Sam Lowry said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Laughing how the Left likes using the 5th Amendment due process clause as a cudgel without remotely identifying the life, liberty or property deprivation [necessary to trigger the clause].

Due process is not a blanket obligation, it requires a specific trigger.

Identify that trigger or sit down and stop blathering.

---

See page 37.

---

Read it. You lied.

DHS v. Thuraissigiam 591 US 103
"The extent of due process owed may vary by fact and circumstance".
Yamataya v. Fisher 189 US 86
Zadyvdas v. Davis 533 US 678

Removal proceedings are civil, not criminal.

Harisiades v. Schaughnessy 342 US 580

Does not require judicial action [executive inquiry is enough]. Executive action is discretionary.
Jay v. Boyd 351 US 345

Title 8

There are numerous pathways whereby illegals have ZERO right to judicial review.
Further, nothing absolutely entitles the applicant on those limited areas of review to an in person hearing.

---

You asked for someone to identify the interest, not to define the limits of due process. I'll assume you're not a liar and you just need a moment to catch up.

---

You:

"Aliens have a liberty interest in living, staying, and working here."
Legally false, thus a lie.

Not any of those items you listed are an interest which legally trigger judicial due process rights.
Judicial review of executive actions in the deportation setting require specific Title 8 triggers [asylum claim improperly decided by executive officer (as a matter of law) because…..]. Not your amorphous……..living, staying, working here nonsense.

---

"It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings." ~Antonin Scalia

---

Scalia:

In Reno held that a trial court lacked jurisdiction in a challenge to AG determination under IIRIRA

Dissented in Arizona v US.

In INS v Yang, held that a trial court must defer (as a matter of law) to any AG determination of fraud in an immigration setting.

And nothing he wrote changes the fact that judicial [as opposed to executive] process (and thus judicial due process) only applies in a tiny fraction of cases under Title 8.

You are equating judicial due process to executive due process. Utter nonsense.
Aliens get a deportation determination and potentially an asylum determination before the executive branch.
A tiny subset are entitled to judicial oversight of the latter.

What is next for you, due process at the DMV?

Osodecentx said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

They had to know they would be denied asylum in all probability and so they did not bother to show. Who wants individuals in this country who disregard laws from the moment they enter the country.

---

He literally bothered to show, was arrested on the spot, and was sent to a foreign prison camp. Remember, he's one of those immigrants who followed the rules...you know, the ones you were pretending to care about. You don't have anything to say?

---

Do you have anything to say about hundreds of thousands of children being sexually trafficked through our border?

---

Apparently I'm the only one who does.

If you actually care about punishing the wrongdoers and protecting the vulnerable, due process is the key. It's how you sort the guilty from the innocent.

Trump issues quotas and holds no one accountable for mistakes and abuses. That only encourages ICE to round up easy targets, people living with nothing to hide, not the real criminals. All while he seizes unprecedented "wartime" powers that would make you piss your pants if a Democrat did it.

It's all about emotion. Nothing else. Trump pushes your button, and you melt just like every quivering statist.

---

You obviously don't care or you'd support zero tolerance for coming into our border illegally.

All of them are criminals as defined by our own laws. They trespassed which is a crime. It doesn't matter for what reason, they are criminals because they illegally came into our country. If you disagree, then you disagree with the law.

---

Then a hearing would be a slam dunk for the State

---

Except for the part where they don't show up and we have no idea where they are.

---

So you "conservatives" trust the government to snatch up criminals and ship them overseas without a hearing? Not conservative

---

Millions were brought into the country without due process.......yet now you magically demand due process, one by one, in order to get rid of them.

How enlightened.

---

So, your trust in government surprises me. Isn't that different from your past posts?

---

As usual, your response has almost nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Just forget it.

---

You trust big government to identify & deport whomever they arrest.
Why not a hearing before a magistrate?

---

Because millions of illegals are involved…thanks directly to Joe Biden and his puppet masters.

Because illegals often do not show up to their hearings.

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Laughing how the Left likes using the 5th Amendment due process clause as a cudgel without remotely identifying the life, liberty or property deprivation [necessary to trigger the clause].

Due process is not a blanket obligation, it requires a specific trigger.

Identify that trigger or sit down and stop blathering.

---

See page 37.

---

Read it. You lied.

DHS v. Thuraissigiam 591 US 103
"The extent of due process owed may vary by fact and circumstance".
Yamataya v. Fisher 189 US 86
Zadyvdas v. Davis 533 US 678

Removal proceedings are civil, not criminal.

Harisiades v. Schaughnessy 342 US 580

Does not require judicial action [executive inquiry is enough]. Executive action is discretionary.
Jay v. Boyd 351 US 345

Title 8

There are numerous pathways whereby illegals have ZERO right to judicial review.
Further, nothing absolutely entitles the applicant on those limited areas of review to an in person hearing.

