ICE Arrests Palestinian Ringleader of Anti-Israel Columbia Protests

[Bradskii]

Nup it is not that simple.

It really is.

It is still your form of a gotcha question.

No, it's a question regarding how important one thinks the separation of powers actually is.

Try this : 1. SCOTUS must operate within the confines of the constitution and their own rules.

True.

2. SCOTUS can do whatever the heck they want regardless of previous decisions and legal precedent.

True. Although previous decisions and legal precedent will generally guide what they decide. Stare decisis is generally followed. But it is not binding.

If SCOTUS can make their own rules and ignore legal precedent and the constitution...

They can indeed ignore legal precedent. If they couldn't then mixed marriages would be still be illegal. But they most certainly cannot ignore the constitution.

None of which answers the question. Whatever decision they make, is it A or B?

A. Trump must obey the judiciary.
B. Trump can decide whether to obey the judiciary or not.

To help you, I'll give you a heads up on what I would say if you were to ask the question. You can substitute whatever name you like for 'Trump' and it will be exactly the same: A. Every. Single. Time.

At this point...another heads up. I'm not the slightest bit interested in you heading off into the bushes with an armful of Whataboutisms. Just bear that in mind. Although I've probably wasted some bandwidth in typing that...

 

[RocksInMyHead]

The poster boy the liberals are fawning over had his due process before 2 judges who found him to be a gang member.

This has been clarified on multiple occasions. At this point, if you continue to repeat it, it's either an expression of willful ignorance or a deliberate lie. Two immigration judges denied him bail based on the potential that he was a gang member; the matter was never tried. When the issue was most recently visited, during the hearing in which he was granted protection from deportation, Garcia was able to satisfy the judge's worries about gang affiliation. Had he been determined to be a threat to the community, he would not have been allowed to stay in the US. It should also be noted that the Trump administration had the option to appeal this decision back in 2019 and chose not to.

Trump's Team Caved on Abrego Garcia Deportation in 2019

Courts warn of "lawlessness" if Trump doesn't back down this time.

time.com

Oh did we mention the wife beating charges brought by his wife?

This has no bearing on the current situation. If the government wants to use his past domestic violence accusations as justification to deport him, they can present their evidence in court and request his removal, following due process requirements.

 

[Postvieww]

It really is.

No, it's a question regarding how important one thinks the separation of powers actually is.

True.

True. Although previous decisions and legal precedent will generally guide what they decide. Stare decisis is generally followed. But it is not binding.

They can indeed ignore legal precedent. If they couldn't then mixed marriages would be still be illegal. But they most certainly cannot ignore the constitution.

None of which answers the question. Whatever decision they make, is it A or B?

A. Trump must obey the judiciary.
B. Trump can decide whether to obey the judiciary or not.

To help you, I'll give you a heads up on what I would say if you were to ask the question. You can substitute whatever name you like for 'Trump' and it will be exactly the same: A. Every. Single. Time.

At this point...another heads up. I'm not the slightest bit interested in you heading off into the bushes with an armful of Whataboutisms. Just bear that in mind. Although I've probably wasted some bandwidth in typing that...

Since you obviously don’t care enough to understand how far off the reservation the midnight ruling from SCOTUS was in this case you seem to agree with point 2, they can do whatever the heck they want which makes them just what many liberals claim Trump is , a dictatorial court not bound by law. Actually in that last post I did answer you question, I will repeat. If SCOTUS is not bound by law, the constitution and their own rules then NO Trump is not bound to obey such a ruling. That is my opinion it remains to be seen if that is what Trump will do. As Alito pointed out in his decent SCOTUS had no standing to even take this particular case much less rule swiftly in the dead of night with little to no deliberation or allowing any argument from Trumps lawyers. Contrary to the opinion you seem to voicing here SCOTUS does not have the constitutional authority to make law they are to interpret law guided by the constitution not political bias as they have recently shown to be true. Co - equal not supreme as their title seems to imply and which they have taken to the extreme. Again IMHO no Trump is no bound by a rogue unlawful order that is my answer to your question.

 

[Bradskii]

Actually in that last post I did answer you question, I will repeat. If SCOTUS is not bound by law, the constitution and their own rules...

They are bound by the law. It's their job to interpret it as it applies to the constitution. So this...

...then NO Trump is not bound to obey such a ruling.

...doesn't apply.

