Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Christian Forums is looking to bring on new moderators to the CF Staff Team! If you have been an active member of CF for at least three months with 200 posts during that time, you're eligible to apply! This is a great way to give back to CF and keep the forums running smoothly! If you're interested, you can submit your application here!
I've no problem with that at all. But you'll note that my opinions, right or wrong, are always based on the facts of the matter. I won't say that your mileage may vary. It certainly does.
And his opinion is that they are relevant to the decision. An opinion not shared by his colleagues. Tough luck. It doesn't mean you can ignore the decision. Which is what you want Trump to do. All those that do get listed under B.
nypost.com
Does this development make him ineligible for due process? [Hint, no, because he is a person.]
This isn’t a new development. It has been reported before. The concern with his deportation isn’t that he’s a great guy, but that there was a court order preventing his deportation, and the administration ignoted it. There is now a Supreme Court order to bring him back and they are ignoring it too.Well this development re the outcry over the Salvadoran migrant of Maryland deported by “mistake” is interesting.
Deported alleged MS-13 gangbanger Kilmar Abrego Garcia was driving convicted smuggler’s car during Tennessee traffic stop
The vehicle’s owner, Jose Ramon Hernandez Reyes, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 18 months in prison in 2020 for smuggling other illegal migrants from Mexico, El Salvador and Honduras.
Did he use “due process “ to come here? Why don’t liberals just be honest about this “due process “ argument. Setting court dates for 20 million illegals will take years and millions if not billions of dollars. For what ? Persons who disrespected our laws to get here some of which are murders , rapist, drug dealers , human traffickers and violent gang members. Many of which have already been through our court system multiple times. Many of the ones who are not violent criminals are still law breakers by coming here illegally which is a slap in the face to all legal , welcome immigrants who played by the rules and came in through proper channels. The crocodile tears for those who broke our immigration laws just say come on in and get free food, medical and housing while we ignore own homeless and veterans. Sanctuary cities going broke supporting illegals while ignoring their own citizens. Many such as in Chicago are fed up with insane liberal policies on this and are rising up against liberal leaders.Let’s be honest here this is not about compassion it is about replenishing a dwindling voter base. Illegals getting SS numbers, drivers license and some have actually voted in our elections. Wake up liberals this support for insanity on our border probably was the main reason for your loss in 2024. Keep it up and pay the price in future elections.
From the link
Yes, that would be terrible if it was true, and I suppose you think it such a serious problem that it justifies the arbitrary deportation of those who are here legally as well. Maybe throw in in a native born citizen or two--that will really "own the libs."
The question boils down to this: Do you always have to obey court orders, including those of the Supreme Court.
I know the righwing-o-sphere has been trying to muddy the waters about what "due process" means and requires, but it has a specific meaning that is a constitutional obligation on the government. That's it and that's all.
It's not an 'argument', it is a requirement of the Constitution.
Democrats have been trying to hire more immigration judges to work through the backlog. Trump has been torpedoing those plans and firing them. making the situation worse... but no matter how bad the situation becomes, it does not remove the government's constitutional obligations.
There is no statutory or constitutional justification for nation wide injunctions that goes beyond the specific parties before the court. Take that fact and apply it your professional legal analysis of obeying court orders. When a rogue judge makes up their own rules concerning national wide injunctions what is the legal justification for enforcement.
Sorry, that made no sense at all and completely avoided answering the question. Shall I repeat it to save you scrolling back?
More immigration judges? How long would it take to more immigration judges? How many do we need in order to process 20 million immigrants in a timely manner? Is that what you actually want to happen?
President Biden proposed 375 additional, a 60% increase. The bipartisan Senate bill lowered that number to about 100. Trump took responsibility for the failure of the bill. Trump has now reduced the number immigration judges by a few dozen.
Really no sense at all ? I believe I was very clear, but I shall try to make it simple. You seem to be hung up on your binary choice theme. Federal judges have given themselves the power to issue nation wide injunctions to stop presidents from carrying out constitutionally given duties. There is nothing in the constitution nor is there any law passed by congress that gives them the right to issue these national injunctions that affects parties not before their court. Added to that they have avoided their own rule to have complaining parties put up a monetary bond in case they lose the case . The bond is to cover the defendants losses by having an injunction against them should they win the case. I wasn’t trying to answer your question, I was asking you a question. Let me further simplify for you. When a judge usurps power not legally give to them what is your expert remedy for that . I realize this might be tough for you since you place all US judges on an infallible, final authority pedestal. Bottom line: nation wide injunctions that go beyond the specific complaining parties before the court are not supported by any law passed or the constitution.
I don’t blame you . You have backed yourself into a corner and don’t have an answer. Your position will not allow you to consider the facts presented to you. You have chosen to believe all US judges are infallible legal gods. I am so glad for you that you live in a country where judges have no personal biases and only follow the law to the letter we are not so lucky in this country. We just had a judge arrested for harboring an illegal gang member in his home. Aren’t you so thankful all of your judges are above all of that?
The 'far from it' is a tacit agreement that not all judges will give an opinion with which I agree. I may think that he or she has interpreted the law or the consitution incorrectly. I may think that someone like Clarence Thomas has been swayed in some decisions by the hundreds of gifts he accepted.
This narrow view which you call option A does not consider the difference between judges interpreting the law and constitution and ignoring it or making their own law. Your own premise is flawed and ignores reality. You really should consider adding a C option to cover cases like the recent judge arrest in our country. Tell us what is your country’s secret for producing perfectly unbiased judges?
