hoopla said:

---

Shortly before 1 a.m. on Saturday, the Supreme Court issued an emergency order halting the deportation of violent gang members to El Salvador. The court did not wait for Alito's dissent.

Alito's scathing dissent.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1007_22p3.pdf

In sum, literally in the middle of the night, the Court issued unprecedented and legally questionable relief without giving the lower courts a chance to rule, without hearing from the opposing party, within eight hours of receiving the application, with dubious factual support for its order, and without providing any explanation for its order. I refused to join the Court's order because we had no good reason to think that, under the circumstances, issuing an order at midnight was necessary or appropriate.

---

Apparently the Supreme Court dials in on CNN and MSNBC, too. Disgusting.

eric76 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

HoustonAg9999 said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

HoustonAg9999 said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

That's not the SC ruling. We all know he let in tons of people. I want to know what SCOTUS ruling he ignored.

---

You mean sc has never rules on immigration?

---

Don't be dense; of course they rule on immigration. But I want to know specifically what court order he ignored.

---

Weird flex here point is biden ignored laws he didn't like so should Trump

---

Trump should not ignore laws he doesn't like. Courts don't make laws, remember? He should ignore politically motivated SCOTUS rulings that undermine the executive office's authorities.

---

Presidents should ignore the Supreme Court? Did that include Biden, Obama, and Clinton, as well? Or only Trump?

---

From the way you framed that it doesn't sound like you're following what I wrote at all. Do you even know under what conditions I'm saying a president should ignore the SCOTUS?

Quote:

---

From the way you framed that it doesn't sound like you're following what I wrote at all. Do you even know under what conditions I saying a president should ignore the SCOTUS?

---

I am not advocating for SCOTUS to be ignored, by anybody but that also includes the inferior federal district courts.

BUT, SCOTUS has to give clear directives that are not subject to multiple interpretations. Now asking a judge, any judge for that matter, "Judge what exactly do you mean, here?" is risky but one has to do it.

I'm fine with the SCOTUS being a check and balance against the president. But only if the president can be a check & balance against the SCOTUS. And I'm not taking about a president's ability to appoint new justices. I'm talking about veto power that even mid level judges apparently have over the head of the executive branch.

Presidents have no such power so neither should judges.

The BP needs to point a gun at their head and tell them to turn around and head back. Keep the gun pointed at them until they get back across. If that means a 20 mile trek, so be it. They are never in custody. I'm not joking.

TexAgs91 said:

---

I'm fine with the SCOTUS being a check and balance against the president. But only if the president can be a check & balance against the SCOTUS. And I'm not taking about a president's ability to appoint new justices. I'm talking about veto power that even mid level judges apparently have over the head of the executive branch.

Presidents have no such power so neither should judges.

---

Disagree. President is not over SCOTUS because of Marbury v. Madison. Also, many legal scholars believe that was a wrongfully decided opinion. Still debated.

ACB is a ****ing useless piece of trash

aggiehawg said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

I'm fine with the SCOTUS being a check and balance against the president. But only if the president can be a check & balance against the SCOTUS. And I'm not taking about a president's ability to appoint new justices. I'm talking about veto power that even mid level judges apparently have over the head of the executive branch.

Presidents have no such power so neither should judges.

---

Disagree. President is not over SCOTUS because of Marbury v. Madison. Also, many legal scholars believe that was a wrongfully decided opinion. Still debated.

---

I know. That says when judges decided that the judicial branch should have one way veto power over the executive branch, but it doesn't say why it should be one way.

Quote:

---

I know. That says when it was decided that there should be a one way check and balance between the judicial and executive. But it doesn't say why it should be one way.I know. That says when it was decided that there should be a one way check and balance between the judicial and executive. But it doesn't say why it should be one way.

---

Not sure how to respond to that. How does SCOTUS enforce orders?

Please enlighten me. I anxiously await, your dissertation. Don't forget the case citations in Blue Book form.

I mean you have not explained it. You just basically said since Marbury v. Madison that's how it is. Not why.

So I just your ave trailer park trash here…..

It's 2025. My great grandfather was a custom agent wayyyyy back when. Have other family and friends that have/do work in the border. Maybe 100 years plus?

All I can imagine is laws were vague, and limited back then. Probably most to be able to protect property and keep away squatters. As the US evolves, bordering nation relationships get more complex and lawyers get involved….. laws become more detailed and numerous.
At least that would be an expectation on my part.

