***** Official Trump 47 Admin Court Battles *****

356,474 Views | 3236 Replies | Last: 2 days ago by nortex97
txags92
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 5:37p, 2/12/26
AG
aggiehawg said:
Rapier108 said:
One immigration related case was added to the Supreme Court's current term's docket. It will be argued on 4-22.

Bondi v. Lau- Whether, to deport a green card holder who committed a crime of moral turpitude or a drug offense but was subsequently allowed to enter the United States, the government must prove that it had clear and convincing evidence of the offense when the green card holder last re-entered the country.

Confused. That doesn't make sense to me.

I think there must be a negative missing somewhere in there. Seems like maybe somebody is making the argument that if a green card holder was allowed into the country AFTER committing whatever crime, they are trying to claim that if the government knew they had committed the crime and still let them in, that they can't subsequently deport them for the crime. I just don't see how that argument holds any water. Government can decide to enforce those provisions any time they want. Just because they were not enforced previously shouldn't mean they can't be enforced now.
Reply Quote
2
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:40a, 2/13/26
AG
Trump quickly fired a US Attorney appointed by Obama-Biden Judge:
Quote:
On Wednesday, Donald T. Kinsella, 79, was appointed as U.S. attorney for the Northern District of New York in a private ceremony, The New York Times reported. Then, Kinsella said, he received an email from a White House official hours later, telling him that he was being removed from the post.

Kinsella told The Times that he did not yet know whether the White House email carried the force of law, and that he would discuss it with the district judges in the morning and go from there.

Before Kinsella's appointment, the Trump administration had suggested it would fire any prosecutor chosen by district judges. It is unclear whether there is any recourse for the Northern District judges.
"Judges don't pick U.S. Attorneys, @POTUS does. See Article II of our Constitution. You are fired, Donald Kinsella," Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche posted on X on Wednesday.

Kinsella is a former criminal chief of the U.S. attorney's office for the Northern District of New York, which prosecutes crime in cities such as Albany, Syracuse, and Utica.

He was to replace John A. Sarcone III, whom a judge found last month to be serving in the position unlawfully. Sarcone dropped the title of acting U.S. attorney this week, as his 210-day term had expired, and his office's website now lists him as first assistant, typically the title of a U.S. attorney's top deputy.

Good, and anything that pisses off Schumer is great news.
Reply Quote
10
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:21a, 2/13/26
And republicans still aren't confirming nominees. *******s.
Reply Quote
10
fredfredunderscorefred
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 7:32a, 2/13/26
AG
aggiehawg said:
Rapier108 said:
One immigration related case was added to the Supreme Court's current term's docket. It will be argued on 4-22.

Bondi v. Lau- Whether, to deport a green card holder who committed a crime of moral turpitude or a drug offense but was subsequently allowed to enter the United States, the government must prove that it had clear and convincing evidence of the offense when the green card holder last re-entered the country.

Confused. That doesn't make sense to me.


Intro and then especially Page 2-3 of pet (9-10 of pdf) help clarify.

If a lawful permanent resident returns, he is not "seeking admission." . But if he has "committed" a crime, he can be considered as "seeking admission" and potentially inadmissible. If he returns while the criminal charges are pending, immigration can determine he is "seeking admission" even though it's only a charge and not conviction that he "committed" a crime. So what standard (and importantly when) is to be used to determine the person has "committed" a crime. (Note all these underlying proceedings started under Obama, through Trump 45 and into Biden admin - but no doubt TDS will taint judges and observers opinions)

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-429/379146/20260123104239755_25-429%20Petition%20and%20Appendix.pdf
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
FTAG 2000
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ellis Wyatt • 7:40a, 2/13/26
AG
Ellis Wyatt said:
And republicans still aren't confirming nominees. *******s.


Thune and China Turtle.
Reply Quote
7
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to fredfredunderscorefred • 7:45a, 2/13/26
AG
Okay. The double negative was throwing me off as well as the shifting of the burden of proof to the government with a clear and convincing evidence standard for an administrative finding that involves a crime.

