Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by James Brown

Did you feel this way when a Texas District Court judge issued a nation-wide injunction banning the use of Mifepristone for elective abortions?

Since Richard does not have the stones to reply, I'll put my guess out there.  Rich thinks a District Court judge who issues a nationwide injunction on an issue he agrees with is a patriot and a legal genius.  On the other hand, if Richard disagrees on the merits of the case, the judge is a "corrupt little maggot."  Such is the nature of Richard's hypocrisy my friends.

Originally Posted by David Cotterell

......in this meme.

Where are the constitutional guardrails?

Dave

The meme author misstates the content of Supreme Court's 9-0 order.  Probably through ignorance, but possibly with intent to deceive the public.  The meme author is in good company as a lot of the press is making the same mistakes, intentionally or not.

Here is the order.  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf

The key part is this:  "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. For its part, the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps."

Looks like the Executive acknowledges they screwed up.  The Supremes told the District Court to clarify the original terms "facilitate" and "effectuate."  My own guess is that the Supreme Court is hinting or suggesting that "facilitate" means, "take reasonable measures to get him back."  My own guess is that "effectuate" means "succeed in getting him back."   The Supreme Court no doubt has it's own opinion, but they have not tipped their hand.  They are making the District Court go first, which is frustrating to the public, Rod in particular hates this, but it is the way it has always been done.  

In reply, the District Court simply struck the word "effectuate" from her order.  I think that is not enough.  She has not so far clarified whether the remaining word "facilitate" means the administration is required to "try" or actually "succeed" in getting Abrego Garcia back from El Salvador.  That key point still needs to be clarified.  If the DC Judge's final clarified answer is "succeed," then expect this to be appealed again, because the Supreme Court is signaling here (in my opinion) that any District Court order purporting to require the Executive to effectively succeed in causing Abrego Garcia's release and return to the US is outside of the District Court's authority.  I bet the District Court Judge is being coy because she too thinks that ordering the Executive to "succeed" is outside the scope of her authority.  That said, making the Executive take reasonable measures to try to get him back to the states is apparently within the Court's authority.  

Four points - (A) whether Abrego Garcia is a good guy/family man, or a heinous gangster, is irrelevant to the legal analysis.  The prior court orders, for better or worse, prohibited his deportation to El Salvador.   (B) The executive might, in various instances make mistakes that can not be corrected.  Think of all those historical death penalty cases.  Sucks for Abrego Garcia, but it is not yet a Constitutional Crisis.  (C) This is a long way from over.  (D) The meme grossly oversimplified things, but what else are political memes good for?

Originally Posted by James Brown

The meme author misstates the content of Supreme Court's 9-0 order....  

For what it is worth:

(A)  I think the District Court does not have authority to dictate immigration policy.   

(B)  I do think the District Court has full authority to mandate that the Executive Branch take all reasonable steps possible to correct their mistakes.  Here Abrego Garcia was clearly deported in violation of a previous Court order, apparently by mistake.

The administration is at least in part casting this as an (A)-type foreign policy/immigration issue.  That is disingenuous, in my opinion.  I think this is a (B)-type issue where the administration screwed up and violated a previous "do not deport to El Salvador" order.   So I think the District Court has full authority to force the Executive to take all reasonable steps to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return, followed by proper procedures with due process if they intend to deport him to anywhere.  That said, sometimes the government's mistakes can not be fully remedied.   Ask anyone who was incarcerated or executed for a crime they did not commit.

Here the battle lines are going to be, "what reasonable steps can/have the administration taken to get Abrego Garcia back."  The answer to this question is certainly not "nothing."  So, this is not over yet, not by a long shot.

Originally Posted by David Cotterell

James, I cannot argue with your knowledge of the meaning or lack of clarity of meaning in the various rulings about his return.     

I would assume that you cannot condone the removal of a legal resident for no good reason in the first place. 

I certainly agree this case should not be over but I fear it is over because that "Cool Dictator" of El Salvador ain't never gonna let Garcia out of the prison now and will probably order his murder inside the prison in due course.  