I can't imagine 100 plus years later that the laws in place can't protect folks from squatters, and criminals, that when nation's and the UN facilitate illegal immigration and crash our border……that there are legal means to subsidize and put those individuals on warp drive to becoming citizens……BUT THERE IS NO LEGAL MEANS TO RETURN THEM TO THEIR HOST NATION.

I remember distinctly my big mouth aunt, while crossing from Acuna to Del Rio, exclaim" what do you think we are…Chinese?" , earning us a ticket to pull to the right for further questioning. Growing up on the border, we were taught to have extreme respect for border patrol and customs agents. Had a friend's father who was on duty one night who was kidnapped and executed.

We all have been right with conspiracy's over the last 5 years…..I truly believe I have seen enough to believe that the SCOTUS have been compromised.

This is all about voting. Get as many on the voter rolls as possible and then create however many votes you need to win.

It's why the get as many here as possible. And the reason they fight so hard to make it it illegal to register them to vote.

Even though it's illegal for them to vote, and they don't show up to vote, they are on the voter rolls.

All Supreme Court Justices not named Samual Alito & Clarence Thomas need an extended vacation to El Salvador https://t.co/7cRxcN50bs

— Al Carbo (@carbo_al) April 20, 2025

Executive can appoint more justices and congress can impeach justices. Those are your checks on the judiciary

So were any of Trump's nominations wins?

I've now heard from F16 that Gorsuch, Kav and ABC were all leftists.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I know. That says when it was decided that there should be a one way check and balance between the judicial and executive. But it doesn't say why it should be one way.I know. That says when it was decided that there should be a one way check and balance between the judicial and executive. But it doesn't say why it should be one way.

---

Not sure how to respond to that. How does SCOTUS enforce orders?

Please enlighten me. I anxiously await, your dissertation. Don't forget the case citations in Blue Book form.

---

With their army.

Oh, they don't have an army!?

Well, maybe then they should shut the **** up.

Shut

The

****


Up!







Chappelle....always pertinent.

hoopla said:

---

Shortly before 1 a.m. on Saturday, the Supreme Court issued an emergency order halting the deportation of violent gang members to El Salvador. The court did not wait for Alito's dissent.

Alito's scathing dissent.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1007_22p3.pdf

In sum, literally in the middle of the night, the Court issued unprecedented and legally questionable relief without giving the lower courts a chance to rule, without hearing from the opposing party, within eight hours of receiving the application, with dubious factual support for its order, and without providing any explanation for its order. I refused to join the Court's order because we had no good reason to think that, under the circumstances, issuing an order at midnight was necessary or appropriate.

---

Just maybe, they want the government to provide a little proof that these are violent gang members.

2040huck said:

---

hoopla said:

---

Shortly before 1 a.m. on Saturday, the Supreme Court issued an emergency order halting the deportation of violent gang members to El Salvador. The court did not wait for Alito's dissent.

Alito's scathing dissent.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1007_22p3.pdf

In sum, literally in the middle of the night, the Court issued unprecedented and legally questionable relief without giving the lower courts a chance to rule, without hearing from the opposing party, within eight hours of receiving the application, with dubious factual support for its order, and without providing any explanation for its order. I refused to join the Court's order because we had no good reason to think that, under the circumstances, issuing an order at midnight was necessary or appropriate.

---

Just maybe, they want the government to provide a little proof that these are violent gang members.

---

The gang members do that for us with various tattoos and other obvous signs.

We browns discuss it at our weekly meetings.

"Duh!" is the same in both English and Espanich.

2040huck said:

---

hoopla said:

---

Shortly before 1 a.m. on Saturday, the Supreme Court issued an emergency order halting the deportation of violent gang members to El Salvador. The court did not wait for Alito's dissent.

Alito's scathing dissent.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1007_22p3.pdf

In sum, literally in the middle of the night, the Court issued unprecedented and legally questionable relief without giving the lower courts a chance to rule, without hearing from the opposing party, within eight hours of receiving the application, with dubious factual support for its order, and without providing any explanation for its order. I refused to join the Court's order because we had no good reason to think that, under the circumstances, issuing an order at midnight was necessary or appropriate.

---

Just maybe, they want the government to provide a little proof that these are violent gang members.

---

If they're here illegally, it doesn't matter. If they're from El Salvador, they go back to El Salvador. What El Salvador does with them when they get there is none of our business!

