You are probably correct, but I thought I heard on the cable news today that the Supreme Court had ruled that the Trump administration should try and get Garcia back to the U.S. Of course I knew the radical Obama appointed judge was in the middle of trying to force that to happen.

I might get you to agree that the Supreme Court is making some interesting decisions of late. For example do you agree that for four years and all the State Attorney Generals who filed numerous lawsuits attempting to stop Biden from allowing millions to be released into the country, the Supreme Court never intervened as far as I know to stop the invasion even as they knew the effect it was having on our country? To me they were more than willing to concede Biden's authority under Article II on immigration matters, but now are much more inclined to question President Trump's authority as he makes the opposite policies under the same authority. Did they not hear the cases in the Biden administration or did they rule against Paxton and other Attorney Generals filing the lawsuits? I would be interested in the answer if you have it.

While not a lawyer or judge, what knowledge I have tells me that Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett do not care for President Trump. I believe that bias interferes in at least some of the cases affecting Trump and his administration.

I am a conservative. We have the power right now. I want it used to get as much done as possible. We need to be as hardnosed as the democrats have been when they have most or all of the power. For one day they will have some or much of the power again. They will take no prisoners.

President Trump is making our communities safe again. ⬇️

PROMISES MADE, PROMISES KEPT. pic.twitter.com/F9P3zhmBw6

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) April 14, 2025

Stephen Miller is an absolute gem.

"Guys - do you know the difference between a deportation order and a withholding order? Do you know the difference? Any of you, please? Do you?"

REPORTER: "Well, we're not in the government!"

MILLER: "So you couldn't even spend 72 hours over…

— Derrick Evans (@DerrickEvans4WV) April 14, 2025

Oldbear83 said:

---

"I find it troubling that the Supreme Court is telling the Trump administration to attempt to bring Garcia back to the United States."

Actually, if you pay attention to what exactly was said, the SCOTUS never said that.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf

Key parts of the opinion:

"The application is granted in part and denied in part, subject to the direction of this order. "

And here's the meat of it:

"the Government's emergency application is effectively granted in part and the deadline in the challenged order is no longer effective. The rest of the District Court's order remains in effect but requires clarification on remand. The order properly requires the Government to "facilitate" Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term "effectuate" in the District Court's order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court's authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs."

(Bold emphasis added)

That clause about the limits to the District Court's authority is SCOTUS politely reminding the district judge that foreign policy decisions are strictly Article II territory. Note that the last sentence reaffirms this point.

Now the media has assumed that 'facilitating' Garcia's "release from custody in El Salvador", means returning him to the United States, but that is not really said anywhere.

For one thing, Garcia is not a legal citizen or resident, and therefore has no right to enter the United States, even if the deportation to El Salvador was in error. Note also that there was already a valid deportation order in effect; only the fact that he was sent to El Salvador earned the court's scrutiny. As a result, the court could only order the US Government to 'facilitate' Garcia's release from El Salvadoran custody. The problem here is that even the US Supreme Court cannot order a foreign government to release a prisoner in their custody.

So, unless the government of El Salvador decides to let Garcia go or hand him over to the US Government, this is for all serious purposes a moot point.

That is, except that the District judge needs to understand the limits of jurisdiction, and the SCOTUS may rebuke the US Government and warn that any similar future situations would provoke consequences. In this regard, it makes sense that the Government would say that the transport of Garcia to El Salvador was an accident, as that would make it unreasonable for the court to take any further actions.

---

Kudos for an excellent summary of what you wish the Supreme Court had said.

gtownbear said:

---

I am a conservative. We have the power right now. I want it used to get as much done as possible. We need to be as hardnosed as the democrats have been when they have most or all of the power. For one day they will have some or much of the power again. They will take no prisoners.

---

This is the very opposite of a conservative mindset. Conservatives would seek to limit the president's power for exactly the reasons you suggest. We know it can and will be used against us later on.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"I find it troubling that the Supreme Court is telling the Trump administration to attempt to bring Garcia back to the United States."

Actually, if you pay attention to what exactly was said, the SCOTUS never said that.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf

Key parts of the opinion:

"The application is granted in part and denied in part, subject to the direction of this order. "

And here's the meat of it:

"the Government's emergency application is effectively granted in part and the deadline in the challenged order is no longer effective. The rest of the District Court's order remains in effect but requires clarification on remand. The order properly requires the Government to "facilitate" Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term "effectuate" in the District Court's order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court's authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs."

