-
Posts
473 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Posts posted by fuggled
-
-
Missed this before my prior post. Sounds like deportees are already getting loaded onto buses after less than 24 hours notice. DHS might be trying to test the Supreme Court's definition of "reasonable".
-
5
-
-
ACLU is filing motions in multiple courts out of fear DHS is getting ready to deport more people to El Salvador under the AEA.
-
4
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
1 minute ago, JBJ said:My dude, Beastie Boys weren't even alive that long ago.
The facts still just aren't great to die here. This guy is Claudette Colvin, not Rosa Parks.
To quote Judge Brian E. Murphy in US District Court today responding to DHS's lack of due process:
"All nine sitting justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, the Assistant Solicitor General of the United States, Congress, common sense, basic decency, and this Court all disagree."
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.64.0.pdf
-
8
-
2
-
1 minute ago, achooloco said:
wrong. He was granted asylum, nothing questionable at all about it. He is a legal resident, full stop. If you don’t agree you’re wrong and you need to educate yourself
To clarify, he wasn't granted asylum. He applied for asylum, but you have to apply within a year of entering the country so it was denied. He was granted protection from removal, which I've heard is more rare and a higher bar to clear than asylum.
-
5
-
-
1 minute ago, JBJ said:
I've answered this several times. It's not okay. It's on purpose, too. You guys want me to be something that I'm not.
Informed?
-
4
-
1
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, JBJ said:
I believe it was on purpose. They likely couldn't proceed with this case because the habeas case would happen first. If Abrego wasn't aware of this, his lawyers should be the ones in the Salvadorian prison.
One other thought here...it's pretty weak to blame this guy and his lawyer for creating a constitutional crisis by not moving fast enough. The government ignored his court ordered protection from removal and then they ignored a court order to stop deportations, turn the plan around and bring people back. Why should anyone expect that a new/different filing would change anything?
-
5
-
-
25 minutes ago, JBJ said:
Yes. He was being held in Texas, I believe. They even amended their initial filing before he was deported, so they had time to file a separate case.
You have a link outlining any of this? Pretty sure nobody knew where he was until his wife identified his tattoos in photos taken in El Salvador.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
5 minutes ago, JBJ said:I thought his deportation was held due to a rival gang in El Salvador harassing his family? If I don't have all the facts, maybe I am wrong.
Man, there are a few things you have to keep in mind here.
First, the judge that determined Abrego Garcia is MS-13 was an immigration judge. This was not a criminal case. The police/district attorney in Prince George did not bring any charges against him. Immigration judges/courts are very different from criminal courts. They are making administrative determinations.
Second, the hearing where this determination occurred was a bond hearing by the immigration judge. It was to determine if he should be granted bail or held until his immigration case is complete. In this situation, the standard is that ICE/DHS claims Abrego Garcia is a threat or flight risk. It is up to Abrego Garcia to prove to the judge that he is not a threat to the community. It is a very high bar putting the onus on the defendant to prove a negative. And the judge is completely reasonable in being cautious and not granting release. But it is a very different standard than anything we'd see in a criminal case.
Third, Fox News, Pam Bondi and the White House keep talking about "two judges determined he's MS-13". The second judge was handling the appeal of the bond hearing. Still an immigration judge, still not a criminal case. In this appeal, the judge is not tasked with determining whether he's MS-13. Instead, the appeal judge has a narrow task of determining whether they original judge clearly erred in making the bond decision. Denying the appeal just means the judge determines that there was some evidence originally presented and the original judge was being reasonably cautious.
-
14
-
1
-
Hard to know what to make of this, but there's noise that people are worried about deportations to El Salvador under AEA today. Here's a lengthy thread about lawyers who say their clients in the Bluebonnet detention center (outside Abilene) are calling and saying they've been told they are getting deported.
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, bluto said:
I could be wrong both understanding your question and my grasp of the system, but the ‘$6500’ follows the student at least in terms of the pub school loses that money bc the kid is no longer enrolled.
There was talk about giving rural schools a wad of cash to offset this for a yr or two, not sure if that ended up in play.
worth noting that vouchers are funded by the general fund pool from the state, it’s an entirely new expense technically separate from school funding (tho it will impact school funding due to enrollment shifts)Yeah, that gets at what I'm wondering about. Very curious to hear about any mechanisms to keep the public school "whole" when voucher kids leave. If a few kids take vouchers, schools can't just hire 90% of a teacher. Unfortunately I expect the answer is just cut teachers and cram more kids into fewer classrooms.
