Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Also note that Steve Vladeck has left UT Law for Georgetown.  Care to guess why?

The erstwhile professor also notes that the major questions and non-delegation doctrines used against the "administrative state" heavily weigh against Trump's exercise of tariff power pursuant to virtually unlimited delegation of major questions to the executive.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
8 minutes ago, yoladu said:

for the life of me, I can't figure out how he got in his head that groceries is an old fashioned term.

dunno but that reminds me, i need to get to the dry goods and sundries store today. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Posted
4 minutes ago, mchookem said:

dunno but that reminds me, i need to get to the dry goods and sundries store today. 

Don't forget to stop off at the Five & Dime while you're in town. They got a deal on Tuesdays, offering free oats for your horsies while they wait at the hitching post.

Posted
13 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

@Ojo Rojo still think Roberts is on the up and up?

Just because a justice sides with one side or the other on an opinion does not mean they have abandoned the Constitution or are a toady for the administration.  This opinion, though on the surface is a win for Trump, actually gives rights to the detained.  It's more of an opinion about procedure than substance.

  • Haha 3
  • Drool 1
Posted
1 hour ago, yoladu said:

for the life of me, I can't figure out how he got in his head that groceries is an old fashioned term.

While a seemingly trivial point, it really isn't.  It illustrates his senility.

Posted
55 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Don't forget to stop off at the Five & Dime while you're in town. They got a deal on Tuesdays, offering free oats for your horsies while they wait at the hitching post.

The one run by Mr. McGee down by old man Johnson’s farm? 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

Just because a justice sides with one side or the other on an opinion does not mean they have abandoned the Constitution or are a toady for the administration.  This opinion, though on the surface is a win for Trump, actually gives rights to the detained.  It's more of an opinion about procedure than substance.

I think I hate you more than the actual nazis. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
Posted
1 minute ago, NAVY said:

The one run by Mr. McGee down by old man Johnson’s farm? 

Good place to do something close to nothing I hear.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

@Firemans4Horn@Brisketexan What?  The opinion gives due process rights to the detained and says that they have to have their habeas petitions heard where they are detained.  It also didn't reach the big question, which is whether the AEA applied.  This hasn't played all the way out yet.

  • Haha 1
  • Fuck You 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Oh, bullshit. It provides a "win" with zero ability to enforce or address it. It literally vacates what should have been an unappealable order that was also the only way the Court had to keep Trump from violating the law. The opinion glosses over the fact that administration was violating the known law and rights of people legally in the United States. How exactly are people supposed to enforce their habeas claim when the administration isn't providing the required notice and is instead just instantly deporting them? What mechanism does the person or the court have to fix that? Roberts simply abandons that core issue. Read the dissent. Your answer is bullshit and you should be ashamed of yourself. 

Sorry, dude.  You're wrong.

From SCOTUSblog: The court made clear that – as the government agrees – the plaintiffs, as well as others who may be detained or removed under the AEA, are entitled to be notified “that they are subject to removal under the Act.” Moreover, the court added, addressing an argument made by lawyers for the plaintiffs during oral arguments in the lower courts, the government must provide that notice “within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.”

4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I think I hate you more than the actual nazis. 

You have issues.

  • Fuck You 4
Posted
2 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

@Firemans4Horn@Brisketexan What?  The opinion gives due process rights to the detained and says that they have to have their habeas petitions heard where they are detained.  It also didn't reach the big question, which is whether the AEA applied.  This hasn't played all the way out yet.

Let's say ICE black bags you in New York. Within one hour, they move you to New Jersey, then within two hours they fly you to Louisiana. Within another 12 hours, they're flying you to El Salvador. During this time, you're not told where you even are and you're not allowed to contact anyone.

How the fuck are you going to file a habeas petition in the correct jurisdiction? 

Just now, Ojo Rojo said:

Sorry, dude.  You're wrong.