(Bold emphasis added)

That clause about the limits to the District Court's authority is SCOTUS politely reminding the district judge that foreign policy decisions are strictly Article II territory. Note that the last sentence reaffirms this point.

Now the media has assumed that 'facilitating' Garcia's "release from custody in El Salvador", means returning him to the United States, but that is not really said anywhere.

For one thing, Garcia is not a legal citizen or resident, and therefore has no right to enter the United States, even if the deportation to El Salvador was in error. Note also that there was already a valid deportation order in effect; only the fact that he was sent to El Salvador earned the court's scrutiny. As a result, the court could only order the US Government to 'facilitate' Garcia's release from El Salvadoran custody. The problem here is that even the US Supreme Court cannot order a foreign government to release a prisoner in their custody.

So, unless the government of El Salvador decides to let Garcia go or hand him over to the US Government, this is for all serious purposes a moot point.

That is, except that the District judge needs to understand the limits of jurisdiction, and the SCOTUS may rebuke the US Government and warn that any similar future situations would provoke consequences. In this regard, it makes sense that the Government would say that the transport of Garcia to El Salvador was an accident, as that would make it unreasonable for the court to take any further actions.

---

Kudos for an excellent summary of what you wish the Supreme Court had said.

---

Sam, I quoted the SOCTUS decision.

But feel free to explain what you think "The intended scope of the term "effectuate" in the District Court's order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court's authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs." means.

Sam is a Globalist and supported war in general for the last several years.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"I find it troubling that the Supreme Court is telling the Trump administration to attempt to bring Garcia back to the United States."

Actually, if you pay attention to what exactly was said, the SCOTUS never said that.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf

Key parts of the opinion:

"The application is granted in part and denied in part, subject to the direction of this order. "

And here's the meat of it:

"the Government's emergency application is effectively granted in part and the deadline in the challenged order is no longer effective. The rest of the District Court's order remains in effect but requires clarification on remand. The order properly requires the Government to "facilitate" Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term "effectuate" in the District Court's order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court's authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs."

(Bold emphasis added)

That clause about the limits to the District Court's authority is SCOTUS politely reminding the district judge that foreign policy decisions are strictly Article II territory. Note that the last sentence reaffirms this point.

Now the media has assumed that 'facilitating' Garcia's "release from custody in El Salvador", means returning him to the United States, but that is not really said anywhere.

For one thing, Garcia is not a legal citizen or resident, and therefore has no right to enter the United States, even if the deportation to El Salvador was in error. Note also that there was already a valid deportation order in effect; only the fact that he was sent to El Salvador earned the court's scrutiny. As a result, the court could only order the US Government to 'facilitate' Garcia's release from El Salvadoran custody. The problem here is that even the US Supreme Court cannot order a foreign government to release a prisoner in their custody.

So, unless the government of El Salvador decides to let Garcia go or hand him over to the US Government, this is for all serious purposes a moot point.

That is, except that the District judge needs to understand the limits of jurisdiction, and the SCOTUS may rebuke the US Government and warn that any similar future situations would provoke consequences. In this regard, it makes sense that the Government would say that the transport of Garcia to El Salvador was an accident, as that would make it unreasonable for the court to take any further actions.

---

Kudos for an excellent summary of what you wish the Supreme Court had said.

---

Sam, I quoted the SOCTUS decision.

But feel free to explain what you think "The intended scope of the term "effectuate" in the District Court's order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court's authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs." means.

---

It means the court should have due deference to the executive in terms of policy and secrecy. It most certainly does not mean the court is prohibited from ruling on any and all matters related to national security.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam is a Globalist and supported war in general for the last several years.

---

LOL...when you go wrong, you don't hold back.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"I find it troubling that the Supreme Court is telling the Trump administration to attempt to bring Garcia back to the United States."

Actually, if you pay attention to what exactly was said, the SCOTUS never said that.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf

Key parts of the opinion:

"The application is granted in part and denied in part, subject to the direction of this order. "

And here's the meat of it:

"the Government's emergency application is effectively granted in part and the deadline in the challenged order is no longer effective. The rest of the District Court's order remains in effect but requires clarification on remand. The order properly requires the Government to "facilitate" Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term "effectuate" in the District Court's order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court's authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs."