---

You asked for someone to identify the interest, not to define the limits of due process. I'll assume you're not a liar and you just need a moment to catch up.

---

You:

"Aliens have a liberty interest in living, staying, and working here."
Legally false, thus a lie.

Not any of those items you listed are an interest which legally trigger judicial due process rights.
Judicial review of executive actions in the deportation setting require specific Title 8 triggers [asylum claim improperly decided by executive officer (as a matter of law) because…..]. Not your amorphous……..living, staying, working here nonsense.

---

"It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings." ~Antonin Scalia

---

Scalia:

In Reno held that a trial court lacked jurisdiction in a challenge to AG determination under IIRIRA

Dissented in Arizona v US.

In INS v Yang, held that a trial court must defer (as a matter of law) to any AG determination of fraud in an immigration setting.

And nothing he wrote changes the fact that judicial [as opposed to executive] process (and thus judicial due process) only applies in a tiny fraction of cases under Title 8.

You are equating judicial due process to executive due process. Utter nonsense.
Aliens get a deportation determination and potentially an asylum determination before the executive branch.
A tiny subset are entitled to judicial oversight of the latter.

What is next for you, due process at the DMV?

---

Do you understand what a liberty interest is?

Take as long as you need.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Laughing how the Left likes using the 5th Amendment due process clause as a cudgel without remotely identifying the life, liberty or property deprivation [necessary to trigger the clause].

Due process is not a blanket obligation, it requires a specific trigger.

Identify that trigger or sit down and stop blathering.

---

See page 37.

---

Read it. You lied.

DHS v. Thuraissigiam 591 US 103
"The extent of due process owed may vary by fact and circumstance".
Yamataya v. Fisher 189 US 86
Zadyvdas v. Davis 533 US 678

Removal proceedings are civil, not criminal.

Harisiades v. Schaughnessy 342 US 580

Does not require judicial action [executive inquiry is enough]. Executive action is discretionary.
Jay v. Boyd 351 US 345

Title 8

There are numerous pathways whereby illegals have ZERO right to judicial review.
Further, nothing absolutely entitles the applicant on those limited areas of review to an in person hearing.

---

You asked for someone to identify the interest, not to define the limits of due process. I'll assume you're not a liar and you just need a moment to catch up.

---

You:

"Aliens have a liberty interest in living, staying, and working here."
Legally false, thus a lie.

Not any of those items you listed are an interest which legally trigger judicial due process rights.
Judicial review of executive actions in the deportation setting require specific Title 8 triggers [asylum claim improperly decided by executive officer (as a matter of law) because…..]. Not your amorphous……..living, staying, working here nonsense.

---

"It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings." ~Antonin Scalia

---

Scalia:

In Reno held that a trial court lacked jurisdiction in a challenge to AG determination under IIRIRA

Dissented in Arizona v US.

In INS v Yang, held that a trial court must defer (as a matter of law) to any AG determination of fraud in an immigration setting.

And nothing he wrote changes the fact that judicial [as opposed to executive] process (and thus judicial due process) only applies in a tiny fraction of cases under Title 8.

You are equating judicial due process to executive due process. Utter nonsense.
Aliens get a deportation determination and potentially an asylum determination before the executive branch.
A tiny subset are entitled to judicial oversight of the latter.

What is next for you, due process at the DMV?

---

Do you understand what a liberty interest is?

Take as long as you need.

---

Your arguments = drowning man flailing his arms

Such idiocy being connected to Baylor (even tangentially) is embarrassing


Lowry mindset: liberty interest isn't triggered by detention but is triggered by not getting a hearing you aren't statutorily entitled to get.

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Laughing how the Left likes using the 5th Amendment due process clause as a cudgel without remotely identifying the life, liberty or property deprivation [necessary to trigger the clause].

Due process is not a blanket obligation, it requires a specific trigger.

Identify that trigger or sit down and stop blathering.

---

See page 37.

---

Read it. You lied.

DHS v. Thuraissigiam 591 US 103
"The extent of due process owed may vary by fact and circumstance".
Yamataya v. Fisher 189 US 86
Zadyvdas v. Davis 533 US 678

Removal proceedings are civil, not criminal.

Harisiades v. Schaughnessy 342 US 580

Does not require judicial action [executive inquiry is enough]. Executive action is discretionary.
Jay v. Boyd 351 US 345

Title 8

There are numerous pathways whereby illegals have ZERO right to judicial review.
Further, nothing absolutely entitles the applicant on those limited areas of review to an in person hearing.

---

You asked for someone to identify the interest, not to define the limits of due process. I'll assume you're not a liar and you just need a moment to catch up.

