Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam: "every reason to believe he had jurisdiction"

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

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

Oh come on Sam. Even you don't buy what you just posted. Boasburg had no jurisdiction from the start, just like all the other fraudulent judges that will be knocked off one by one. At the end of the day you will have to look back and this and realize these were just delaying tactics hoping to stave them off until the midterms.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam: "every reason to believe he had jurisdiction"

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

---

It's the first time the Court has made a clear ruling on the issue, so hardly a slapdown.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sonia Sotomayor could be the dumbest person on Earth. Her dissent is a cut and paste of the ACLU lawsuit including claims the president "secretly" signed the Alien Enemies Act proclamation to begin deportations that day.

And this is batsh*t crazy: pic.twitter.com/1FlRqMy5ko

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) April 8, 2025

---

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).

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam: "every reason to believe he had jurisdiction"

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

---

It's the first time the Court has made a clear ruling on the issue, so hardly a slapdown.

---

Now you're lying to yourself if you believe that, Sam.

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sonia Sotomayor could be the dumbest person on Earth. Her dissent is a cut and paste of the ACLU lawsuit including claims the president "secretly" signed the Alien Enemies Act proclamation to begin deportations that day.

And this is batsh*t crazy: pic.twitter.com/1FlRqMy5ko

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) April 8, 2025

---

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).

---

If that was all you intended, you might want to get a new press agent. And even thinking it was constitutional as it was to be used is a real problem.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam: "every reason to believe he had jurisdiction"

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

---

It's the first time the Court has made a clear ruling on the issue, so hardly a slapdown.

---

Now you're lying to yourself if you believe that, Sam.

---

The decision is there for you to read any time you choose.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sonia Sotomayor could be the dumbest person on Earth. Her dissent is a cut and paste of the ACLU lawsuit including claims the president "secretly" signed the Alien Enemies Act proclamation to begin deportations that day.

And this is batsh*t crazy: pic.twitter.com/1FlRqMy5ko

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) April 8, 2025

---

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).

---

If that was all you intended, you might want to get a new press agent. And even thinking it was constitutional as it was to be used is a real problem.

---

I made it extremely clear, and many times over. There's only so much you can do with this audience.

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sonia Sotomayor could be the dumbest person on Earth. Her dissent is a cut and paste of the ACLU lawsuit including claims the president "secretly" signed the Alien Enemies Act proclamation to begin deportations that day.

And this is batsh*t crazy: pic.twitter.com/1FlRqMy5ko

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) April 8, 2025

---

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).

---

If that was all you intended, you might want to get a new press agent. And even thinking it was constitutional as it was to be used is a real problem.

---

I made it extremely clear, and many times over. There's only so much you can do with this audience.

---

You pretty much dismissed valid constitutional concerns. Again, even thinking that was a constitutional setup is concerning. And now you wish to bring up concerns that are not even close to valid under the terms of the case involved in this thread..

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sonia Sotomayor could be the dumbest person on Earth. Her dissent is a cut and paste of the ACLU lawsuit including claims the president "secretly" signed the Alien Enemies Act proclamation to begin deportations that day.

And this is batsh*t crazy: pic.twitter.com/1FlRqMy5ko

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) April 8, 2025

---

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).

---

If that was all you intended, you might want to get a new press agent. And even thinking it was constitutional as it was to be used is a real problem.

---

I made it extremely clear, and many times over. There's only so much you can do with this audience.

---

You pretty much dismissed valid constitutional concerns. Again, even thinking that was a constitutional setup is concerning. And now you wish to bring up concerns that are not even close to valid under the terms of the case involved in this thread..

---

I expressed general concerns myself. I never had a chance to address specific constitutional concerns because none were ever articulated. Just saying "that's unconstitutional" doesn't tell me anything. I don't know what concerns you're referring to in terms of this thread.

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sonia Sotomayor could be the dumbest person on Earth. Her dissent is a cut and paste of the ACLU lawsuit including claims the president "secretly" signed the Alien Enemies Act proclamation to begin deportations that day.

And this is batsh*t crazy: pic.twitter.com/1FlRqMy5ko

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) April 8, 2025

---

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).

---

If that was all you intended, you might want to get a new press agent. And even thinking it was constitutional as it was to be used is a real problem.

---

I made it extremely clear, and many times over. There's only so much you can do with this audience.

---

You pretty much dismissed valid constitutional concerns. Again, even thinking that was a constitutional setup is concerning. And now you wish to bring up concerns that are not even close to valid under the terms of the case involved in this thread..

---

I expressed general concerns myself. I never had a chance to address specific constitutional concerns because none were ever articulated. Just saying "that's unconstitutional" doesn't tell me anything. I don't know what concerns you're referring to in terms of this thread.