(Bold emphasis added)

That clause about the limits to the District Court's authority is SCOTUS politely reminding the district judge that foreign policy decisions are strictly Article II territory. Note that the last sentence reaffirms this point.

Now the media has assumed that 'facilitating' Garcia's "release from custody in El Salvador", means returning him to the United States, but that is not really said anywhere.

For one thing, Garcia is not a legal citizen or resident, and therefore has no right to enter the United States, even if the deportation to El Salvador was in error. Note also that there was already a valid deportation order in effect; only the fact that he was sent to El Salvador earned the court's scrutiny. As a result, the court could only order the US Government to 'facilitate' Garcia's release from El Salvadoran custody. The problem here is that even the US Supreme Court cannot order a foreign government to release a prisoner in their custody.

So, unless the government of El Salvador decides to let Garcia go or hand him over to the US Government, this is for all serious purposes a moot point.

That is, except that the District judge needs to understand the limits of jurisdiction, and the SCOTUS may rebuke the US Government and warn that any similar future situations would provoke consequences. In this regard, it makes sense that the Government would say that the transport of Garcia to El Salvador was an accident, as that would make it unreasonable for the court to take any further actions.

---

Kudos for an excellent summary of what you wish the Supreme Court had said.

---

Sam, I quoted the SOCTUS decision.

But feel free to explain what you think "The intended scope of the term "effectuate" in the District Court's order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court's authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs." means.

---

It means the court should have due deference to the executive in terms of policy and secrecy. It most certainly does not mean the court is prohibited from ruling on any and all matters related to national security.

---

Well, you certainly proved you not only never passed the bar, your ability to discern judicial discipline is more than slightly impaired, Sam.

Stop and consider just why the high court included that point, and in fact repeats the point.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam is a Globalist and supported war in general for the last several years.

---

LOL...when you go wrong, you don't hold back.

---

The fact that I am right in this case seems to have eluded you, Sam.

Yet again.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"I find it troubling that the Supreme Court is telling the Trump administration to attempt to bring Garcia back to the United States."

Actually, if you pay attention to what exactly was said, the SCOTUS never said that.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf

Key parts of the opinion:

"The application is granted in part and denied in part, subject to the direction of this order. "

And here's the meat of it:

"the Government's emergency application is effectively granted in part and the deadline in the challenged order is no longer effective. The rest of the District Court's order remains in effect but requires clarification on remand. The order properly requires the Government to "facilitate" Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term "effectuate" in the District Court's order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court's authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs."

(Bold emphasis added)

That clause about the limits to the District Court's authority is SCOTUS politely reminding the district judge that foreign policy decisions are strictly Article II territory. Note that the last sentence reaffirms this point.

Now the media has assumed that 'facilitating' Garcia's "release from custody in El Salvador", means returning him to the United States, but that is not really said anywhere.

For one thing, Garcia is not a legal citizen or resident, and therefore has no right to enter the United States, even if the deportation to El Salvador was in error. Note also that there was already a valid deportation order in effect; only the fact that he was sent to El Salvador earned the court's scrutiny. As a result, the court could only order the US Government to 'facilitate' Garcia's release from El Salvadoran custody. The problem here is that even the US Supreme Court cannot order a foreign government to release a prisoner in their custody.

So, unless the government of El Salvador decides to let Garcia go or hand him over to the US Government, this is for all serious purposes a moot point.

That is, except that the District judge needs to understand the limits of jurisdiction, and the SCOTUS may rebuke the US Government and warn that any similar future situations would provoke consequences. In this regard, it makes sense that the Government would say that the transport of Garcia to El Salvador was an accident, as that would make it unreasonable for the court to take any further actions.

---

Kudos for an excellent summary of what you wish the Supreme Court had said.

---

Sam, I quoted the SOCTUS decision.

But feel free to explain what you think "The intended scope of the term "effectuate" in the District Court's order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court's authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs." means.

---

It means the court should have due deference to the executive in terms of policy and secrecy. It most certainly does not mean the court is prohibited from ruling on any and all matters related to national security.

---

Well, you certainly proved you not only never passed the bar, your ability to discern judicial discipline is more than slightly impaired, Sam.

Stop and consider just why the high court included that point, and in fact repeats the point.