---

You:

"Aliens have a liberty interest in living, staying, and working here."
Legally false, thus a lie.

Not any of those items you listed are an interest which legally trigger judicial due process rights.
Judicial review of executive actions in the deportation setting require specific Title 8 triggers [asylum claim improperly decided by executive officer (as a matter of law) because…..]. Not your amorphous……..living, staying, working here nonsense.

---

"It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings." ~Antonin Scalia

---

Scalia:

In Reno held that a trial court lacked jurisdiction in a challenge to AG determination under IIRIRA

Dissented in Arizona v US.

In INS v Yang, held that a trial court must defer (as a matter of law) to any AG determination of fraud in an immigration setting.

And nothing he wrote changes the fact that judicial [as opposed to executive] process (and thus judicial due process) only applies in a tiny fraction of cases under Title 8.

You are equating judicial due process to executive due process. Utter nonsense.
Aliens get a deportation determination and potentially an asylum determination before the executive branch.
A tiny subset are entitled to judicial oversight of the latter.

What is next for you, due process at the DMV?

---

Do you understand what a liberty interest is?

Take as long as you need.

---

Your arguments = drowning man flailing his arms

Such idiocy being connected to Baylor (even tangentially) is embarrassing


Lowry mindset: liberty interest isn't triggered by detention but is triggered by not getting a hearing you aren't statutorily entitled to get.

---

I'm sorry, but you are scatter-shooting. The liberty interest is not a creature of statute. Of course it is implicated by detention. The details of due process are another question, but that's beside the point.

You also happen to be wrong about this particular statute. The Supreme Court has unanimously held that it provides for limited judicial review, including on issues of constitutionality.

Which he had, Sam. Running after multiple court decisions that he was deportable in no way cancels them.

I enter the following link concerning Executive Branch authority by past practice and current law in deporting illegals. These are powers granted either by the Constitution or by laws passed by congress which are executed through the Executive Branch of Government.

https://americarenewing.com/issues/primer-u-s-deportations-executive-power/

BEAUTIFUL!!! pic.twitter.com/qzOsOUy7hh

— George (@BehizyTweets) May 9, 2025

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

They had to know they would be denied asylum in all probability and so they did not bother to show. Who wants individuals in this country who disregard laws from the moment they enter the country.

---

He literally bothered to show, was arrested on the spot, and was sent to a foreign prison camp. Remember, he's one of those immigrants who followed the rules...you know, the ones you were pretending to care about. You don't have anything to say?

---

Do you have anything to say about hundreds of thousands of children being sexually trafficked through our border?

I don't give a rats ass about the rights you falsely think these people have. These children are more important and the only way to solve this is to be ruthless in pursuit of deportation and preventing trespassing.

Either you're against these judges and in favor of mass deportation or you support the evil carried out through the border. Stop obeying the morals of man and start obeying the morals of God.

---

If you actually care about punishing the wrongdoers and protecting the vulnerable, due process is the key. It's how you sort the guilty from the innocent.

Trump issues quotas and holds no one accountable for mistakes and abuses. That only encourages ICE to round up easy targets, people living with nothing to hide, not the real criminals. All while he seizes unprecedented "wartime" powers that would make you piss your pants if a Democrat did it.

It's all about emotion. Nothing else. Trump pushes your button, and you melt just like every quivering statist.

---

Sam L, Good response. I wonder if they ever pause on " If the shoe was on the other foot." They certainly would foul their pants if a Dem was doing what Trump is doing.

gtownbear said:

---

I enter the following link concerning Executive Branch authority by past practice and current law in deporting illegals. These are powers granted either by the Constitution or by laws passed by congress which are executed through the Executive Branch of Government.

https://americarenewing.com/issues/primer-u-s-deportations-executive-power/

---

However those power are always reviewed by Judges.and under their jurisdiction.

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

They had to know they would be denied asylum in all probability and so they did not bother to show. Who wants individuals in this country who disregard laws from the moment they enter the country.

---

He literally bothered to show, was arrested on the spot, and was sent to a foreign prison camp. Remember, he's one of those immigrants who followed the rules...you know, the ones you were pretending to care about. You don't have anything to say?

---

Do you have anything to say about hundreds of thousands of children being sexually trafficked through our border?

I don't give a rats ass about the rights you falsely think these people have. These children are more important and the only way to solve this is to be ruthless in pursuit of deportation and preventing trespassing.

Either you're against these judges and in favor of mass deportation or you support the evil carried out through the border. Stop obeying the morals of man and start obeying the morals of God.

---

If you actually care about punishing the wrongdoers and protecting the vulnerable, due process is the key. It's how you sort the guilty from the innocent.

Trump issues quotas and holds no one accountable for mistakes and abuses. That only encourages ICE to round up easy targets, people living with nothing to hide, not the real criminals. All while he seizes unprecedented "wartime" powers that would make you piss your pants if a Democrat did it.

