Quote:

---

Btw, wasn't Joe "Bidet" Biden a Senator for Maryland

---

Close.

Queso1 said:

---

I didn't vote for deporting law abiding residents and sending the to El Salvador. I voted for mass deportation of illegals.

---

He's here illegally why are you confused?

HoustonAg9999 said:

---

Queso1 said:

---

I didn't vote for deporting law abiding residents and sending the to El Salvador. I voted for mass deportation of illegals.

---

He's here illegally why are you confused?

---

The media is trying to make people think that illegals that haven't committed a crime, outside of coming here illegally, can't be deported. It's worked on some people.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Btw, wasn't Joe "Bidet" Biden a Senator for Maryland

---

Close.

---

Yeah, it was Delaware that "elected" the criminal Bidet. My mistake. Doesn't take away from the fact he was installed as prez in 2020 and he's aka the scrotum from Scranton.

Delaware is in "close" proximity to Maryland though, so I still say it's something in the water.

"Wife" now says she had previously been a victim of domestic violence and asked for the order out of an abundance of caution based on that previous experience. That's the headline.

The details, like the above, paint a picture of a repeated abuser who hit her whilst she had their baby near her / on her, blackened her eye, and other violent offenses.

Not only should Garcia not be brought back, we should add funds to the commissary cards of Barrio 18 to welcome Garcia to a friendly match in the prison yard.

There are no less than four threads on the first page discussing the Garcia case.

Let's keep this thread on the Alien Enemies Act please.

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

HoustonAg9999 said:

---

Queso1 said:

---

I didn't vote for deporting law abiding residents and sending the to El Salvador. I voted for mass deportation of illegals.

---

He's here illegally why are you confused?

---

The media is trying to make people think that illegals that haven't committed a crime, outside of coming here illegally, can't be deported. It's worked on some people.

---

The whole point is defacto amnesty for the millions of illegals Joe Biden brought into America. They want every single illegal to have a "trial," which would make it literally impossible to deport significant numbers of them. We do not have the infrastructure to handle millions of illegals one by one. They have never had these "rights," Remember, this fight is over a terrorist gang member, not an actual productive person. They're trying to rig the game to destroy America.

This is Cloward-Piven. An attempt to overwhelm our system to destroy it. Hussein Obama is a student of the Cloward-Piven tactics. Evil incarnate.

Let's try to get back on track

JUST IN: Lawyers for Alien Enemies Act targets ask Judge Boasberg to keep his case alive by permitting them to file habeas claims for the people currently in El Salvador. https://t.co/UsLgz9WX8K pic.twitter.com/jxnaNLUTFq

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) April 16, 2025

But of course Boasberg has no jurisdiction over the El Salvadoran jailers/legal system at all, and the class should not be certified. The ACLU is just going to lose that motion, even before him, imho. It's just an insane filing by the ACLU.

2/ Attorneys claim that the Court continues to have jurisdiction...This is nutso!! SCOTUS said only habeas action and habeas requires physically in district and none of named plaintiffs are physically in this district. pic.twitter.com/r1YC3Vp90f

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 17, 2025

4/ I'm just shaking my head! This court does not have jurisdiction! Period. Go ahead an make that argument in the other courts. pic.twitter.com/aA305eM1kV

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 17, 2025

6/6Here's entire thing. I can't even...https://t.co/MjEjfjZkti

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 17, 2025

There's no class, no jurisdiction, and improper venue. In fancy tennis terms that is game, set, match.

Has Boasberg provided rationale for why his Article III court in DC is proper v an Article II immigration court?

How were challenges to the AEA handled previously?

To your point about other threads and the moving pieces, has it been determined Trump was right to invoke the act and that now its a matter of the "due process" regarding their identification of who is and who is not an alien enemy under his declaration?

Noctilucent said:

---

Anyone defending this gang banger, who happens to be an illegal alien and citizen of El Salvador, is bereft of their senses.

I'd like to see any of these nitwits defending this turd tell Rachel Morin's mother how he's such a great guy! Yeah, Maryland "Dad"!

Btw, wasn't Joe "Bidet" Biden a Senator for Maryland before he was installed as President of our country? Hmmmmmm, must be something in the water.

---

Delaware...

Has Trump administration argued immigration court is the correct venue? I don't remember seeing that.

My understanding is that they are saying this is non-justiciable, but if a habeas action does exist, it must be brought in District Court (article III) where the person is.

No court, not even Bozoberg, is going to determine whether Trump was right in invoking the AEA. Thats squarely his call.

WTH?

Quote:

---

1. Notice. Plaintiffs seek a TRO directing the government to provide 30 days' notice before seeking to remove any class member under the AEA, and to serve that order on both the class member and undersigned counsel.

---

That is not a Temporary Restraining Order, it is a mandatory injunction.

Im Gipper said:

---

Has Trump administration argued immigration court is the correct venue? I don't remember seeing that.

My understanding is that they are saying this is non-justiciable, but if a habeas action does exist, it must be brought in District Court (article III) where the person is.

No court, not even Bozoberg, is going to determine whether Trump was right in invoking the AEA. Thats squarely his call.

---

Clarification on that...

Immigration judges fall under Executive so are Article II.

Im Gipper said:

---

Let's try to get back on track

JUST IN: Lawyers for Alien Enemies Act targets ask Judge Boasberg to keep his case alive by permitting them to file habeas claims for the people currently in El Salvador. https://t.co/UsLgz9WX8K pic.twitter.com/jxnaNLUTFq

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) April 16, 2025

---

They're not in his jurisdiction for a habeas claim...





Like THAT ****ing matters to this judge, though...


I also like how they're using the Garcia case as part of their argument - a case that hasn't even been decided on its merits yet...