From SCOTUSblog: The court made clear that – as the government agrees – the plaintiffs, as well as others who may be detained or removed under the AEA, are entitled to be notified “that they are subject to removal under the Act.” Moreover, the court added, addressing an argument made by lawyers for the plaintiffs during oral arguments in the lower courts, the government must provide that notice “within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.”

You have issues.

We all have issues right now. Some of us are more honest about them than others.

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

There's a shit ton of questions to be answered in the litigation.  But the one this was decided on is what is the proper court in which to bring these challenges.

The Supreme Court decided that the proper court is the one in which a petition for habeas corpus lies, which is a district court in the state and judicial district in which the petitioner is detained.

As a matter of first principles, deciding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction is just the kind of basis that a "shadow docket" decision is based on.  But that is the case only where the law is clear on which court has jurisdiction.

But, which court has jurisdiction and whether the petitioner's claims are governed by habeas corpus, only, or some other remedy, in this case the Administrative Procedure Act, is a novel question in this context, never before decided.

So they fucking decided it on an emergency motion on the shadow docket, making new law.  Also notable that they explicitly said "venue is wrong."  Venue is a relatively minor thing that does not affect a court's power to rule; a court that entirely lacks jurisdiction is powerless, one that is not a proper venue should be transferred to one that is proper, but that can happen later in time and does not invalidate the courts' rulings.

Complete.  Fucking.  Bullshit.

Also note that by confining review to the habeas corpus court, where the deportee is detained, means that the Administration can select the venue/judge by where they detain the deportee.  So, expect a deportation facility to be constructed in Amarillo ASAP.  And there's always Andrew Hanen in Brownsville.

  • Rage+1 6
Posted
2 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

Sorry, dude.  You're wrong.

From SCOTUSblog: The court made clear that – as the government agrees – the plaintiffs, as well as others who may be detained or removed under the AEA, are entitled to be notified “that they are subject to removal under the Act.” Moreover, the court added, addressing an argument made by lawyers for the plaintiffs during oral arguments in the lower courts, the government must provide that notice “within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.”

You have issues.

Aside from all of the other stuff, SCOTUS decided a novel issue of law on the emergency application docket.

That's.  Just.  Wrong.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 4
Posted

A fucking Reagan appointee just noted that this is a path to perfect lawlessness and supposedly-not-a-nazi Ojo is here explaining that actually it's fine.

You're either lying to us or to yourself, and I'm entirely out of patience for people doing either.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Moreover, the court added, addressing an argument made by lawyers for the plaintiffs during oral arguments in the lower courts, the government must provide that notice “within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.”

Dicta which is meaningless.  Once the government does an end-around that and does not provide notice before removal occurs (which is exactly what they have been doing, and will continue to do), you will be in a prison in El Salvador.  And now, it's too late -- no remedy is available, because you are out of US government hands.  That is the fucking play.  How do we know?  Because they are actually running it, right now, in real-time.  The court alluded to a solution that the Regime will not allow to be implemented.

You still.  Don't.  Fucking.  Get it.  (I'm referring to Ojo, not you Wildcat).

Edited by Brisketexan
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

Sorry, dude.  You're wrong.

From SCOTUSblog: The court made clear that – as the government agrees – the plaintiffs, as well as others who may be detained or removed under the AEA, are entitled to be notified “that they are subject to removal under the Act.” Moreover, the court added, addressing an argument made by lawyers for the plaintiffs during oral arguments in the lower courts, the government must provide that notice “within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.”