Because despots will never, ever, ever say, "oops, my bad. Sorry."  And there are two despots involved here.

Dave

Of course not.  Legal residency is a status that can be lost though, so the "for no good reason" aspect of your statement I bolded above is important.

Originally Posted by David Cotterell

"The appellate court stated that: "[The Government] has no legal authority to snatch a person who is lawfully present in the United States off the street and remove him from the country without due process ..." "


I could go on referring to the wikipedia article but the facts are clear.  He isn't/wasn't a gang member, he was in the USA legally, he has never committed a crime.  The US government admitted its error on more than one occasion.

Facts, indeed.

Dave

Hi Dave:

I agree 100% with the Appellate Court.

I don't know if he was a gang member or not, but I don't think this changes anything.  His possible gang membership is a dodge and distraction the administration and their sycophants are using to hide the real issue.  Even if this man was indeed proved to be a gang member, the Supreme Court, the administration, all of the judges, (basically everyone) agrees that his deportation violated an earlier order.  It was an illegal deportation, and the administration must do what it can to get him back.

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

He's not a citizen of the USA and never has been.  He's been here illegally since 2011 and the DOJ shipped his ass to El Salvador after he had 2 hearings in front of immigration courts.  

You are free to spout any bullshit out of your fat leftist bleeding heart Pilehole you like about whether You think he's a citizen.  

This is stupid, even for you.  No one has ever argued that Abrego Garcia was a citizen.  No one.

Originally Posted by James Brown

Of course not.  Legal residency is a status that can be lost though, so the "for no good reason" aspect of your statement I bolded above is important.

p.s.  Abrego Garcia entered the US illegally.  The immigration court in 2019 ordered that he not be deported to El Salvador, I do not know if the order (or another) granted him permanent or temporary legal alien residency.   Either way, the administration illegally deported him to El Salvador, a mistake they totally admit.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Hi Jim,

I'm wondering what your take is on the following article and if it changes your perspective on the issue:

https://www.erienewsnow.com/story/52695539/analysis-trump-again-makes-john-roberts-and-the-court-look-weak

No it does not.  The author seems to think this is over.  I think it is more likely to end up before the Supreme Court again, where the Court will be forced to decide whether the administration's hand-wavey "facilitation" is sufficient.  First, I think the District Court needs to be a specific as possible as to what she believes "facilitation" entails, given that the Supreme Court is only going to analyze what the District Court has specifically ordered, and what if anything, the administration has done in response.

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Yes you did you lying, sack of dogcrap.  You said it was a Russian Disinformation Intelligence Operation, and that it was WORSE than a Hoax.   
  
Why don't you just admit it James or I'll bet you $10,000 that I can PROVE your statement above is a bald faced LIE, when you make that claim. 

I doubt you have $10k to bet. 

I recall James being very skeptical about the laptop, I doubt he said it was Russian disinformation.  You didn't sign the notorious letter did you James?

I, for one, was for sure was taken in by the "51 former security officials" who lied about the laptop, with some of them clearly knowing they were lying.  Right before the election too.  Miranda Devine should be credited for her initial stories about the laptop, which have now been acknowledged as true by everyone.

I am only posting because this event makes my list of the most consequential political lies of the last decade or so, several of which I fell for:

1.  Trump colluded with the Russians to win his first election.
2.  It is extremely unlikely that COVID resulted from a lab leak.   (Every day more evidence comes out suggesting this was a huge lie, known to be a lie by the perpetrators.)
3.  Hunter's laptop had all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation, when the FBI etc. knew it was legit months before the story broke.
4.  The 2020 election was stolen through voter fraud.
5.  Biden was competent to run for office and any evidence otherwise was faked.

(Listed chronologically, not by importance.  I might have missed some too.  Obviously not everyone will agree on which lies are the "most consequential" and which are even lies.)

This list is to be continued of course, but it is no surprise that citizens do not trust the government or the press.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

So, it seems to me after reading your post that SCOTUS, after deciding 9 to 0 that the Trump administration needs to "facilitate" the return of the deportee in question, will now consider what the lower court considers facilitating his release by the Trump administration. Is that right?

Yes.