Salvador to hold these detainees? I would assume that would come up in discovery in the Abrego Garcia case. Not that I wouldn’t put it past this regime, but surely we’re not just sending people to El Salvador on a handshake with Bukele. 

 

12 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

I have a good buddy down there. An advisor to their police. He said there are rumors of one, but no one has seen it. $6M a month is the gossip.

The question is what Agency is paying it? DHS? DOS? DOJ?

 

I'm dying to know how much we are paying to house people in these death camps. You know it's a fuck ton of money

Posted
13 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

I have a good buddy down there. An advisor to their police. He said there are rumors of one, but no one has seen it. $6M a month is the gossip.

The question is what Agency is paying it? DHS? DOS? DOJ?

 

If that number is anywhere close to accurate, we’re paying $24,000 per person per month to illegally detain people in a foreign country. Government efficiency, indeed.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, royiv said:

Why isn’t someone investigating where this agreement lives and filing a FOIA for us to see it? It seems strange to me that we haven’t heard anyone question the details of agreements we’ve made with El Salvador. 

I would expect, of course, that this is the subject of discovery requests in the litigation.  But very good point as to why the media and watchdogs aren't pressing the issue.

Of course, Trumpco is going to hide behind executive privilege, but I don't think that holds up for anything shared with a foreign sovereign.

Posted
29 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

I have a good buddy down there. An advisor to their police. He said there are rumors of one, but no one has seen it. $6M a month is the gossip.

The question is what Agency is paying it? DHS? DOS? DOJ?

 

Probably using stolen FEMA funds

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
40 minutes ago, Gap03 said:

While it's true that the DOJ has mis-attributed that statement to the SCOTUS order, it looks like Xinis may have given the DOJ some wiggle room in her April 10th order, which states "To this end, the Court hereby amends the Order to DIRECT that Defendants take all available steps to facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia to the United States as soon as possible."  Still, disingenuous as fuck, but when dealing with this administration, Courts have to be exceedingly precise or risk getting stuck in the mud arguing over the meanings of words.

"United State" -- deliberate typo?

Posted
1 hour ago, royiv said:

If that number is anywhere close to accurate, we’re paying $24,000 per person per month to illegally detain people in a foreign country. Government efficiency, indeed.

What is the average for private prisons in Texas?

Also, speculation there will be more CECOTs built.

Posted
Also in that Colorado ruling, the judge is saying Alien Enemies Act likely doesn't apply.
 

Do you mean to tell me that we’re not actually at war with Venezuela? I like how that little part has largely flown under the radar. None of this shit is legal.
  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted
If that number is anywhere close to accurate, we’re paying $24,000 per person per month to illegally detain people in a foreign country. Government efficiency, indeed.

Is it possible for any of the prisoners to get a voucher and get upgraded to a $34k/month prison that also teaches them about the Ten Commandments?
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3


×
×
  • Create New...