IMHO no Trump is no bound by a rogue unlawful order that is my answer to your question.

That's what I wanted. As far as you are concerned, he can, if he so decides, ignore judicial directives. Now that wasn't so difficult, was it. I'll mark you down as a B for future reference. Thanks.

 

[Postvieww]

They are bound by the law. It's their job to interpret it as it applies to the constitution. So this...

...doesn't apply.


That's what I wanted. As far as you are concerned, he can, if he so decides, ignore judicial directives. Now that wasn't so difficult, was it. I'll mark you down as a B for future reference. Thanks.

They are supposed to be bound by the law and constitution but you fail to acknowledge they have the ability to ignore that and sometimes do as they did in this case. Let’s be accurate here I did not say Trump could ignore any and every ruling. I did say if they operate out of bounds as Alito pointed out multiple errors in this case it is my opinion that it was an option. Since you obviously haven’t read the ruling and Alito’s decent you really don’t have a working knowledge of this case.

 

[Bradskii]

They are supposed to be bound by the law and constitution but you fail to acknowledge they have the ability to ignore that...

They most definitely cannot ignore either the law or the constitution. How they interpret it is another matter. You might disagree with that interpretation but you still must abide by the decision. But you have said quite plainly that not abiding 'was an option' for Trump.

That's option B. It's been noted.

 

[Postvieww]

They most definitely cannot ignore either the law or the constitution. How they interpret it is another matter. You might disagree with that interpretation but you still must abide by the decision. But you have said quite plainly that not abiding 'was an option' for Trump.

That's option B. It's been noted.

But they do! From Alito’s dissent: “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,” he wrote.

“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.” Why do you ignore the fact that the court is not infallible and have ability to operate outside of their own rules and sworn oath? Even when doing so you seem to have the attitude oh well they are the Supreme Court they have to be right,bow down and submit. Again they are a co-equal branch not the one and only branch that matters. Courts in these first days of the Trump administration have issued more nation wide injunctions against Trump than any other President. In fact the vast majority of these injunctions in the last 100 years have been against Trump. This is because rogue judges have usurped authority not given them by the constitution and I believe this travesty will be corrected with legislation. I’m getting a little tired of this liberal worship of a corrupt judiciary. Unelected individuals thwarting the will of the people was never the intent of the constitution. Where we are as a nation right now is many people hate Trump more than they love their country and its founding principles. Alito’s words “legally questionable “ do you understand what that actually means?

 

[Bradskii]

Alito’s words “legally questionable “ do you understand what that actually means?

For sure. Someone might disagree with the way that a given law has been interpreted. What it doesn't mean is 'illegal'. What it doesn't mean is that you can ignore the court's decision.

But anyway, you've made your position crystal clear. You've selected B.

 

[Postvieww]

For sure. Someone might disagree with the way that a given law has been interpreted. What it doesn't mean is 'illegal'. What it doesn't mean is that you can ignore the court's decision.

But anyway, you've made your position crystal clear. You've selected B.

Your love of a corrupt judiciary is noted!

 

[hedrick]

This has been clarified on multiple occasions. At this point, if you continue to repeat it, it's either an expression of willful ignorance or a deliberate lie. Two immigration judges denied him bail based on the potential that he was a gang member; the matter was never tried. When the issue was most recently visited, during the hearing in which he was granted protection from deportation, Garcia was able to satisfy the judge's worries about gang affiliation. Had he been determined to be a threat to the community, he would not have been allowed to stay in the US. It should also be noted that the Trump administration had the option to appeal this decision back in 2019 and chose not to.

Trump's Team Caved on Abrego Garcia Deportation in 2019

Courts warn of "lawlessness" if Trump doesn't back down this time.

time.com

This has no bearing on the current situation. If the government wants to use his past domestic violence accusations as justification to deport him, they can present their evidence in court and request his removal, following due process requirements.

She got a protective order. She now says they went to counseling and the problem leading to that have been resolvred. That's why she never pressed charges.

But I agree that all of this is irrelevant. The Supreme Court has looked at things and ordered him returned to the US.

 

[hedrick]

But they do! From Alito’s dissent: “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,” he wrote.