---

Stop and consider that such an interpretation would be flatly inconsistent with the order.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam is a Globalist and supported war in general for the last several years.

---

LOL...when you go wrong, you don't hold back.

---

The fact that I am right in this case seems to have eluded you, Sam.

Yet again.

---

Again, just weird, weird posts from you lately.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"I find it troubling that the Supreme Court is telling the Trump administration to attempt to bring Garcia back to the United States."

Actually, if you pay attention to what exactly was said, the SCOTUS never said that.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf

Key parts of the opinion:

"The application is granted in part and denied in part, subject to the direction of this order. "

And here's the meat of it:

"the Government's emergency application is effectively granted in part and the deadline in the challenged order is no longer effective. The rest of the District Court's order remains in effect but requires clarification on remand. The order properly requires the Government to "facilitate" Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term "effectuate" in the District Court's order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court's authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs."

(Bold emphasis added)

That clause about the limits to the District Court's authority is SCOTUS politely reminding the district judge that foreign policy decisions are strictly Article II territory. Note that the last sentence reaffirms this point.

Now the media has assumed that 'facilitating' Garcia's "release from custody in El Salvador", means returning him to the United States, but that is not really said anywhere.

For one thing, Garcia is not a legal citizen or resident, and therefore has no right to enter the United States, even if the deportation to El Salvador was in error. Note also that there was already a valid deportation order in effect; only the fact that he was sent to El Salvador earned the court's scrutiny. As a result, the court could only order the US Government to 'facilitate' Garcia's release from El Salvadoran custody. The problem here is that even the US Supreme Court cannot order a foreign government to release a prisoner in their custody.

So, unless the government of El Salvador decides to let Garcia go or hand him over to the US Government, this is for all serious purposes a moot point.

That is, except that the District judge needs to understand the limits of jurisdiction, and the SCOTUS may rebuke the US Government and warn that any similar future situations would provoke consequences. In this regard, it makes sense that the Government would say that the transport of Garcia to El Salvador was an accident, as that would make it unreasonable for the court to take any further actions.

---

Kudos for an excellent summary of what you wish the Supreme Court had said.

---

Sam, I quoted the SOCTUS decision.

But feel free to explain what you think "The intended scope of the term "effectuate" in the District Court's order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court's authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs." means.

---

It means the court should have due deference to the executive in terms of policy and secrecy. It most certainly does not mean the court is prohibited from ruling on any and all matters related to national security.

---

Well, you certainly proved you not only never passed the bar, your ability to discern judicial discipline is more than slightly impaired, Sam.

Stop and consider just why the high court included that point, and in fact repeats the point.

---

Stop and consider that such an interpretation would be flatly inconsistent with the order.

---

I know you just ducked the point again, Sam.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam is a Globalist and supported war in general for the last several years.

---

LOL...when you go wrong, you don't hold back.

---

The fact that I am right in this case seems to have eluded you, Sam.

Yet again.

---

Again, just weird, weird posts from you lately.

---

Oh yeah Sam, anything factual would strike you as "weird".

Channeling your inner Walz, it would seem.

No idea what point, if any, you're trying to make.

SCOTUS has ordered Trump to try to get the prisoner back. Trump is ignoring them. His supporters don't care about the rule of law...and they're done pretending.

Sam Lowry said:

---

No idea what point, if any, you're trying to make.

SCOTUS has ordered Trump to try to get the prisoner back. Trump is ignoring them. His supporters don't care about the rule of law...and they're done pretending.

---

Man, you are definitely not living in the real world, son.

Tell me where SCOTUS can give orders to a foreign government.

BearFan33 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

Sam,

Please understand the position you are taking. Kilmar Garcia I believe was before the immigration courts in 2019 and was accused of being associated with the MS-13 gang. The court did not dispute that he was with the gang, but refused to deport him at that time because they thought he might be killed if sent back to El Salvador at that time. He was married to an American citizen but he was not and is not an American citizen. So I believe it is still in question whether he was associated with that gang or not.

But I will grant that he was placed on the plane where other gang members were flown out of the United States by mistake. And while I realize we have to abide by the court decisions in this country, I'm certain the Trump Administration is not conceding the fight on any of these deportation cases until all appeals are exhausted.

