Federal Judge blocks Trump from deporting illegal alien gang members

217,545 Views | 2534 Replies | Last: 3 mo ago by Assassin
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Married A Horn • 7:57p, 4/7/25
Married A Horn said:
Sam Lowry said:
Married A Horn said:
Finally. He said what Sam has been saying the entire time... the courts have jurisdiction.
FIFY


"For "core habeas petitions," "jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement.""

You were wrong.
That was the only real question. The Court's holding on that issue is dubious and probably shouldn't have been made at this point, but it doesn't change the fact that some district court has jurisdiction.

As to the detainees' right to judicial review, SCOTUS was unanimous and unequivocal. You were wrong.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Oldbear83
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 7:59p, 4/7/25
Sam hates it when elected officials win over tyrants in robes.
Reply Quote
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Oldbear83 • 8:01p, 4/7/25
Oldbear83 said:
Sam hates it when elected officials win over tyrants in robes.
Let's discuss after you read the decision.
Reply Quote
Oldbear83
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 8:05p, 4/7/25
Sam Lowry said:
Oldbear83 said:
Sam hates it when elected officials win over tyrants in robes.
Let's discuss after you read the decision.
Nah.

1. I already read the decision, and

2. You have never supported Trump's actions as President, so any "discussion" with you will be like talking to the DNC.
Reply Quote
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Oldbear83 • 8:09p, 4/7/25
Oldbear83 said:
Sam Lowry said:
Oldbear83 said:
Sam hates it when elected officials win over tyrants in robes.
Let's discuss after you read the decision.
Nah.

1. I already read the decision, and

2. You have never supported Trump's actions as President, so any "discussion" with you will be like talking to the DNC.
1. If so I can't help you.

2. False, as you well know.
Reply Quote
Oldbear83
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 8:20p, 4/7/25
Sam Lowry said:
Oldbear83 said:
Sam Lowry said:
Oldbear83 said:
Sam hates it when elected officials win over tyrants in robes.
Let's discuss after you read the decision.
Nah.

1. I already read the decision, and

2. You have never supported Trump's actions as President, so any "discussion" with you will be like talking to the DNC.
1. If so I can't help you.

2. False, as you well know.
Ohhh, it's absolutely true Sam. Your posts are like a modern SNL skit.


Just a hint: Roberts hates Trump almost as much as you do, but he couldn't rule for the black-robed dictator. so he and the court threw a bone to the Left on a matter no longer close to relevant in the matter.

If you have been in court you have seen judges do that before. Surely you recognize the move.
Reply Quote
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Oldbear83 • 8:22p, 4/7/25
Oldbear83 said:
Sam Lowry said:
Oldbear83 said:
Sam Lowry said:
Oldbear83 said:
Sam hates it when elected officials win over tyrants in robes.
Let's discuss after you read the decision.
Nah.

1. I already read the decision, and

2. You have never supported Trump's actions as President, so any "discussion" with you will be like talking to the DNC.
1. If so I can't help you.

2. False, as you well know.
Ohhh, it's absolutely true Sam. Your posts are like a modern SNL skit.


Just a hint: Roberts hates Trump almost as much as you do, but he couldn't rule for the black-robed dictator. so he and the court threw a bone to the Left on a matter no longer close to relevant in the matter.

If you have been in court you have seen judges do that before. Surely you recognize the move.
Nope.
Reply Quote
Oldbear83
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 9:18p, 4/7/25
Sam Lowry said:
Oldbear83 said:
Sam Lowry said:
Oldbear83 said:
Sam Lowry said:
Oldbear83 said:
Sam hates it when elected officials win over tyrants in robes.
Let's discuss after you read the decision.
Nah.

1. I already read the decision, and

2. You have never supported Trump's actions as President, so any "discussion" with you will be like talking to the DNC.
1. If so I can't help you.

2. False, as you well know.
Ohhh, it's absolutely true Sam. Your posts are like a modern SNL skit.


Just a hint: Roberts hates Trump almost as much as you do, but he couldn't rule for the black-robed dictator. so he and the court threw a bone to the Left on a matter no longer close to relevant in the matter.