It's all about emotion. Nothing else. Trump pushes your button, and you melt just like every quivering statist.

---

Sam L, Good response. I wonder if they ever pause on " If the shoe was on the other foot." They certainly would foul their pants if a Dem was doing what Trump is doing.

---

Sam, you just got the "kiss of death", 47 telling you that you did something good. You better go to church and bathe in holy water...

Waco1947 said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

I enter the following link concerning Executive Branch authority by past practice and current law in deporting illegals. These are powers granted either by the Constitution or by laws passed by congress which are executed through the Executive Branch of Government.

https://americarenewing.com/issues/primer-u-s-deportations-executive-power/

---

However those power are always reviewed by Judges.and under their jurisdiction.

---

Not even close to true.

The adults are talking.

Waco1947 said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

I enter the following link concerning Executive Branch authority by past practice and current law in deporting illegals. These are powers granted either by the Constitution or by laws passed by congress which are executed through the Executive Branch of Government.

https://americarenewing.com/issues/primer-u-s-deportations-executive-power/

---

However those power are always reviewed by Judges.and under their jurisdiction.

---

By your statement, would that not make the Judicial Branch superior to the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch of Government? That is not the way the Constitution was instituted. Each of the three branches had powers assigned to them. And in fact, the Judicial Branch was the Article III Branch and only a couple of pages long in the Constitution. These judges cannot enter into areas reserved for the Executive Branch which is now run by President Trump, just because they and you do not want the criminal illegals deported from the country.

.@StephenM: "Congress passed a body of law known as the Immigration Nationality Act, which stripped Article III courts, that's the judicial branch, of jurisdiction over immigration cases... So, when @Sec_Noem terminated TPS for the illegals that Biden flew into the country, when… pic.twitter.com/70hxQ6Rldf

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) May 9, 2025

Assassin said:

---

.@StephenM: "Congress passed a body of law known as the Immigration Nationality Act, which stripped Article III courts, that's the judicial branch, of jurisdiction over immigration cases... So, when @Sec_Noem terminated TPS for the illegals that Biden flew into the country, when… pic.twitter.com/70hxQ6Rldf

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) May 9, 2025

---

Excellent point.

Unelected federal district judges issuing nationwide injunctions limiting the Constitutional and legal authority of the Executive Branch is the only Constitutional crisis we face. And it demonstrates to continued hypocrisy that is crippling our ability to work together as a nation.

1. The left celebrates Obama for using expedited deportation (i.e., without "due process")
2. The left celebrates defying the law of the land when it suites its ends
3. The left will go nuts if a federal district judge were to issue a nationwide injunction against ever action of the next Democrat president

Save the crocodile tears and just acknowledge it always has been the ends justify the means, democracy be damned.

"Well, I've already spoken to that and, you know, impeachment is not how you register disagreement with decisions," Roberts said in front of hundreds of judges and lawyers.
"That's what we're there for," Roberts said.
"The judiciary is a co-equal branch of government, separate from the others, with the authority to interpret the Constitution as law and strike down, obviously, acts of Congress or acts of the president," he said.

Above is the most recent quote from Chief Justice Roberts in a public statement rebuking President Trump for the second time for Trump advocating for the impeachment of Judge Boasberg I believe. This last statement seems to show that he believes the Judiciary is superior to the Legislative Branch and Executive Branch of Government. I totally disagree with his last sentence in his statement. My belief is that the Supreme Court is supposed to judge on cases before it based on law and the Constitution, not adjudicate decisions made by the Legislative and Executive Branch that are given by our Constitution. What is wrong with this limp wristed idiot?

In addition, Article III sets up the Supreme Court in the Constitution but the lower courts are not part of the Constitution and as such these lower court judges have no say over decisions by the Executive or Legislative Branch.

Funny that every decision they make seems to go in favor of the left.

gtownbear said:

---

"Well, I've already spoken to that and, you know, impeachment is not how you register disagreement with decisions," Roberts said in front of hundreds of judges and lawyers.
"That's what we're there for," Roberts said.
"The judiciary is a co-equal branch of government, separate from the others, with the authority to interpret the Constitution as law and strike down, obviously, acts of Congress or acts of the president," he said.

Above is the most recent quote from Chief Justice Roberts in a public statement rebuking President Trump for the second time for Trump advocating for the impeachment of Judge Boasberg I believe. This last statement seems to show that he believes the Judiciary is superior to the Legislative Branch and Executive Branch of Government. I totally disagree with his last sentence in his statement. My belief is that the Supreme Court is supposed to judge on cases before it based on law and the Constitution, not adjudicate decisions made by the Legislative and Executive Branch that are given by our Constitution. What is wrong with this limp wristed idiot?