And I would make this case. The Biden Administration allowed in between 15,000,000-20,000,000 illegals during his four years in office. Practically none of them were vetted by law enforcement; they were just released into the country or crossed somewhere in between the ports of entry. Many of them were either gang members or had criminal records in their country of origin. Some were even on the terrorist watch list. The number could be in the hundreds of thousands or even millions that are here and willing to steal, assault, rape and yes murder our Legal Citizens.

So President Trump is elected on one of his promises to remove the illegals beginning with the gang members and hardened criminals that ICE identifies. He uses the old law that gives him the fastest and cheapest method to remove criminals who broke into our country. The ACLU and the left challenges his actions in court. Each side wins some parts of cases and loses some. Now, after this deportation case that was in Judge Boasberg's court was assigned to the Texas courts, who have evidently ruled that each person on that plane can now make the government prove that they are actually gang members who deserve to be deported. Am I close to correct so far?

My question to the Supreme Court and anyone else is by what reasoning do illegals who break into our country get the same constitutional rights as LEGAL AMERICAN CITIZENS? Think about the time and taxpayer money that it will take to go through this procedure to remove 15,000,000 illegal lawbreakers who should never have been allowed into the U.S. in the first place.

And all because the left hates President Trump and everything he stands for. Surely Sam you cannot be for these criminals staying in this country can you? If there are so many to remove, why should we as taxpayers not want it to be as quick and as cheap as possible? Will there be a few mistakes? Yes there will be. But you know as far as I am concerned, everyone who crossed our border and broke in illegally, disrespected all of us, and all of those good folks who went through the legal process to become an American citizen. In my opinion they deserve no constitutional rights; all they deserve is a free plane ride out of our country back to their country of origin.

To force all of this through the courts before any action can be taken is ridiculous. And Sam that prevents President Trump from fulfilling his promise to the people, which of course is the left's intent. After all about 75% of the public wants all of the illegals removed from the country, including many democrats.

---

What is the basic principle underlying the Bill of Rights? The state is more dangerous to you than the criminal (including the immigrant).

Why do criminals have the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure? Why do they have the right not to incriminate themselves? Why does the state have to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? Is it because we want dangerous criminals to go free?

No. It's because we don't want the state abusing its power. That's why illegal immigrants have many of the same rights as American citizens. Not to protect them. To protect you.

Trump wants to send American citizens to foreign prison camps too. He would have you believe the court system is broken, so you have to give him all the power. Don't believe it. The courts aren't perfect, but they are capable of doing their job.

---

Ridiculous statement. Obama vaporized an American citizen in Yemen with no trial or legal proceedings whatsoever. It's people on the left you should be worried about.

---

You've now seen the video where Trump says this out loud, right?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

No idea what point, if any, you're trying to make.

SCOTUS has ordered Trump to try to get the prisoner back. Trump is ignoring them. His supporters don't care about the rule of law...and they're done pretending.

---

Man, you are definitely not living in the real world, son.

Tell me where SCOTUS can give orders to a foreign government.

---

Again, the order is directed to President Trump.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

No idea what point, if any, you're trying to make.

SCOTUS has ordered Trump to try to get the prisoner back. Trump is ignoring them. His supporters don't care about the rule of law...and they're done pretending.

---

Man, you are definitely not living in the real world, son.

Tell me where SCOTUS can give orders to a foreign government.

---

Again, the order is directed to President Trump.

---

Read it again. Neither "Trump" nor "The President" is so referenced.

And if you think any of this forces the government of El Salvador to obey a US court, even the SCOTUS, well then Sam you would be beyond help.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

No idea what point, if any, you're trying to make.

SCOTUS has ordered Trump to try to get the prisoner back. Trump is ignoring them. His supporters don't care about the rule of law...and they're done pretending.

---

Man, you are definitely not living in the real world, son.

Tell me where SCOTUS can give orders to a foreign government.

---

Again, the order is directed to President Trump.

---

Read it again. Neither "Trump" nor "The President" is so referenced.

And if you think any of this forces the government of El Salvador to obey a US court, even the SCOTUS, well then Sam you would be beyond help.

---

Keep playing dumb.

And enjoy your police state…just remember that all sales are final.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

No idea what point, if any, you're trying to make.

SCOTUS has ordered Trump to try to get the prisoner back. Trump is ignoring them. His supporters don't care about the rule of law...and they're done pretending.