If you have been in court you have seen judges do that before. Surely you recognize the move.
Nope.
You really are gonna struggle the next 45 months, Sam.
Reply Quote
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Oldbear83 • 9:42p, 4/7/25
Oldbear83 said:
Sam Lowry said:
Oldbear83 said:
Sam Lowry said:
Oldbear83 said:
Sam Lowry said:
Oldbear83 said:
Sam hates it when elected officials win over tyrants in robes.
Let's discuss after you read the decision.
Nah.

1. I already read the decision, and

2. You have never supported Trump's actions as President, so any "discussion" with you will be like talking to the DNC.
1. If so I can't help you.

2. False, as you well know.
Ohhh, it's absolutely true Sam. Your posts are like a modern SNL skit.


Just a hint: Roberts hates Trump almost as much as you do, but he couldn't rule for the black-robed dictator. so he and the court threw a bone to the Left on a matter no longer close to relevant in the matter.

If you have been in court you have seen judges do that before. Surely you recognize the move.
Nope.
You really are gonna struggle the next 45 months, Sam.
Shortsighted as usual.
Reply Quote
Oldbear83
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 9:51p, 4/7/25
Sam Lowry said:
Oldbear83 said:
Sam Lowry said:
Oldbear83 said:
Sam Lowry said:
Oldbear83 said:
Sam Lowry said:
Oldbear83 said:
Sam hates it when elected officials win over tyrants in robes.
Let's discuss after you read the decision.
Nah.

1. I already read the decision, and

2. You have never supported Trump's actions as President, so any "discussion" with you will be like talking to the DNC.
1. If so I can't help you.

2. False, as you well know.
Ohhh, it's absolutely true Sam. Your posts are like a modern SNL skit.


Just a hint: Roberts hates Trump almost as much as you do, but he couldn't rule for the black-robed dictator. so he and the court threw a bone to the Left on a matter no longer close to relevant in the matter.

If you have been in court you have seen judges do that before. Surely you recognize the move.
Nope.
You really are gonna struggle the next 45 months, Sam.
Shortsighted as usual.
Glad to see you can admit that. Maybe there is hope for you, Sam!
Reply Quote
Robert Wilson
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:35p, 4/7/25
What were a couple of things I said earlier on this thread? Something like judges tend to find a way to rule the way they want to? And they tend to bend into the current of the moment? Writing opinions in a way that they come out the way you want without committing any flagrant violence against the law is an art form.
Reply Quote
Married A Horn
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 1:40a, 4/8/25
Sam Lowry said:
Married A Horn said:
Sam Lowry said:
Married A Horn said:
Finally. He said what Sam has been saying the entire time... the courts have jurisdiction.
FIFY


"For "core habeas petitions," "jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement.""

You were wrong.
That was the only real question. The Court's holding on that issue is dubious and probably shouldn't have been made at this point, but it doesn't change the fact that some district court has jurisdiction.

As to the detainees' right to judicial review, SCOTUS was unanimous and unequivocal. You were wrong.


I already admitted I was wrong on that over a week ago. Something you dont have the ability to do.

I can link you my post if you want, but I believe it is in this thread if you want to go look.
Reply Quote
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:15a, 4/8/25
Reply Quote
BearFan33
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Redbrickbear • 11:21a, 4/8/25
Redbrickbear said:
I think Sotomayor may be dialing it in at this point.

I have watched some of the live proceedings and it is alarming at how misinformed she is.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Married A Horn • 12:04p, 4/8/25
Married A Horn said:
Sam Lowry said:
Married A Horn said:
Sam Lowry said:
Married A Horn said:
Finally. He said what Sam has been saying the entire time... the courts have jurisdiction.
FIFY


"For "core habeas petitions," "jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement.""

You were wrong.
That was the only real question. The Court's holding on that issue is dubious and probably shouldn't have been made at this point, but it doesn't change the fact that some district court has jurisdiction.

As to the detainees' right to judicial review, SCOTUS was unanimous and unequivocal. You were wrong.


I already admitted I was wrong on that over a week ago. Something you dont have the ability to do.

I can link you my post if you want, but I believe it is in this thread if you want to go look.
Right, you're the one who said Trump should just ignore the judges. You may get your wish. SCOTUS has ordered him to stop the unlawful deportations, so we'll soon see.
Reply Quote
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Redbrickbear • 12:06p, 4/8/25
Redbrickbear said:
She has no idea what she's talking about. Sotomayor is 100% correct.
Reply Quote
ScottS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 12:09p, 4/8/25
Sam Lowry said:
Redbrickbear said:
She has no idea what she's talking about. Sotomayor is 100% correct.