In addition, Article III sets up the Supreme Court in the Constitution but the lower courts are not part of the Constitution and as such these lower court judges have no say over decisions by the Executive or Legislative Branch.

Funny that every decision they make seems to go in favor of the left.

---

There is a really important nuance to separate SCOTUS from district courts.

The anti-democratic, constitutional crises we are seeing is federal district judges issuing nationwide injunctions. This effectively has completely undermined democracy and enabled every single federal judge effectively to function as an authoritarian dictator.

Federal district court rulings should be limited to the plaintiffs and not have nationwide enforcement. This is the classic case of the left launching an anti-democratic "innovation" and then arguing the opposite when it affects what it wants. Cue the usual irony, but for all the hand wringing about "due process," it actually should require the ACLU or other pro-human-trafficking / cartel advocacy groups to file suit on behalf of every single illegal alien in the jurisdiction where the alien has standing ... of course they conveniently forget that "due process" - they prefer to just shop for friendly, TDS judges (whose family has a financial stake in human trafficking).

Imagine trying to run a government where all one special interest group needs to do is find a "friendly" federal judge to overrule every single law passed or executive action. Hypothetically, China attacks Hawaii, and Congress declares war on China. All China would need to do is find a "China friendly" judge to issue an injunction and theoretically cease any declaration of war against China. This is an extremely dangerous, anti-democratic precedent.

gtownbear said:

---

"Well, I've already spoken to that and, you know, impeachment is not how you register disagreement with decisions," Roberts said in front of hundreds of judges and lawyers.
"That's what we're there for," Roberts said.
"The judiciary is a co-equal branch of government, separate from the others, with the authority to interpret the Constitution as law and strike down, obviously, acts of Congress or acts of the president," he said.

Above is the most recent quote from Chief Justice Roberts in a public statement rebuking President Trump for the second time for Trump advocating for the impeachment of Judge Boasberg I believe. This last statement seems to show that he believes the Judiciary is superior to the Legislative Branch and Executive Branch of Government. I totally disagree with his last sentence in his statement. My belief is that the Supreme Court is supposed to judge on cases before it based on law and the Constitution, not adjudicate decisions made by the Legislative and Executive Branch that are given by our Constitution. What is wrong with this limp wristed idiot?

In addition, Article III sets up the Supreme Court in the Constitution but the lower courts are not part of the Constitution and as such these lower court judges have no say over decisions by the Executive or Legislative Branch.

Funny that every decision they make seems to go in favor of the left.

---

Roberts is clearly correct. He's saying the judicial branch is co-equal, not superior.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

"Well, I've already spoken to that and, you know, impeachment is not how you register disagreement with decisions," Roberts said in front of hundreds of judges and lawyers.
"That's what we're there for," Roberts said.
"The judiciary is a co-equal branch of government, separate from the others, with the authority to interpret the Constitution as law and strike down, obviously, acts of Congress or acts of the president," he said.

Above is the most recent quote from Chief Justice Roberts in a public statement rebuking President Trump for the second time for Trump advocating for the impeachment of Judge Boasberg I believe. This last statement seems to show that he believes the Judiciary is superior to the Legislative Branch and Executive Branch of Government. I totally disagree with his last sentence in his statement. My belief is that the Supreme Court is supposed to judge on cases before it based on law and the Constitution, not adjudicate decisions made by the Legislative and Executive Branch that are given by our Constitution. What is wrong with this limp wristed idiot?

In addition, Article III sets up the Supreme Court in the Constitution but the lower courts are not part of the Constitution and as such these lower court judges have no say over decisions by the Executive or Legislative Branch.

Funny that every decision they make seems to go in favor of the left.

---

There is a really important nuance to separate SCOTUS from district courts.

The anti-democratic, constitutional crises we are seeing is federal district judges issuing nationwide injunctions. This effectively has completely undermined democracy and enabled every single federal judge effectively to function as an authoritarian dictator.

Federal district court rulings should be limited to the plaintiffs and not have nationwide enforcement. This is the classic case of the left launching an anti-democratic "innovation" and then arguing the opposite when it affects what it wants. Cue the usual irony, but for all the hand wringing about "due process," it actually should require the ACLU or other pro-human-trafficking / cartel advocacy groups to file suit on behalf of every single illegal alien in the jurisdiction where the alien has standing ... of course they conveniently forget that "due process" - they prefer to just shop for friendly, TDS judges (whose family has a financial stake in human trafficking).

Imagine trying to run a government where all one special interest group needs to do is find a "friendly" federal judge to overrule every single law passed or executive action. Hypothetically, China attacks Hawaii, and Congress declares war on China. All China would need to do is find a "China friendly" judge to issue an injunction and theoretically cease any declaration of war against China. This is an extremely dangerous, anti-democratic precedent.