Thanks for the clarification.
Reply Quote
4
Ag with kids
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 1:00p, 2/13/26
AG
aggiehawg said:
Rapier108 said:
One immigration related case was added to the Supreme Court's current term's docket. It will be argued on 4-22.

Bondi v. Lau- Whether, to deport a green card holder who committed a crime of moral turpitude or a drug offense but was subsequently allowed to enter the United States, the government must prove that it had clear and convincing evidence of the offense when the green card holder last re-entered the country.

Confused. That doesn't make sense to me.

Here's more on the case...
You can turn off signatures, btw
Reply Quote
Ag with kids
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to txags92 • 1:02p, 2/13/26
AG
txags92 said:
aggiehawg said:
Rapier108 said:
One immigration related case was added to the Supreme Court's current term's docket. It will be argued on 4-22.

Bondi v. Lau- Whether, to deport a green card holder who committed a crime of moral turpitude or a drug offense but was subsequently allowed to enter the United States, the government must prove that it had clear and convincing evidence of the offense when the green card holder last re-entered the country.

Confused. That doesn't make sense to me.

I think there must be a negative missing somewhere in there. Seems like maybe somebody is making the argument that if a green card holder was allowed into the country AFTER committing whatever crime, they are trying to claim that if the government knew they had committed the crime and still let them in, that they can't subsequently deport them for the crime. I just don't see how that argument holds any water. Government can decide to enforce those provisions any time they want. Just because they were not enforced previously shouldn't mean they can't be enforced now.


One of the big distinctions is that he had been CHARGED with the crime at the time of re-entry, but not CONVICTED...

Technically, he could have been found not guilty. So, then, he wouldn't have committed the crime at the time of re-entry...
You can turn off signatures, btw
Reply Quote
1
heavens11
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:05p, 2/13/26
AG
I'm sure BRICS and most of the western world countries are lining up to utilize all these super world citizens that are being sent home from the US.
Reply Quote
2
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:14p, 2/13/26
AG
20th, 24th and 25th are our next opinion days fyi (latter on another tweet):

Reply Quote
3
Teslag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ellis Wyatt • 4:35p, 2/13/26
AG
Ellis Wyatt said:
And republicans still aren't confirming nominees. *******s.

Can someone explain this to me like I'm 5. Why can't we confirm appointments if we control the senate?
Reply Quote
2
Rapier108
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Teslag • 4:57p, 2/13/26
Teslag said:
Ellis Wyatt said:
And republicans still aren't confirming nominees. *******s.

Can someone explain this to me like I'm 5. Why can't we confirm appointments if we control the senate?

Biggest reason are blue slips from Democrats, and probably a few Republicans as well.

The Republicans want to play nice, despite the fact that the Democrats will run over them as soon as they have power again and not just get rid of the blue slips, but any ability for the minority to stop them.
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
Reply Quote
6
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:13a, 2/17/26
AG

This one's just funny, imho.
Reply Quote
8
FTAG 2000
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rapier108 • 7:02a, 2/17/26
AG
Rapier108 said:
Teslag said:
Ellis Wyatt said:
And republicans still aren't confirming nominees. *******s.

Can someone explain this to me like I'm 5. Why can't we confirm appointments if we control the senate?

Biggest reason are blue slips from Democrats, and probably a few Republicans as well.

The Republicans want to play nice, despite the fact that the Democrats will run over them as soon as they have power again and not just get rid of the blue slips, but any ability for the minority to stop them.


GOP doesn't want to play nice. They are the same party. America Last.
Reply Quote
3
techno-ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nortex97 • 10:54a, 2/17/26
AG
nortex97 said:

This one's just funny, imho.
I guess we can't take down anymore Confederate statues then.
The left cannot kill the Spirit of Charlie Kirk.
Reply Quote
5
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:58a, 2/17/26
AG
Orwell? As a type of legal authority? Use of the word "relying" indicates that.
Reply Quote
4
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:44a, 2/20/26
AG
Trump and Jaime Dimon (JP Morgan Chase) are unlikely to hug it out.

Honestly doesn't seem like a case Trump is likely to win at all, imho. Jurisdiction would seem to be federal and not in Florida state court, as a preliminary matter. Not much of an issue there.
Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.