***** Official Trump 47 Admin Court Battles *****

185,502 Views | 2202 Replies | Last: 20 hrs ago by will25u
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:45a, 3/25/25
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:36a, 3/25/25
Reply Quote
txags92
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 11:00a, 3/25/25
will25u said:
Ok, so stupid question. They identified this point:

Quote:
5. That leaves the 5 named defendants in the case pending before Judge Boasberg, along with the as of yet unidentified members of the class he designated -- all Venezuelan citizens over 18 years of age who are TdA members. The 5 named defendants could be shifted to DHS deportation proceedings via the normal process that leads to an Order of Removal.

Wasn't one of Boasberg's issues that the government had not given these guys a chance to prove that they were not TdA? So how did they get into the "class" declared by Boasberg of "all Venezuelan citizens over 18 who are TdA"? They should have to prove that they ARE members of TdA to be a part of that class, which removes the obstacle of not giving them a chance to prove that they are not TdA. They can't simultaneously claim to not be TdA, but also be included in the class of people who are TdA for the purpose of being protected from deportation.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:05a, 3/25/25
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to txags92 • 11:19a, 3/25/25
Quote:
Wasn't one of Boasberg's issues that the government had not given these guys a chance to prove that they were not TdA? So how did they get into the "class" declared by Boasberg of "all Venezuelan citizens over 18 who are TdA"? They should have to prove that they ARE members of TdA to be a part of that class, which removes the obstacle of not giving them a chance to prove that they are not TdA. They can't simultaneously claim to not be TdA, but also be included in the class of people who are TdA for the purpose of being protected from deportation.
This again shows the differences between the full panoply of due process rights for Am cits in a criminal law proceeding and an administrative hearing under immigration statutes for foreign nationals. The proper way to challenge a detention is through habeas corpus, if they choose to but that has to be held in the district in which they are being held upon the filing of the habeas petition to confer such jurisdiction upon an Article III court.

Even Bill Barr, no fan of Trump was on with Hemmer and Perino this morning saying these are not due process issues and the courts assuming they have jurisdiction in most of these cases are wrong. And he made one other point.

When a federal district court judge makes a ruling, it is only binding upon the named parties. The federal judge down the hall is under no obligation to follow that fellow judge's lead. It gets binding on te states of each Circuit when the Circuit Court of Appeals issues a ruling. Then it becomes binding nationally when SCOTUS rules.
Reply Quote
whatthehey78
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:34a, 3/25/25
Is there a 'reasonable' reason the 'do little/nothing' SCOTUS hasn't recognized the national and Constitutional significance occurring at the hands of these district judges? They apparently don't care about the "will" of the people.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:02p, 3/25/25
Wow... 9th Circuit?

Reply Quote
1 edit
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:18p, 3/25/25

Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:40p, 3/25/25
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:04p, 3/25/25
Reply Quote
FireAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:50p, 3/25/25
So the "stays" mean Trump, DOGE, Rubio, Musk et al can continue doing what they've been doing in this particular cases because the appeals courts recognized the ridiculousness of the lower courts' opinions?
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FireAg • 4:52p, 3/25/25
I think an appeals court will only issue a stay if they think the ruling will be more than likely be overturned, or there is immediate harm to the entity appealing.

I think?
Reply Quote
Ag with kids
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 4:54p, 3/25/25
will25u said:
I think an appeals court will only issue a stay if they think the ruling will be more than likely be overturned, or there is immediate harm to the entity appealing.

I think?
The Elon Musk stay was just an administrative stay. Keeps the status quo for a short time for them to review things. They've made no decision on anything yet probably.
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 4:57p, 3/25/25
will25u said:
I think an appeals court will only issue a stay if they think the ruling will be more than likely be overturned, or there is immediate harm to the entity appealing.

I think?
Remember how much I have been complaining about the procedural postures of this cases being called one thing when they are actually something else? Is it a TRO or a mandatory injunction? There's a difference and the appellate courts struggle with them because procedurally these cases are coming before them with remedies that are counter intuitive. Just gets everything muddy.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:42p, 3/25/25
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:38p, 3/25/25

Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:44p, 3/25/25

Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:49p, 3/25/25
I am nearly bald right now from pulling my hair out!