Then why is she is part of the dissent?
Reply Quote
ScottS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:11p, 4/8/25
I see she is in the dissent in the firing government employees case too.
Reply Quote
william
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:32p, 4/8/25
damn lucky I Donned the Neckbrace aforehand this AM.......

Wow!

- el KKM

D!
arbyscoin - the only crypto you can eat.
Reply Quote
BearFan33
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:34p, 4/8/25
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/judge-boasberg-cancels-planned-hearing-review-trump-deportations

Sorry Sam. Your champion of judicial activism was shut down.
Reply Quote
william
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ScottS • 12:44p, 4/8/25
ScottS said:
I see she is in the dissent in the firing government employees case too.
ACB - Gone Rogue.

- el KKM

D!
arbyscoin - the only crypto you can eat.
Reply Quote
william
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearFan33 • 12:48p, 4/8/25
BearFan33 said:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/judge-boasberg-cancels-planned-hearing-review-trump-deportations

Sorry Sam. Your champion of judicial activism was shut down.
he has her poster up on his wall............

his Jurist Dulcinea.........

- el KKM

D!

Suelten a los perros, amigos!!!
arbyscoin - the only crypto you can eat.
Reply Quote
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ScottS • 1:01p, 4/8/25
ScottS said:
Sam Lowry said:
Redbrickbear said:
She has no idea what she's talking about. Sotomayor is 100% correct.


Then why is she is part of the dissent?
Basically for the same reasons that Justice Barrett is.
Reply Quote
ScottS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 1:36p, 4/8/25
Sam Lowry said:
ScottS said:
Sam Lowry said:
Redbrickbear said:
She has no idea what she's talking about. Sotomayor is 100% correct.


Then why is she is part of the dissent?
Basically for the same reasons that Justice Barrett is.
But you say she is 100% correct but she is on the LOSING side.
Reply Quote
gtownbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 5:47p, 4/8/25
Didn't the Supreme Court decision put the radical Judge Boasberg back in his place? They showed that he took on the deportation case in Washington D.C. District Court when he should have known he did not have jurisdiction over the case. They removed the case from his jurisdiction and moved it to Texas which is the last place the gang members were before they were deported out of the country. In essence they kept this biased judge from making a further fool of himself and further blighting the entire judicial branch with his foolish decisions.

I do question us taxpayers having to spend enormous amounts of money to lawyers and further court hearings before we can throw these criminals who should not be in our country out of the country. Unless it is some simplified court hearing, I am not in favor of tying up already busy courts with illegals who broke into the U.S. especially those with criminal records from other countries or this country.

I was pleased to see President Trump is going to push the penalty on those illegals with deportation orders from the courts who refuse to self deport; that would be a $998 per day fine and ability to confiscate property and assets to pay that fine when they are caught by law enforcement.

Every action by the government should show that we are for immigrants, but they must all come in legally. And that we will do everything to ensure that illegal entry will not be tolerated.
Reply Quote
Married A Horn
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:56p, 4/8/25
Repel the invasion! Any and every way we can.
Reply Quote
historian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Married A Horn • 6:21p, 4/8/25
Married A Horn said:
Sam Lowry said:
Married A Horn said:
Finally. He said what Sam has been saying the entire time... the courts have jurisdiction.
FIFY


"For "core habeas petitions," "jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement.""

You were wrong.

Leftists lie all the time, even when it's patently obvious. This has been obvious from the start: a DISTRICT judge can only rule on cases from his district and has no national authority. The fascists abuse the language all the time. It's quite Orwellian.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Reply Quote
historian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 6:22p, 4/8/25
If "some district court has jurisdiction" over a case arising out of Texas, it most certainly is not a district court in Washington DC.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Reply Quote
1 edit
historian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearFan33 • 6:27p, 4/8/25
Leftists in general tend to be woefully misinformed. It's sad and pathetic how often they are wrong in almost everything. It's often amusing when they start talking about guns, the economy, the Constitution, God, and other subjects on which they are totally ignorant.