Quote:

---

Just maybe, they want the government to provide a little proof that these are violent gang members.

---

Maybe they should ask the government at a time other than midnight on Good Friday.

2040huck said:

---

hoopla said:

---

Shortly before 1 a.m. on Saturday, the Supreme Court issued an emergency order halting the deportation of violent gang members to El Salvador. The court did not wait for Alito's dissent.

Alito's scathing dissent.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1007_22p3.pdf

In sum, literally in the middle of the night, the Court issued unprecedented and legally questionable relief without giving the lower courts a chance to rule, without hearing from the opposing party, within eight hours of receiving the application, with dubious factual support for its order, and without providing any explanation for its order. I refused to join the Court's order because we had no good reason to think that, under the circumstances, issuing an order at midnight was necessary or appropriate.

---

Just maybe, they want the government to provide a little proof that these are violent gang members.

---

Maybe, just maybe the SCOTUS should follow the normal procedures and not make up things. As Alito stated, SCOTUS provided class-wide relief. But, there IS NO CLASS that has been certified. And class-wide relief is not available in habeas proceedings. Those are individual hearings.

Don't say you want to follow the rule of law and then support NOT following the rule of law to get the result you'd like...

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Quote:

---

Just maybe, they want the government to provide a little proof that these are violent gang members.

---

Maybe they should ask the government at a time other than midnight on Good Friday.

---

This still comes back to the "putative class" here. So the two TDA petitioners here are disputing they are TDA members. So how could they be "representatives" of the class of TDA members in detention?

ACLU gave the district court about 40 minutes to rule before they filed an "appeal" to the 5th Circuit without any order from which an appeal could be taken. Then before the 5th Circuit ruled, they appealed to SCOTUS leading to this nonsensical action by 7 members of SCOTUS in the middle of the night.

Just soo stupid. Alito and Thomas were correct in their dissent.

Quote:

---

This still comes back to the "putative class" here. So the two TDA petitioners here are disputing they are TDA members. So how could they be "representatives" of the class of TDA members in detention?

---

I guess I need schooling on this, not seeing the SCOTUS majority opinion.

Quote:

---

Rule 23. Class Actions
(a) Prerequisites. One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only if:
(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;
(2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class;
(3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and
(4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

from, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

---

I guess ALCU has been otherwise occupied the last 4 yrs when the Immigration and Naturalization Act was being summarily ignored by EVERYONE- ALL THREE Branches.

laavispa said:

---

Quote:

---

This still comes back to the "putative class" here. So the two TDA petitioners here are disputing they are TDA members. So how could they be "representatives" of the class of TDA members in detention?

---

I guess I need schooling on this, not seeing the SCOTUS majority opinion.

Quote:

---

Rule 23. Class Actions
(a) Prerequisites. One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only if:
(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;
(2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class;
(3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and
(4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

from, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

---

I guess ALCU has been otherwise occupied the last 4 yrs when the Immigration and Naturalization Act was being summarily ignored by EVERYONE- ALL THREE Branches.

---

SCOTUS (7 members anyway) need to have some continuing legal education as to the federal rules of procedure.

The District Court (trial level) has not ruled on the Motion to Certify the class at this point. The putative class is:

Quote:

---

All noncitizens in custody in the Northern District of Texas who were, are, or will be subject to the March 2025 Presidential Proclamation entitled 'Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren De Aragua' and/or its implementation

---

Im Gipper said:

---

The District Court (trial level) has not ruled on the Motion to Certify the class at this point. The putative class is:

Quote:

---

All noncitizens in custody in the Northern District of Texas who were, are, or will be subject to the March 2025 Presidential Proclamation entitled 'Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren De Aragua' and/or its implementation

---

---

Which just makes that late night decision by SCOTUS even more ridiculous. They acted as if the class had been certified.

SG Sauer has clapped back against that today.

fightingfarmer09 said:

---

More concerned with being viewed as kind and compassionate.

---

Well to be honest our previous administration had zero problem with conservative SC justices having their homes and neighborhoods invaded, and their lives threatened by screwball leftists…. aka "all leftists"

What did SG Sauer file today? He filed yesterday Saturday afternoon I believe.

Didn't take long for SG John Sauer to weigh in.
Link: https://t.co/zGwfOTrEuP pic.twitter.com/QU7VkERd37

— 🎗️Cajun Joey 🇺🇸🦅 (@JoeyC39873397) April 20, 2025

The failure of the illegal aliens, who properly were notified (yes, in Spanish) of their class membership is not in question, and it was up to them to file habeas actions.