---

Declaration of war by Congress is beyond the reach of the courts. They might hold a unilateral declaration by the president unlawful, and rightly so.

Checks and balances.

This is what we are up against with radical judges. And this is just the Washington D.C. Courts. Think about how many judicial appointments Obama and Biden made around the country. How can we expect good judicial decisions out of appointments like this whose backgrounds are steeped in activism. We cannot and therefore we have to complain about so many of their decisions. Please read the link below.

https://thefederalist.com/2025/03/25/a-third-of-all-dc-district-judges-were-not-born-in-united-states/

gtownbear said:

---

This is what we are up against with radical judges. And this is just the Washington D.C. Courts. Think about how many judicial appointments Obama and Biden made around the country. How can we expect good judicial decisions out of appointments like this whose backgrounds are steeped in activism. We cannot and therefore we have to complain about so many of their decisions. Please read the link below.

https://thefederalist.com/2025/03/25/a-third-of-all-dc-district-judges-were-not-born-in-united-states/

---

Dang!

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

"Well, I've already spoken to that and, you know, impeachment is not how you register disagreement with decisions," Roberts said in front of hundreds of judges and lawyers.
"That's what we're there for," Roberts said.
"The judiciary is a co-equal branch of government, separate from the others, with the authority to interpret the Constitution as law and strike down, obviously, acts of Congress or acts of the president," he said.

Above is the most recent quote from Chief Justice Roberts in a public statement rebuking President Trump for the second time for Trump advocating for the impeachment of Judge Boasberg I believe. This last statement seems to show that he believes the Judiciary is superior to the Legislative Branch and Executive Branch of Government. I totally disagree with his last sentence in his statement. My belief is that the Supreme Court is supposed to judge on cases before it based on law and the Constitution, not adjudicate decisions made by the Legislative and Executive Branch that are given by our Constitution. What is wrong with this limp wristed idiot?

In addition, Article III sets up the Supreme Court in the Constitution but the lower courts are not part of the Constitution and as such these lower court judges have no say over decisions by the Executive or Legislative Branch.

Funny that every decision they make seems to go in favor of the left.

---

There is a really important nuance to separate SCOTUS from district courts.

The anti-democratic, constitutional crises we are seeing is federal district judges issuing nationwide injunctions. This effectively has completely undermined democracy and enabled every single federal judge effectively to function as an authoritarian dictator.

Federal district court rulings should be limited to the plaintiffs and not have nationwide enforcement. This is the classic case of the left launching an anti-democratic "innovation" and then arguing the opposite when it affects what it wants. Cue the usual irony, but for all the hand wringing about "due process," it actually should require the ACLU or other pro-human-trafficking / cartel advocacy groups to file suit on behalf of every single illegal alien in the jurisdiction where the alien has standing ... of course they conveniently forget that "due process" - they prefer to just shop for friendly, TDS judges (whose family has a financial stake in human trafficking).

Imagine trying to run a government where all one special interest group needs to do is find a "friendly" federal judge to overrule every single law passed or executive action. Hypothetically, China attacks Hawaii, and Congress declares war on China. All China would need to do is find a "China friendly" judge to issue an injunction and theoretically cease any declaration of war against China. This is an extremely dangerous, anti-democratic precedent.

---

Declaration of war by Congress is beyond the reach of the courts. They might hold a unilateral declaration by the president unlawful, and rightly so.

Checks and balances.

---

So is immigration enforcement.

gtownbear said:

---

This is what we are up against with radical judges. And this is just the Washington D.C. Courts. Think about how many judicial appointments Obama and Biden made around the country. How can we expect good judicial decisions out of appointments like this whose backgrounds are steeped in activism. We cannot and therefore we have to complain about so many of their decisions. Please read the link below.

https://thefederalist.com/2025/03/25/a-third-of-all-dc-district-judges-were-not-born-in-united-states/

---

It's the usual projection. When a democrat claims there is a THREAT TO DEMOCRACY then you know the political play they are running.

gtownbear said:

---

This is what we are up against with radical judges. And this is just the Washington D.C. Courts. Think about how many judicial appointments Obama and Biden made around the country. How can we expect good judicial decisions out of appointments like this whose backgrounds are steeped in activism. We cannot and therefore we have to complain about so many of their decisions. Please read the link below.

https://thefederalist.com/2025/03/25/a-third-of-all-dc-district-judges-were-not-born-in-united-states/

---

At least 25% of major league baseball players were not born in America, including 2 from the country that bombed Pearl harbor
And 125 foreigners play in the NBA
And you know what that means

Please allow me to make a few observations and ask a few questions. I am right at 78 years of age. This only matters in the sense that I grew up when the size of government at the federal level was small, and very small at the state, county and city level. The civil servants back then were paid little, but had decent retirement programs if you stayed in their employment for 20-30 years. So I have personally witnessed the vast increase in the size of government at all levels in my lifetime.