It's dangerous & scary when they do this from a position of power such as a member of Congress, a federal judge, or a Supreme Court justice.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Reply Quote
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ScottS • 9:03p, 4/8/25
ScottS said:
Sam Lowry said:
ScottS said:
Sam Lowry said:
Redbrickbear said:
She has no idea what she's talking about. Sotomayor is 100% correct.


Then why is she is part of the dissent?
Basically for the same reasons that Justice Barrett is.
But you say she is 100% correct but she is on the LOSING side.
She's 100% correct about the implications of the government's position. It is a threat to citizens and non-citizens alike.
Reply Quote
Oldbear83
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 9:04p, 4/8/25
Sam Lowry said:
ScottS said:
Sam Lowry said:
ScottS said:
Sam Lowry said:
Redbrickbear said:
She has no idea what she's talking about. Sotomayor is 100% correct.


Then why is she is part of the dissent?
Basically for the same reasons that Justice Barrett is.
But you say she is 100% correct but she is on the LOSING side.
She's 100% correct about the implications of the government's position. It is a threat to citizens and non-citizens thugs and politicians on my side alike.
Fixed
Reply Quote
EatMoreSalmon
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 9:07p, 4/8/25
Sam Lowry said:
ScottS said:
Sam Lowry said:
ScottS said:
Sam Lowry said:
Redbrickbear said:
She has no idea what she's talking about. Sotomayor is 100% correct.


Then why is she is part of the dissent?
Basically for the same reasons that Justice Barrett is.
But you say she is 100% correct but she is on the LOSING side.
She's 100% correct about the implications of the government's position. It is a threat to citizens and non-citizens alike.
But a ministry of truth was important and useful?

Can you, after arguing for that ridiculous overreach by the last administration, be taken seriously when talking about the Alien Enemies Act being used against citizens (non-aliens)?
Reply Quote
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to gtownbear • 9:08p, 4/8/25
gtownbear said:
Didn't the Supreme Court decision put the radical Judge Boasberg back in his place? They showed that he took on the deportation case in Washington D.C. District Court when he should have known he did not have jurisdiction over the case. They removed the case from his jurisdiction and moved it to Texas which is the last place the gang members were before they were deported out of the country. In essence they kept this biased judge from making a further fool of himself and further blighting the entire judicial branch with his foolish decisions.

I do question us taxpayers having to spend enormous amounts of money to lawyers and further court hearings before we can throw these criminals who should not be in our country out of the country. Unless it is some simplified court hearing, I am not in favor of tying up already busy courts with illegals who broke into the U.S. especially those with criminal records from other countries or this country.

I was pleased to see President Trump is going to push the penalty on those illegals with deportation orders from the courts who refuse to self deport; that would be a $998 per day fine and ability to confiscate property and assets to pay that fine when they are caught by law enforcement.

Every action by the government should show that we are for immigrants, but they must all come in legally. And that we will do everything to ensure that illegal entry will not be tolerated.
Judge Boasberg didn't do anything radical. There was every reason to believe he had jurisdiction until SCOTUS said otherwise -- a hasty decision which will, by the way, dramatically increase the burden on the court system. Trump didn't go this route because he cared about taxpayers. He's forum-shopping just like he accuses others of doing.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to EatMoreSalmon • 9:10p, 4/8/25
EatMoreSalmon said:
Sam Lowry said:
ScottS said:
Sam Lowry said:
ScottS said:
Sam Lowry said:
Redbrickbear said:
She has no idea what she's talking about. Sotomayor is 100% correct.


Then why is she is part of the dissent?
Basically for the same reasons that Justice Barrett is.
But you say she is 100% correct but she is on the LOSING side.
She's 100% correct about the implications of the government's position. It is a threat to citizens and non-citizens alike.
But a ministry of truth was important and useful?

Can you, after arguing for that ridiculous overreach by the last administration, be taken seriously when talking about the Alien Enemies Act being used against citizens (non-aliens)?
I didn't argue in favor of it. I asked specifically what was unconstitutional about it (and never got an answer).
Reply Quote
Oldbear83
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 9:12p, 4/8/25
Sam: "every reason to believe he had jurisdiction"

Not true at all. And on that point the SCOTUS clearly slapped him down.
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.