DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus ILLEGAL DEPORTATIONS

Don't you get it by now Pit..., Republicans, the party of Law and Order doesn't give a damn about Law and Order.

Then they put up silly photos (mind you, we don't know where that was even taken, but that's not the point) And it doesn't mirror the fact that this guy (garcia) wasn't a member of a gang. he was an upstanding member of his community and his trade union (who has come out strongly for him)..

But that doesn't mean anything... Not to MAGA

Truth be told, they only give a damn with the laws their King agrees with.

Supreme Court orders Trump administration not to deport Venezuelans under Alien Enemies Act for now

The justices said no action should be taken to pursue the deportations of any alleged Venezuelan gang members in Texas under the rarely used wartime law.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court in the early hours of Saturday told the Trump administration not to take any action to deport Venezuelan men based in Texas it alleges are gang members.

The court did not grant or deny an application filed by lawyers for the detainees, but effectively hit pause on the case, which affects people currently held within the jurisdiction of the Northern District of Texas.

“The government is directed not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this court,” the brief order said.

Two conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, disagreed with the Supreme Court decision, the order noted.

At around the same time, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a request by the men, who the administration alleges are gang members, to halt any deportations under a wartime law called the Alien Enemies Act.

On Friday afternoon, at least one charter bus rolled up to the Bluebonnet Detention Center in Anson, Texas, a town about 200 miles west of Dallas, where the men are being held.

Administration officials are seeking to deport the men, who they say are members of the Tren de Aragua gang. There are major questions about whether the government has the authority to apply the Alien Enemies Act to gang members outside of a war situation and whether adjudications about gang membership are accurate.

The plaintiffs “ask only that this court preserve the status quo so that proposed class members will not be sent to a notorious prison in El Salvador before the American judicial system can afford them due process,” their lawyers at the American Civil Liberties Union wrote in the Supreme Court filing.

In the court order, the justices said the government should file a response to the ACLU application at the Supreme Court “as soon as possible.”

In a statement, Lee Gelernt, the lead ACLU attorney in the case, praised the Supreme Court's decision, saying, “These men were in imminent danger of spending their lives in a horrific foreign prison without ever having had a chance to go to court. We are relieved that the Supreme Court has not permitted the administration to whisk them away the way others were just last month.”

The Supreme Court action follows an April 7 decision in which the court made it clear that any people the government wants to deport under the Alien Enemies Act need to be given the chance to challenge the decision via habeas corpus petitions.

The case raises questions not just about Trump’s aggressive and unprecedented use of presidential power in invoking the 18th-century law, which has been used only when the country was at war, but also about whether his administration is complying with court orders.

In its earlier decision, the Supreme Court faulted a judge in Washington for the way he handled the case but said plaintiffs could sue in the districts in which they are confined. The vote to overturn the lower court was 5-4, with liberal justices joined in part by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Litigation continues in a separate case over the Trump administration’s mistaken deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...on-not-deport-venezuelans-now-rcna201949

The same but different. Does he do this stuff because he thinks his base is stupid or because his base is stupid?

Something different from Profootballtalk-it says a lot

A quick break from football, for something more important
By
Mike Florio

Published April 18, 2025 08:29 PM
Hello. Good evening. Or good morning. Possibly, good afternoon. Whenever you find this, you’ll be getting fair notice from the get go.

If you prefer to stick to football, don’t read it.

It’s simple. If you’re in the PFT Rumor Mill, keep scrolling. If you somehow tripped over this elsewhere, click out of it. Or swipe in whichever direction you need to swipe in order to get it off the screen of your device.

If you stick around, don’t complain about what comes next. You can disagree with me; you’re fully entitled to your own opinions and beliefs. Just don’t whine about how this isn’t about football. You’ve gotten fair warning to not read it.

Good? Good.

And, not good. I addressed it at the outset of Friday’s PFT Live. The feedback has been overwhelmingly (and surprisingly) positive. For those who primarily consume our content on this platform, here’s the situation.

Our country currently is in a crisis. It’s blossoming in multiple ways, through multiple pieces of litigation. The main issue that has been weighing me down mentally and emotionally in recent days is the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

My concerns are irrelevant to whether he’s a member of MS-13. Or whether he should or shouldn’t be deported. Or whether he is or isn’t a good husband and father. The source of my stress is that his case exposes a basic, fundamental threat to our system of government.

It’s hard to type those words without regarding them as over the top. I wish they were. They aren’t. At the core of all of the rhetoric and rambling and ad hominem attacks and both-sides, “what-about?” [censored] resides a core question of whether the executive, legislative, and judicial branches will continue to be co-equal. As the founders intended. And as the country has operated, for nearly 250 years.

Here’s the problem. Currently, the executive branch has no regard for decisions of the judicial branch that conflict with the executive’s agenda. They’ll never complain about the victories. They will routinely and aggressively attack the defeats, by all means necessary. Including flat-out refusing to comply with them.

That’s not how it’s supposed to be. I worked in the legal profession for 18 years. When you win, you win. When you lose, you lose. You may not like losing, but you’ve lost. You deal with it, and you move on.

Not this executive branch. When this executive branch loses, the judges are vaguely threatened with impeachment. They are attacked as impeding the will of the government. And their orders are ignored.

Yes, they’re appealed. And appealed. At some point, the appeals have been exhausted and the “L” must be taken and respected.