Here's where you lose me --

The "inadequate notices."

SCOTUS said the only "notice" required was that to the alien being told they were subject to the proclamation.

NOTHING ELSE.

That notice had to be provided at a time that reasonably allowed the alien to seek habeas… https://t.co/9uSINwgj2w

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) April 21, 2025

Burden of proof/action matters.

is there a copy of the notice they received somewhere?

In that filing, they don't say that it was in Spanish. (I didn't read the whole thing, just search for the word Spanish. lol)


I would guess there is a copy of it in the circuit court filings, but those are not as easily accessible online

Sorry, I misspoke. I mean I was reading about it today.

Branca did a stream on it.

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

Time for Trump to pull a Biden and ignore this SC ruling.

---

Explain what ruling Biden ignored.

---

Erasing student loan debt

---

He did no such thing. He used other programs that weren't subject to the SCOTUS decision to forgive student loan debt. We can certainly debate about whether he should have done that (it would be a short debate because he shouldn't have), but it didn't defy any court order.

---

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/despite-collapse-of-his-forgiveness-plan-millions-had-student-loans-canceled-under-bided

---

quote from the article I know

• Biden loosened rules for debt forgiveness
  
  The latest round of relief mostly comes through a program known as borrower defense, which allows students to get their loans canceled if they're cheated or misled by their colleges. It was created in 1994 but rarely used until a wave of high-profile for-profit college scandals during the Obama administration

Of course Biden in his most authoritative, centralist, corrupt, amoral, dishonest and dishonorable actions violated the terms of the loans. I damn well remember co-signing student loan doucuments for our children.
I guarantee not one case was shown that they were they're cheated or misled by their colleges.
Anyone saying President Biden followed the ruling is full of bat guano.

Something like this:
[img]?w=992 ?w=992[/img]
I haven't seen the Spanish version, just that the gov't asserted it was provided.

Again, they don't get an gov't attorney (PD), a presumption of innocence, grand jury, probable cause, or even a civil 'more likely than not' evidentiary standard. They get notice, and they can contact/pay for an attorney or file for a habeas motions if it's not the right person etc., and that's it.

Scotty Appleton said:

---

Junction71 said:

---

I recently obtained a copy of the Constitution and reading it closely, especially the Amendments 1-5. I don't see any way that the reference to "person" or "persons" doesn't refer to anyone but citizens of the United States of America. The references to "persons" in the first 4 definitely refer to citizens so in the context 5 does also. This is where all the concern about "due process" is coming from. You cannot take "all" to refer to everyone that might be here. It was "all" of certain group and that group was legal citizens of the USA.

---

I struggle with this as well. If the 2nd doesn't apply to non-citizens without restrictions then why do the others? It seems logic would assert that you can't have it both ways.

---

Your first mistake was trying to integrate logic into the legal system. They are oil and water and do not mix, never have and never will.

There is almost no consensus amongst the thousands upon thousands upon thousands of laws we already have on something as simple as when somebody is an adult or not. Do you think the same system that cannot define what a woman and a man are can somehow find the logic to do something as simple as read the constitution and apply a 3rd grade thought process to it?

aggiehawg said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

I'm fine with the SCOTUS being a check and balance against the president. But only if the president can be a check & balance against the SCOTUS. And I'm not taking about a president's ability to appoint new justices. I'm talking about veto power that even mid level judges apparently have over the head of the executive branch.

Presidents have no such power so neither should judges.

---

Disagree. President is not over SCOTUS because of Marbury v. Madison. Also, many legal scholars believe that was a wrongfully decided opinion. Still debated.

---

It was wrongfully decided IMO. Marshall saw an opening in which he could basically put his thumb on the scales of the judicial branch that gave them far more power than either of the other two branches, and he jumped on the opportunity to do so with this case. I do not believe that the intent of the founders was ever to have the SC be in a position where they could determine if a law is constitutional or not.

There is no check against SCOTUS as it stands. They hold all of the cards - they decide what cases they will hear and what they will not hear and whatever decision comes down from them has no avenue of recourse. Judges can only be removed if impeached, which is more or less an impossibility.

No other branch has that immunity. The executive does not, nor does the legislative. An neither branch, because of Marbury v. Madison, declare actions or decisions of the SC unconstitutional like they can with the other two.