-
1
-
-
-
I haven't seen this explained anywhere, so hoping someone can clarify. How do the senate and house voucher bills impact the basic allotment? If the allotment is $6500 and vouchers are $10,000, does the private school get $10K and the public school lose $6500? Or does the public school keep the allotment?
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Pretty powerful opinion from the judge denying Trump's request for an emergency stay in the Abrego Garcia case.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca4.178400/gov.uscourts.ca4.178400.8.0.pdf
QuoteThe Executive possesses enormous powers to prosecute and to deport, but with powers come restraints. If today the Executive claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport American citizens and then disclaim responsibility to bring them home?∗ And what assurance shall there be that the Executive will not train its broad discretionary powers upon its political enemies? The threat, even if not the actuality, would always be present, and the Executive’s obligation to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” would lose its meaning. U.S. CONST . art. II, § 3; see also id. art. II, § 1, cl. 8.
Today, both the United States and the El Salvadoran governments disclaim any authority and/or responsibility to return Abrego Garcia. See President Trump Participates in a Bilateral Meeting with the President of El Salvador, W HITE H OUSE (Apr. 14, 2025). We are told that neither government has the power to act. The result will be to leave matters generally and Abrego Garcia specifically in an interminable limbo without recourse to law of any sort.
The basic differences between the branches mandate a serious effort at mutual respect. The respect that courts must accord the Executive must be reciprocated by the Executive’s respect for the courts. Too often today this has not been the case, as calls for impeachment of judges for decisions the Executive disfavors and exhortations to disregard court orders sadly illustrate.
It is in this atmosphere that we are reminded of President Eisenhower’s sage example. Putting his “personal opinions” aside, President Eisenhower honored his “inescapable” duty to enforce the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education II to desegregate schools “with all deliberate speed.” Address by the President of the United States, Delivered from his Office at the White House 1-2 (Sept. 24, 1957); 349 U.S. 294, 301 (1955). This great man expressed his unflagging belief that “[t]he very basis of our individual rights and freedoms is the certainty that the President and the Executive Branch of Government will support and [e]nsure the carrying out of the decisions of the Federal Courts.” Id. at 3. Indeed, in our late Executive’s own words, “unless the President did so, anarchy would result.” Id.
Now the branches come too close to grinding irrevocably against one another in a conflict that promises to diminish both. This is a losing proposition all around. The Judiciary will lose much from the constant intimations of its illegitimacy, to which by dent of custom and detachment we can only sparingly reply. The Executive will lose much from a public perception of its lawlessness and all of its attendant contagions. The Executive may succeed for a time in weakening the courts, but over time history will script the tragic gap between what was and all that might have been, and law in time will sign its epitaph.
It is, as we have noted, all too possible to see in this case an incipient crisis, but it may present an opportunity as well. We yet cling to the hope that it is not naïve to believe our good brethren in the Executive Branch perceive the rule of law as vital to the American ethos. This case presents their unique chance to vindicate that value and to summon the best that is within us while there is still time.
In sum, and for the reasons foregoing, we deny the motion for the stay pending appeal and the writ of mandamus in this case. It is so ordered.
-
13
-
2
-
-
-
45 minutes ago, fuggled said:
Boasberg is now the first judge to find Trump's DOJ in contempt. Buckle up.
I should have said found probable cause, not contempt yet.
-
Boasberg is now the first judge to find Trump's DOJ in contempt. Buckle up.
-
1
-
3
-
2
-
3
-
-
-
-
-
12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:
Government playing fuck fuck games. Xinis not having it, but gave them two more hours to comply with her order.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69777799/57/abrego-garcia-v-noem/
Aaaand....looks like DOJ has missed the extended deadline
-
1
-
2
-
-
17 hours ago, Firemans4Horn said:
I saw this handy chart that helps illustrate the point Furman is making. I wish there was a column that showed the tariff situation pre-Trump.
-
1
-
1
-
-
And, not surprising at all, Stephen Miller is out there just lying and claiming this was a victory at the Supreme Court.
-
1
-
1
-
-
The judge in the Abrego Garcia case quickly updated her orders last night. DOJ has a deadline in about 20 minutes to explain what steps they've taken so far and what other steps they plan to take.
-
3
-
1
-
Trump’s El Salvador Gulag
in Cloak Room
Posted
Linked story has more context
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/04/18/abrego-garcia-deported-tennessee-traffic-stop/83156188007/
and here's the full DHS release
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25901936-hsi-referral-abrego-garcia-redacted/#document/p1