Gipper can clarify but I think he was indicating that the habeas hearing in this case would be in a district court as the challenge to the AEA "process" is not necessarily the purview of an immigration court.

The habeas determination would be around whether said individual meets the qualifications outlined in the proclamation.

Though it seems like it is debatable, at least to me, as to whether the judiciary has a role regardless.

So Trump is asking for these to be an immigration court? As I said, I thought their argument was any habeas action must be in the district court (article III) where the person is located. (I don't know that an immigration court can even hear a habeas case. I've never really thought about it.)

But I do know that no court in the United States can hear a habeas case for a person that is in El Salvador! Lol

flown-the-coop said:

---

Gipper can clarify but I think he was indicating that the habeas hearing in this case would be in a district court as the challenge to the AEA "process" is not necessarily the purview of an immigration court.

The habeas determination would be around whether said individual meets the qualifications outlined in the proclamation.

Though it seems like it is debatable, at least to me, as to whether the judiciary has a role regardless.

---

There is no judicial review under the AEA.

Quote:

---

There is no judicial review under the AEA.

---

Not correct.

There is very limited review available. For example, a person could challenge whether they are 14 years old or a citizen etc of the foreign country.

OK, y'all are right. Habeas is in front of District Court Judge. But as discussed many times, in the DC where the prisoner is held. And if not mistaken, habeas cases can be adjudicated just with filings, and could possibly never be seen in person.

Quote:

---

The habeas determination would be around whether said individual meets the qualifications outlined in the proclamation.

Though it seems like it is debatable, at least to me, as to whether the judiciary has a role regardless.

---

It is like reverse class action, under the AEA and habeas. Over 14? Check. Here illegally? Check. Member of a terrorist/violent gang? Check.

Nothing further, your honor.

OK.

Those last two aren't requirements under the AEA.

Even a person here legally could be deported. And good reason for that!

Im Gipper said:

---

Has Trump administration argued immigration court is the correct venue? I don't remember seeing that.

My understanding is that they are saying this is non-justiciable, but if a habeas action does exist, it must be brought in District Court (article III) where the person is.

No court, not even Bozoberg, is going to determine whether Trump was right in invoking the AEA. Thats squarely his call.

---

Come on...

You know he just might try to make that determination. With all his overreach so far, what's one more leap over the abyss?

First mention of habeas corpus dates back to the 14th century.

Perhaps one of the oldest and most basic concepts in all of common law.

But somehow in 2025 the judicial process has been so rat-****ed that we doing whatever now.

File it anyway. Judge won't even say boo, and might even assert jurisdiction over a person not even present within the district. And the guy who filed it will be nominated for the Nobel peace prize.

35 minutes? Hope no one turned off their phone for Good Friday!

MORE NEWS: Judge Boasberg has called an emergency hearing in 35 minutes on lawyers for Alien Enemies Act targets’ urgent claim that Trump administration is resuming summary deportation. pic.twitter.com/FFB7OrOGnj

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) April 18, 2025

This judge feels he's on a mission from God and the law be damned. Completely bogus class certification (from what the class action lawyers say) nor does he even have jurisdiction in the first place.

Lots of late Friday action!

JUST IN: The ACLU has gone to the Supreme Court re the Alien Enemies Act. Details TK pic.twitter.com/yWrtGHN6n0

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) April 18, 2025

JUST IN: D.C. Circuit halts Judge James Boasberg's plan for contempt-related proceedings against Trump administration in case involving deportations of Venezuelans to El Salvador prison. 2-1, Judge Pillard dissents. Doc: https://t.co/9jrw3CZ6r3 Earlier: https://t.co/rJzJoEuNU5

— Josh Gerstein (@joshgerstein) April 18, 2025

Is that a ***** slap from a higher court? That seems like it's a ***** slap from a higher court….

Im Gipper said:

---

JUST IN: D.C. Circuit halts Judge James Boasberg's plan for contempt-related proceedings against Trump administration in case involving deportations of Venezuelans to El Salvador prison. 2-1, Judge Pillard dissents. Doc: https://t.co/9jrw3CZ6r3 Earlier: https://t.co/rJzJoEuNU5

— Josh Gerstein (@joshgerstein) April 18, 2025

---

Hold on a minute ..

Am I right in understanding that the appeals court took it upon themselves to stay the order without DOJ asking yet?

If so, that seems like a pretty big deal.

I guess they decided it mattered that SCOTUS told Boasberg he doesn't have jurisdiction.

will25u said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

JUST IN: D.C. Circuit halts Judge James Boasberg's plan for contempt-related proceedings against Trump administration in case involving deportations of Venezuelans to El Salvador prison. 2-1, Judge Pillard dissents. Doc: https://t.co/9jrw3CZ6r3 Earlier: https://t.co/rJzJoEuNU5

— Josh Gerstein (@joshgerstein) April 18, 2025

---

Hold on a minute ..

Am I right in understanding that the appeals court took it upon themselves to stay the order without DOJ asking yet?

If so, that seems like a pretty big deal.

---

No. It looks like they responded to the executive branch appeal.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Gipper can clarify but I think he was indicating that the habeas hearing in this case would be in a district court as the challenge to the AEA "process" is not necessarily the purview of an immigration court.

The habeas determination would be around whether said individual meets the qualifications outlined in the proclamation.

Though it seems like it is debatable, at least to me, as to whether the judiciary has a role regardless.

---

There is no judicial review under the AEA.

---

This is, or was true, but I am not real sure what the justices now want to consider. Thomas and Alito are going to issue a dissent to this ruling which willl hopefully shine a light on WTAF is going on here.

I see it’s temporary. Now what? https://t.co/ffjGsLGguC

— D (@Z09752769) April 19, 2025