---

Man, you are definitely not living in the real world, son.

Tell me where SCOTUS can give orders to a foreign government.

---

Again, the order is directed to President Trump.

---

Read it again. Neither "Trump" nor "The President" is so referenced.

And if you think any of this forces the government of El Salvador to obey a US court, even the SCOTUS, well then Sam you would be beyond help.

---

Keep playing dumb.

And enjoy your police state…just remember that all sales are final.

---

Sam, I'm not the one ignoring what SCOTUS said or claiming words/names were used which clearly were not.

I don't think you are convincing anyone, by the way. Just repeating the vapid slogans of the Left.

Seems to be your thing these days.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

No idea what point, if any, you're trying to make.

SCOTUS has ordered Trump to try to get the prisoner back. Trump is ignoring them. His supporters don't care about the rule of law...and they're done pretending.

---

Man, you are definitely not living in the real world, son.

Tell me where SCOTUS can give orders to a foreign government.

---

Again, the order is directed to President Trump.

---

Read it again. Neither "Trump" nor "The President" is so referenced.

And if you think any of this forces the government of El Salvador to obey a US court, even the SCOTUS, well then Sam you would be beyond help.

---

Keep playing dumb.

And enjoy your police state…just remember that all sales are final.

---

Sam, I'm not the one ignoring what SCOTUS said or claiming words/names were used which clearly were not.

I don't think you are convincing anyone, by the way. Just repeating the vapid slogans of the Left.

Seems to be your thing these days.

---

To try to convince you of anything would waste your time and mine.

The fact that Trump's name isn't mentioned is immaterial. If anything it only weakens his position.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

No idea what point, if any, you're trying to make.

SCOTUS has ordered Trump to try to get the prisoner back. Trump is ignoring them. His supporters don't care about the rule of law...and they're done pretending.

---

Man, you are definitely not living in the real world, son.

Tell me where SCOTUS can give orders to a foreign government.

---

Again, the order is directed to President Trump.

---

Read it again. Neither "Trump" nor "The President" is so referenced.

And if you think any of this forces the government of El Salvador to obey a US court, even the SCOTUS, well then Sam you would be beyond help.

---

Keep playing dumb.

And enjoy your police state…just remember that all sales are final.

---

Sam, I'm not the one ignoring what SCOTUS said or claiming words/names were used which clearly were not.

I don't think you are convincing anyone, by the way. Just repeating the vapid slogans of the Left.

Seems to be your thing these days.

---

To try to convince you of anything would waste your time and mine.

The fact that Trump's name isn't mentioned is immaterial. If anything it only weakens his position.

---

Lowry gonna Lowry.

Have a good evening, Sam, and I promise ICE is not trying to deport you or any of your friends.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

No idea what point, if any, you're trying to make.

SCOTUS has ordered Trump to try to get the prisoner back. Trump is ignoring them. His supporters don't care about the rule of law...and they're done pretending.

---

Man, you are definitely not living in the real world, son.

Tell me where SCOTUS can give orders to a foreign government.

---

Again, the order is directed to President Trump.

---

Read it again. Neither "Trump" nor "The President" is so referenced.

And if you think any of this forces the government of El Salvador to obey a US court, even the SCOTUS, well then Sam you would be beyond help.

---

Keep playing dumb.

And enjoy your police state…just remember that all sales are final.

---

Sam, I'm not the one ignoring what SCOTUS said or claiming words/names were used which clearly were not.

I don't think you are convincing anyone, by the way. Just repeating the vapid slogans of the Left.

Seems to be your thing these days.

---

To try to convince you of anything would waste your time and mine.

The fact that Trump's name isn't mentioned is immaterial. If anything it only weakens his position.

---

Lowry gonna Lowry.

Have a good evening, Sam, and I promise ICE is not trying to deport you or any of your friends.

---

I've read too many of your predictions to take much comfort in that.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

No idea what point, if any, you're trying to make.

SCOTUS has ordered Trump to try to get the prisoner back. Trump is ignoring them. His supporters don't care about the rule of law...and they're done pretending.

---

Man, you are definitely not living in the real world, son.

Tell me where SCOTUS can give orders to a foreign government.

---

Again, the order is directed to President Trump.

---

Read it again. Neither "Trump" nor "The President" is so referenced.