This isn’t about red. It’s not about blue. It’s about red, white, and blue. If you believe in this country, and if you accept the basic concept of law and order, you necessarily should be troubled by the failure of the executive branch to accept the outcomes of the judicial branch.

In the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia — and in other cases — that’s not happening. The executive branch is openly refusing to honor the orders of the judicial branch.

The problem was best articulated and summarized in a Thursday ruling written by J. Harvie Wilkinson III. He’s not some garden-variety liberal activist. He’s a respected and longstanding judge, who was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in 1984, by Ronald Reagan. He was reportedly on the short list of potential Supreme Court appointees in 2004, by George W. Bush. He is, was, and always has been a conservative jurist.

Here’s some of what he wrote, at a time when the executive branch refuses to comply with multiple directives of the judicial branch, up to and including a Supreme Court that the current executive previously stacked with supposedly like-minded justices: “Now the [executive and judicial] branches come too close to grinding irrevocably against one another in a conflict that promises to diminish both. This is a losing proposition all around. The Judiciary will lose much from the constant intimations of its illegitimacy, to which by dent of custom and detachment we can only sparingly reply. The Executive will lose much from a public perception of its lawlessness and all of its attendant contagions. The Executive may succeed for a time in weakening the courts, but over time history will script the tragic gap between what was and all that might have been, and law in time will sign its epitaph.”

In far less artful terms, Judge Wilkinson is saying that, if the executive branch refuses to accept and respect the decisions of the judicial branch — decisions that serve as an important check and balance against the power of the executive branch — everyone loses. The executive branch, the judicial branch, and ultimately the rule of law and our overall system of government.

Basically, the current executive is picking a fight that it believes it can win, because he and his hand-picked lieutenants believe there’s nothing the judicial branch can do to implement its orders if the executive branch is determined to not comply. In 1974, for example, the Supreme Court delivered a ruling that ultimately brought down a president, by compelling Richard Nixon to release the notorious Watergate tapes.

President Nixon complied with the ruling. He didn’t say, in essence, “Make me.” The current executive branch is playing the “make me” card. Over and over again.

If, for example, the judicial branch believes that specific persons have shown sufficient contempt of court to be incarcerated, the executive branch can refuse to implement the order to take the person into custody and deliver him, or her, to the designated facility. Even before that, the Department of Justice, which is an arm of the executive branch, can refuse to exercise prosecutorial discretion in a way that would initiate the formal process of making accountable those who openly defy the orders of the court system.

At a time when the term “Constitutional crisis” is bandied about all too frequently, this is exactly what we have. The courts have spoken, and they continue to speak. The executive branch has refused to comply, and it continues to do so.

During the most recent election, both sides claimed that, if the other side wins, we’ll lose our democracy. It’s currently happening, folks. In slow but inevitable motion.

“We yet cling to the hope that it is not naïve to believe our good brethren in the Executive Branch perceive the rule of law as vital to the American ethos,” Judge Wilkinson wrote. “This case presents their unique chance to vindicate that value and to summon the best that is within us while there is still time.”

The language is beautiful and poignant. The message is dire. Unless and until the executive branch commits to respecting all decisions of the judicial branch, our system will begin to disintegrate. And the executive branch will become a monarchy, an authoritarian regime, a dictatorship.

I know it sounds hyperbolic. In this case, it’s true.

Again, it’s not about the facts of any one case. It’s about the outcome of a process that has been in place since the birth of the republic to resolve disputes. In every case that is resolved by the courts, someone wins and someone loses. In the Abrego Garcia case and others like it, the executive branch has realized that a win remains possible, in the form of ignoring that it has lost.

In the most memorable scene from 2004’s Miracle, Kurt Russell (playing Herb Brooks) forced the members of the U.S. Olympic hockey team to skate and skate and skate until one fundamental question was answered correctly: Who do you play for?

We’re not playing for party. We’re not playing for ideology. We’re not playing for our own financial or social interests. We’re playing for the United States of America. And if the current executive branch refuses to acknowledge the basic truth that it is, or should be, playing for the United States of America, the system has necessarily commenced its collapse.

Judge Wilkinson clings to the hope that the executive branch will abandon its current course. All Americans who truly love this country should have that hope. And we all should pray that it comes to fruition.

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profo...om-football-for-something-more-important

Jc

MAGA really throwing the label ‘terrorist’ around nonchalantly.

My blood pressure rises every time I hear some American use words like ‘invaders’ and such. Really trying to have their “you’re either with us or against us” moment.

I thought we already watched this movie before.

Forget the immigration system, it's our justice system that's the issue here.

Like it or not, we have a set of laws and process that our courts/law enforcement is supposed to follow. If Trump doesn't like it, then change it. MAGA has every branch of govt right now.


I'll say it again, it's horrifying to me how folks on this thread (self-described patriots) are on-board with throwing due process in the bin.

To be clear, if our laws were allowed to run its course, I'd be side-by-side with you in this thread. But they weren't... our justice system was short-circuited by the same group that has already been caught deporting people that are here legally. MAGA wants to make this all about the person which is missing the forest for the trees.


Let's just skip to the end (after 6 pages). Are you on-board with removing the concept of due process from our justice system? This is a yes/no question. The situation we're debating is VERY black/white.

It would be a LOT easier to just post the judge's decision that he should be deported. Don't you think?