One of my questions relating to current judicial decisions over President Trump's policy decisions versus judicial decisions over past Presidential decisions. For example, how did President Obama manage to deport over 2,000,000 illegal aliens during his presidency without anyone raising any concerns about due process or civil rights, etc.? I was actually shocked to learn that he had deported so many illegals. Were you? And I don't recall the injunctions by so many district judges during earlier presidential terms questioning how they ran their Executive Branch. So why now?

We can look at the history of the injunctions, past and present, and see how they were rarely used in the past and how they increased during President Trump's first term and now have expanded so early in his second term. So of course that leads to questions about the judiciary and their actions as well as President Trump's actions. My belief is that Trump is attempting to solve the problem of millions of illegals invading our country during the Biden Administration. He campaigned nonstop on this issue and was elected with a mandate to remove the illegals. And certain judges around the country have issued injunctions to stop the Alien Enemies Act President Trump used to remove the illegals expeditiously. The Supreme Court has so far taken the side of the lower courts against President Trump.

Chief Justice Roberts has taken the extraordinary step of criticizing President Trump twice about his call for impeaching some lower court judges. My belief is this has emboldened what I consider to be activist judges with their injunctions and rulings, which has led to more and more intervention by them into areas reserved to the Executive Branch and President. He should have reigned in these judges as they overstepped their authority with their judgements. No district judge has the right to nitpick executive decisions made by the president as an unelected official. This is undermining the will of the people expressed in the past election.

We are proving the point that the system is only as good as the people who run it. And yes I question these judges coming from countries with dictatorships and such that might be brought up with hate towards the United States who put on a black robe and pronounce judgement on such important issues.

I am actually wondering if we are becoming incapable of governing ourselves. Democracy only works until the electorate realizes they can vote themselves benefits from the treasury, and then they will vote for the politicians who give them the most benefits until the country goes broke from debt caused by everyone leeching off the system for personal gain.

Osodecentx said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

This is what we are up against with radical judges. And this is just the Washington D.C. Courts. Think about how many judicial appointments Obama and Biden made around the country. How can we expect good judicial decisions out of appointments like this whose backgrounds are steeped in activism. We cannot and therefore we have to complain about so many of their decisions. Please read the link below.

https://thefederalist.com/2025/03/25/a-third-of-all-dc-district-judges-were-not-born-in-united-states/

---

At least 25% of major league baseball players were not born in America, including 2 from the country that bombed Pearl harbor
And 125 foreigners play in the NBA
And you know what that means

---

Nothing.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

"Well, I've already spoken to that and, you know, impeachment is not how you register disagreement with decisions," Roberts said in front of hundreds of judges and lawyers.
"That's what we're there for," Roberts said.
"The judiciary is a co-equal branch of government, separate from the others, with the authority to interpret the Constitution as law and strike down, obviously, acts of Congress or acts of the president," he said.

Above is the most recent quote from Chief Justice Roberts in a public statement rebuking President Trump for the second time for Trump advocating for the impeachment of Judge Boasberg I believe. This last statement seems to show that he believes the Judiciary is superior to the Legislative Branch and Executive Branch of Government. I totally disagree with his last sentence in his statement. My belief is that the Supreme Court is supposed to judge on cases before it based on law and the Constitution, not adjudicate decisions made by the Legislative and Executive Branch that are given by our Constitution. What is wrong with this limp wristed idiot?

In addition, Article III sets up the Supreme Court in the Constitution but the lower courts are not part of the Constitution and as such these lower court judges have no say over decisions by the Executive or Legislative Branch.

Funny that every decision they make seems to go in favor of the left.

---

There is a really important nuance to separate SCOTUS from district courts.

The anti-democratic, constitutional crises we are seeing is federal district judges issuing nationwide injunctions. This effectively has completely undermined democracy and enabled every single federal judge effectively to function as an authoritarian dictator.

Federal district court rulings should be limited to the plaintiffs and not have nationwide enforcement. This is the classic case of the left launching an anti-democratic "innovation" and then arguing the opposite when it affects what it wants. Cue the usual irony, but for all the hand wringing about "due process," it actually should require the ACLU or other pro-human-trafficking / cartel advocacy groups to file suit on behalf of every single illegal alien in the jurisdiction where the alien has standing ... of course they conveniently forget that "due process" - they prefer to just shop for friendly, TDS judges (whose family has a financial stake in human trafficking).

Imagine trying to run a government where all one special interest group needs to do is find a "friendly" federal judge to overrule every single law passed or executive action. Hypothetically, China attacks Hawaii, and Congress declares war on China. All China would need to do is find a "China friendly" judge to issue an injunction and theoretically cease any declaration of war against China. This is an extremely dangerous, anti-democratic precedent.