“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.” Why do you ignore the fact that the court is not infallible and have ability to operate outside of their own rules and sworn oath? Even when doing so you seem to have the attitude oh well they are the Supreme Court they have to be right,bow down and submit. Again they are a co-equal branch not the one and only branch that matters. Courts in these first days of the Trump administration have issued more nation wide injunctions against Trump than any other President. In fact the vast majority of these injunctions in the last 100 years have been against Trump. This is because rogue judges have usurped authority not given them by the constitution and I believe this travesty will be corrected with legislation. I’m getting a little tired of this liberal worship of a corrupt judiciary. Unelected individuals thwarting the will of the people was never the intent of the constitution. Where we are as a nation right now is many people hate Trump more than they love their country and its founding principles. Alito’s words “legally questionable “ do you understand what that actually means?

If a lot of injunctions have been filed against Trump, by judges from quite a variety of backgrounds, you might consider that maybe Trump has been acting in a legally questionable manner. That the whole judiciary, including a fairly conservative Supreme Court, is biases against Trump is verging on conspiracy theory.

I haven't been following this in great detail, but I seem to recall that the people in question in this case were on a bus headed to the airport at the time the appeal to the Supreme Court was being prepared. It had been heard by a district judge. He refused to do anything on the grounds that the Supreme Court had already ordered that no one be deported without due process. He didn't know that the buses were rolling becuase the government lawyer had told him that they were not being deported. However the lawyer warned that it could happen the next day. So a lower court had ruled. And it appeared the government was not preparted to wait for appeals.

I trust the justice department lawyer and Mr Alito were simply misinformed. I admit to suspicions that are more negative.

As legal fight raged, ICE buses filled with Venezuelans heading toward airport turned around, video shows

At least 28 detainees were placed on buses Friday evening at ICE’s Bluebonnet Detention Center in Anson, Texas, and then driven toward an airport about an hour away.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[essentialsaltes]

I’m getting a little tired of this liberal worship of a corrupt judiciary.

We really don't worship the four conservative justices who voted against Alito and Thomas.

 

[Bradskii]

Your love of a corrupt judiciary is noted!

I think you might be confusing something with which you disagree with something that's illegal. I'm not sure why.

I'll give you an example. When the SC overturned Roe v Wade I thought it was wrong. I thought that they misinterpreted the constitution and ignored legal precedent. But...there's no way I could possibly describe it as a 'corrupt' decision. And there's no way that I could support anyone who did think it was corrupt to ignore their decision. Them's the rules. We don't all have to like each and every decision. But each and every one of us must abide by them.

That puts me firmly in position A. You are firmly in position B. And all the bluster about corrupt judges and conspiracy theories is utterly meaningless. Which is why I'm ignoring your opinion on any details regarding judges overstepping their roles and multiple decisions going against Trump. You opinion has no worth in this matter. And there have been, and still are multiple decisions going against him for the blazingly obvious reason that he's breaking so many rules.

 

[Postvieww]

For sure. Someone might disagree with the way that a given law has been interpreted. What it doesn't mean is 'illegal'. What it doesn't mean is that you can ignore the court's decision.

But anyway, you've made your position crystal clear. You've selected B.

From Alito’s dissent: “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,”

 

[Postvieww]

We really don't worship the four conservative justices who voted against Alito and Thomas.

Just the other three! Ok, got it.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Just the other three! Ok, got it.

Just pointing out your nonsensical strawman. Alito's opinions are noted, but 7 Justices felt differently and them's the breaks.

 

[Bradskii]

From Alito’s dissent......

Again, you're not presenting anything whatsoever to even imply that any decision was 'corrupt'. Please stop wasting my time.

 

[Postvieww]

You opinion has no worth in this matter.

I’ve given your opinion on US politics no worth for quite some time. The only thing we may agree on is guitars.

 

[Postvieww]

Just pointing out your nonsensical strawman. Alito's opinions are noted, but 7 Justices felt differently and them's the breaks.

The facts Alito pointed out are the facts !

 

[rjs330]

From Alito’s dissent: “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,”

Unprecedented and legally questionable is not the same thing as illegal. I honestly was worried about this with the administration’s actions. I absolutely want every single illegal deported. All 20 million of them. But I want it done right. I want the immigration laws followed to the letter.

If Trump wants to use the the one Act to deport criminals, fine. The court is the one that decides whether or not the act applies in these situations. I have no problem with revoking green cards or visas as long as the law is followed when doing so.

In this case the SCOTUS stepped in and I certainly wonder if it's because Trump has been antagonistic with them over Garcia.