And if you think any of this forces the government of El Salvador to obey a US court, even the SCOTUS, well then Sam you would be beyond help.

---

Keep playing dumb.

And enjoy your police state…just remember that all sales are final.

---

Sam, I'm not the one ignoring what SCOTUS said or claiming words/names were used which clearly were not.

I don't think you are convincing anyone, by the way. Just repeating the vapid slogans of the Left.

Seems to be your thing these days.

---

To try to convince you of anything would waste your time and mine.

The fact that Trump's name isn't mentioned is immaterial. If anything it only weakens his position.

---

Lowry gonna Lowry.

Have a good evening, Sam, and I promise ICE is not trying to deport you or any of your friends.

---

I've read too many of your predictions to take much comfort in that.

---

What predictions would that be, Sam?

I believe you are once again confusing me with someone else.

DHS Clears the Air About Abrego Garcia

Assassin said:

---

DHS Clears the Air About Abrego Garcia

---

Very glad to hear these statements from our government officials. Some seem to believe they have rational, honest arguments to support their lawless behavior...fortunately it seems they have put those rumors to rest.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

DHS Clears the Air About Abrego Garcia

---

Very glad to hear these statements from our government officials. Some seem to believe they have rational, honest arguments to support their lawless behavior...fortunately it seems they have put those rumors to rest.

---

Guess you didnt comprehend it very well

Actually, I believe all of us care about the rule of law. Evidently two courts in 2019 believed the evidence presented showed that Garcia was affiliated with MS-13. The first court thus ruled that he should be deported. The appeal court concurred with the lower court ruling. Thus he had his court hearing on asylum if I am not mistaken. The appeals judge felt sorry for Garcia to the extent that he claimed he would be killed by an opposing gang if he was deported back to El Salvador. So the judge said he could not be deported back to El Salvador. But you see with Garcia's claim to the judge that he would be likely murdered by another rival gang was an admission that he was in fact a part of the MS-13 gang as U.S. prosecutors had claimed and proved.

This would seem to put an end to the argument that Garcia is being denied due process. In addition he came into our country illegally which is a deportable offense. He is a citizen of El Salvador and not a citizen of the United States. After a second look I believe our Supreme Court suggested that the Trump Administration attempt to get Garcia returned but did not order that done.

He is no longer under our system or laws, but El Salvador's. And this district judge in Maryland trying to force the President and Executive Branch to take actions which are clearly in the foreign policy area are ridiculous and will go nowhere. If the Supreme Court has the authority over these out of control district judges, they should reign them in. If not congress should pull the plug on some of them.

Never fear…..MD senator Van Halen will fly to El Salvador tomorrow.

gtownbear said:

---

This would seem to put an end to the argument that Garcia is being denied due process.

---

Not only does it not put an end to the argument, it hardly even begins to address it.

Someone is out of control here, but Trump has you looking at it entirely backwards if you think it's the judges.

MS13 needs to exit our country

Not only are some of the district court judges out of control, but what do you think about Senator Van Hollen of Maryland going to El Salvador to attempt to get Garcia released from prison there and returned to the United States. I saw an interview with the mother of the woman from Maryland murdered by an MS-13 gang member where she said Van Hollen had not reached out to her and she is his legal constituent. Do you think he has his priorities straight?

Just curious, does Senator Van Hollen think he can tell the President of El Salvador how to run his country? Garcia is a citizen of El Salvador not the United States. He was under a deportation order from our country. And I understand that his own lawyers are not fighting the deportation order on its merits, but only on the basis of his deportation to the country of El Salvador.

If the left wants back an MS-13 gang member, fight his adjudicated deportation order, and go to El Salvador to attempt to get his release from prison, and die on that hill, well then so be it. I think our side will have about 70% of the public with us on that.

Fascists rarely care about the consequences of their ideas & policies unless they themselves have to face them. Unfortunately, it's usually others (everyone else) who pays.

The Leftists want illegal spurns to remain here and continue flooding in for a variety of reasons:

- they believe the sob stories & other lies told by the media
- they want to use illegals to help them steal elections
- they want chaos because they think they can exploit it politically
- some adhere to evil Alinskyite or Cloward-Pliven fantasies of destroying the country to usher in a communist-socialist-fascist utopia which, naturally, would actually be a dystopia

They don't care because they are evil.