Judge? Don't call it a TRO when it is an injunction!!!!
Reply Quote
FTAG 2000
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:53p, 3/25/25
It's a trijunction .

The Roberts to Epstein island shut must be real for him to let this clown show torching of the judiciary and article 2 to continue.
Reply Quote
Stat Monitor Repairman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:21p, 3/25/25

Bernie say jailing political dissidents is wrong again,

Also pretty sure LPRs got conditions attached to it.

Poor girl got out over he skis but them the breaks. You live and learn.
Reply Quote
1 edit
ttha_aggie_09
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Stat Monitor Repairman • 10:29p, 3/25/25
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. F her
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:59a, 3/26/25
Thread. Seems like a pretty strong reply from DOJ.

Reply Quote
BMX Bandit
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FTAG 2000 • 6:07a, 3/26/25
FTAG 2000 said:
It's a trijunction .

The Roberts to Epstein island shut must be real for him to let this clown show torching of the judiciary and article 2 to continue.
its crazy that Patel and Bondi continue to provide cover for Roberts on this. Why? Are they black hats? Is Trump in the loop on this, or are they keeping him on "need to know basis"? Really need Q back at times like this.
Reply Quote
nortex97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 6:09a, 3/26/25
This is pretty funny and on point really.

"We thought you might have sobered up since losing your temper in court."
Reply Quote
BMX Bandit
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 6:20a, 3/26/25
boasberg provided his own rope on this one:

Quote:
This Court itself appeared to recognize that its oral statements did not amount to a binding injunction. Just before explaining its preference that the Government "tur(n] around (the] plane*s)," Hearing Tr. at 43:16, the Court informed counsel that it "would issue a minute order memorializing (a TRO] so you don't have to race to write it down," id. at 42:22-23 (emphasis added). And immediately after the oral statement, the Court further stated that it "will issue a minute order memorializing all of this." Id. at 46:9-10. Those promises accord with the rule that a court will ensure "those enjoined receive explicit notice of precisely what conduct is outlawed." Schmidt, 414 U.S. at 476

administration continues to follow the law despite the claims and wishes otherwise.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:11a, 3/26/25
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:22a, 3/26/25
Reply Quote
techno-ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 9:24a, 3/26/25
will25u said:

Make it so.
/Picard
Trump will fix it.
Reply Quote
TAM85
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:25a, 3/26/25
It would make sense to consolidate all the cases against Trump's EO into a single district court, perhaps in the Eastern District of Texas in Marshall. And if any of the cases go beyond the TRO/TI stage, pick a jury and try it in Marshall.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:37a, 3/26/25
Reply Quote
Ag with kids
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 9:37a, 3/26/25
will25u said:
What lawsuit is that???
Reply Quote
Im Gipper
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ag with kids • 9:42a, 3/26/25
They are being sued by a watchdog group realizing they did not comply with federal record keeping laws.


"Watchdog" meaning of liberal activist, of course!

I'm Gipper
Reply Quote
Rapier108
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Im Gipper • 9:45a, 3/26/25
Im Gipper said:
They are being sued by a watchdog group realizing they did not comply with federal record keeping laws.


"Watchdog" meaning of liberal activist, of course!
Actually "American Oversight" is noting but a leftist activist group. Just like CREW and the rest, they only target Republicans.
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
Reply Quote
Prosperdick
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 9:52a, 3/26/25
will25u said:

Babylon Bee: I have no response. That was perfect.
Reply Quote
FTAG 2000
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rapier108 • 10:12a, 3/26/25
Rapier108 said:
Im Gipper said:
They are being sued by a watchdog group realizing they did not comply with federal record keeping laws.


"Watchdog" meaning of liberal activist, of course!
Actually "American Oversight" is noting but a leftist activist group. Just like CREW and the rest, they only target Republicans.


Eisen and Elias. Who both should be in Gitmo.
Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.