---

Declaration of war by Congress is beyond the reach of the courts. They might hold a unilateral declaration by the president unlawful, and rightly so.

Checks and balances.

---

So is immigration enforcement.

---

No, it isn't.

gtownbear said:

---

One of my questions relating to current judicial decisions over President Trump's policy decisions versus judicial decisions over past Presidential decisions. For example, how did President Obama manage to deport over 2,000,000 illegal aliens during his presidency without anyone raising any concerns about due process or civil rights, etc.? I was actually shocked to learn that he had deported so many illegals. Were you? And I don't recall the injunctions by so many district judges during earlier presidential terms questioning how they ran their Executive Branch. So why now?

---

It's almost as if Obama followed the law and Trump didn't.

Sam Lowry said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

One of my questions relating to current judicial decisions over President Trump's policy decisions versus judicial decisions over past Presidential decisions. For example, how did President Obama manage to deport over 2,000,000 illegal aliens during his presidency without anyone raising any concerns about due process or civil rights, etc.? I was actually shocked to learn that he had deported so many illegals. Were you? And I don't recall the injunctions by so many district judges during earlier presidential terms questioning how they ran their Executive Branch. So why now?

---

It's almost as if Obama followed the law and Trump didn't.

---

Except...

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/immigration-2/lost-in-detention/obama-official-defends-controversial-immigration-policies/

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

One of my questions relating to current judicial decisions over President Trump's policy decisions versus judicial decisions over past Presidential decisions. For example, how did President Obama manage to deport over 2,000,000 illegal aliens during his presidency without anyone raising any concerns about due process or civil rights, etc.? I was actually shocked to learn that he had deported so many illegals. Were you? And I don't recall the injunctions by so many district judges during earlier presidential terms questioning how they ran their Executive Branch. So why now?

---

It's almost as if Obama followed the law and Trump didn't.

---

Except...

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/immigration-2/lost-in-detention/obama-official-defends-controversial-immigration-policies/

---

I don't see anything there about breaking the law. They are criticizing some of his policies.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

One of my questions relating to current judicial decisions over President Trump's policy decisions versus judicial decisions over past Presidential decisions. For exam

ple, how did President Obama manage to deport over 2,000,000 illegal aliens during his presidency without anyone raising any concerns about due process or civil rights, etc.? I was actually shocked to learn that he had deported so many illegals. Were you? And I don't recall the injunctions by so many district judges during earlier presidential terms questioning how they ran their Executive Branch. So why now?

---

It's almost as if Obama followed the law and Trump didn't.

---

Except...

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/immigration-2/lost-in-detention/obama-official-defends-controversial-immigration-policies/

---

I don't see anything there about breaking the law. They are criticizing some of his policies.

---

Quote:

---

Secure Communities is a high-tech information-sharing program between Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and local law enforcement. But critics, including three Democratic state governors, say the program is detaining and deporting low-level offenders or people without criminal records, contrary to the administration's stated goal [PDF] of deporting only "aliens who are convicted of a serious criminal offense." Muñoz addresses the criticism:

---

Obama deporting without due process, from the ACLU. 75% of his deportees got the boot without due process

Quote:

---

The Obama administration has prioritized speed over fairness in the removal system, sacrificing individualized due process in the pursuit of record removal numbers.

A deportation system that herds 75 percent of people through fast-track, streamlined removal is a system devoid of fairness and individualized due process. Nonjudicial removals violate our constitutional tradition and cannot be reconciled with an administration that has repeatedly stated its commitment to immigration reform.

---

https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/speed-over-fairness-deportation-under-obama

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

One of my questions relating to current judicial decisions over President Trump's policy decisions versus judicial decisions over past Presidential decisions. For exam

ple, how did President Obama manage to deport over 2,000,000 illegal aliens during his presidency without anyone raising any concerns about due process or civil rights, etc.? I was actually shocked to learn that he had deported so many illegals. Were you? And I don't recall the injunctions by so many district judges during earlier presidential terms questioning how they ran their Executive Branch. So why now?

---

It's almost as if Obama followed the law and Trump didn't.

---

Except...

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/immigration-2/lost-in-detention/obama-official-defends-controversial-immigration-policies/

---

I don't see anything there about breaking the law. They are criticizing some of his policies.

---

Quote:

---

Secure Communities is a high-tech information-sharing program between Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and local law enforcement. But critics, including three Democratic state governors, say the program is detaining and deporting low-level offenders or people without criminal records, contrary to the administration's stated goal [PDF] of deporting only "aliens who are convicted of a serious criminal offense." Muñoz addresses the criticism:

---

---

That's not illegal.