---

Just because you dismissed others' constitutional concerns doesn't mean none were given.

Are you now saying you don't have the concerns expressed in the dissent that is "100% correct?"

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

Lie. Not a single person on this board but you was blind enough to think he had jurisdiction.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

Lie. Not a single person on this board but you was blind enough to think he had jurisdiction.

---

On a board where people think Trump tweets are a good source of legal analysis, that means very little.

---

RealEstateBear said:

---

Amy Comey Barrett claims to be pro life but she's nothing but a coward. What a disaster she's been

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

Lie. Not a single person on this board but you was blind enough to think he had jurisdiction.

---

On a board where people think Trump tweets are a good source of legal analysis, that means very little.

---

So you're a better legal expert than the Supreme Court judges?

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

Lie. Not a single person on this board but you was blind enough to think he had jurisdiction.

---

Assassin said:

---

RealEstateBear said:

---

Amy Comey Barrett claims to be pro life but she's nothing but a coward. What a disaster she's been

---

Indeed. She is a massive disappointment for anyone with common sense

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Assassin said:

---

RealEstateBear said:

---

Amy Comey Barrett claims to be pro life but she's nothing but a coward. What a disaster she's been

---

Indeed. She is a massive disappointment for anyone with common sense

---

Just want you to know some think she is doing a good job, not a disappointment

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

Lie. Not a single person on this board but you was blind enough to think he had jurisdiction.

---

On a board where people think Trump tweets are a good source of legal analysis, that means very little.

---

So you're a better legal expert than the Supreme Court judges?

---

Sam is cosplaying being a lawyer this month.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

Lie. Not a single person on this board but you was blind enough to think he had jurisdiction.

---

On a board where people think Trump tweets are a good source of legal analysis, that means very little.

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

Lie. Not a single person on this board but you was blind enough to think he had jurisdiction.

---

On a board where people think Trump tweets are a good source of legal analysis, that means very little.

---

So you're a better legal expert than the Supreme Court judges?

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

Lie. Not a single person on this board but you was blind enough to think he had jurisdiction.

---

On a board where people think Trump tweets are a good source of legal analysis, that means very little.

---

So you're a better legal expert than the Supreme Court judges?

---

No, just better than anyone else on this thread.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

Lie. Not a single person on this board but you was blind enough to think he had jurisdiction.

---

On a board where people think Trump tweets are a good source of legal analysis, that means very little.

---

So you're a better legal expert than the Supreme Court judges?

---

No, just better than anyone else on this thread.

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

Lie. Not a single person on this board but you was blind enough to think he had jurisdiction.

---

On a board where people think Trump tweets are a good source of legal analysis, that means very little.

---

So you're a better legal expert than the Supreme Court judges?

---

No, just better than anyone else on this thread.

---

Sam... leave. Delete account and dont come back.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

Lie. Not a single person on this board but you was blind enough to think he had jurisdiction.

---

On a board where people think Trump tweets are a good source of legal analysis, that means very little.

---

So you're a better legal expert than the Supreme Court judges?

---

No, just better than anyone else on this thread.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

Lie. Not a single person on this board but you was blind enough to think he had jurisdiction.

---

On a board where people think Trump tweets are a good source of legal analysis, that means very little.

---

So you're a better legal expert than the Supreme Court judges?

---

No, just better than anyone else on this thread.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

Lie. Not a single person on this board but you was blind enough to think he had jurisdiction.

---

On a board where people think Trump tweets are a good source of legal analysis, that means very little.

---

So you're a better legal expert than the Supreme Court judges?

---

No, just better than anyone else on this thread.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

Lie. Not a single person on this board but you was blind enough to think he had jurisdiction.

---

On a board where people think Trump tweets are a good source of legal analysis, that means very little.

---

So you're a better legal expert than the Supreme Court judges?

---

No, just better than anyone else on this thread.

---

Low bar, indeed

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

Lie. Not a single person on this board but you was blind enough to think he had jurisdiction.

---

On a board where people think Trump tweets are a good source of legal analysis, that means very little.

---

So you're a better legal expert than the Supreme Court judges?

---

No, just better than anyone else on this thread.

---

You sure about that?


What is your hourly rate?

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

Lie. Not a single person on this board but you was blind enough to think he had jurisdiction.

---

On a board where people think Trump tweets are a good source of legal analysis, that means very little.

---

So you're a better legal expert than the Supreme Court judges?

---

Sam is cosplaying being a lawyer this month.

---

Last month he held forth on how much easier/more appropriate it would be to just fire all these federal employees for cause. Not sure if that was from his career in HR or in labor law.

---