You have zero fucking clue what you're talking about. Yes, the opinion says the right exists. But it says the only way to enforce it is to file a habeas petition prior to being snatched and deported. The ability to do that depends on, you know, getting notice and the time to do that, the very fucking thing the administration was NOT FUCKING DOING you dense motherfucker.  Take the guy who was illegally deported to a prison in El Salvador as an example. He got no notice of his deportation, so no ability to bring a habeas action prior to being deported. Oh, and the government's defense isn't that he should have been deported, it is that now that he is deported, the government can't do anything about it and can't be forced to do anything about it. So, Roberts has now said that you can't do anything in advance of being deported to defend your right. And he has vacated an order from the District Court that provided the only mechanism to prevent the administration from violating the law. Oh, and Roberts has now also stayed an order of the District Court, fully endorsed in an unanimous opinion by an appellate panel, that would have required Trump to at least fucking try to get the guy back from El Salvador who was illegally deported there. 

So, you tell me motherfucker, how exactly am I wrong? What is the legal mechanism is practically available to a person illegally deported without notice? Oh, none. Thanks. Go fuck yourself. 

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Hook 'Em 7
Posted

Let me be very clear, you, @Ojo Rojo, deserve to be deported without notice and sent to prison for being either densest motherfucker on the planet or just an actual shit stain. I sincerely hope it happens to you, fucking leopards and shit. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
18 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

@Firemans4Horn@Brisketexan What?  The opinion gives due process rights to the detained and says that they have to have their habeas petitions heard where they are detained.  It also didn't reach the big question, which is whether the AEA applied.  This hasn't played all the way out yet.


 

 

 

We’re not playing fucking 2nd year moot court debate here.
 

Can you disappear the wrong person to another country with no obligation to bring them back? Roberts answer was as long as that person has some magical phone call that they will never get because they are poor and speak another language and are moved 1,500 miles to a black box site 4 hours after they are captured. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
7 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You have zero fucking clue what you're talking about. Yes, the opinion says the right exists. But it says the only way to enforce it is to file a habeas petition prior to being snatched and deported. The ability to do that depends on, you know, getting notice and the time to do that, the very fucking thing the administration was NOT FUCKING DOING you dense motherfucker.  Take the guy who was illegally deported to a prison in El Salvador as an example. He got no notice of his deportation, so no ability to bring a habeas action prior to being deported. Oh, and the government's defense isn't that he should have been deported, it is that now that he is deported, the government can't do anything about it and can't be forced to do anything about it. So, Roberts has now said that you can't do anything in advance of being deported to defend your right. And he has vacated an order from the District Court that provided the only mechanism to prevent the administration from violating the law. Oh, and Roberts has now also stayed an order of the District Court, fully endorsed in an unanimous opinion by an appellate panel, that would have required Trump to at least fucking try to get the guy back from El Salvador who was illegally deported there. 

So, you tell me motherfucker, how exactly am I wrong? What is the legal mechanism that is practically available to a person illegally deported without notice? Oh, none. Thanks. Go fuck yourself. 

Quit saying illegally. The Supreme Court is saying this shit is all good. We need to come to terms with the fact that this shit is legal now.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Dicta which is meaningless.  Once the government does an end-around that and does not provide notice before removal occurs (which is exactly what they have been doing, and will continue to do), you will be in a prison in El Salvador.  And now, it's too late -- no remedy is available, because you are out of US government hands.  That is the fucking play.  How do we know?  Because they are actually running it, right now, in real-time.  The court alluded to a solution that the Regime will not allow to be implemented.

You still.  Don't.  Fucking.  Get it.

You and Wildcat and Fudge Nuggets and Dahobbs can writhe around in ashes while wearing your sackcloth and wail about things that haven't actually happened yet, that's fine. I'll pass. I'm not blind. I see what's happening. Bad things have happened, but the courts have not had their final say on any of them.  This most recent opinion is not a bellwether or the final word. It's a step in the process.  Get ahold of yourselves.

Edited by Ojo Rojo
Dahobbs has lost his fucking mind.
Posted
10 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You have zero fucking clue what you're talking about. Yes, the opinion says the right exists. But it says the only way to enforce it is to file a habeas petition prior to being snatched and deported. The ability to do that depends on, you know, getting notice and the time to do that, the very fucking thing the administration was NOT FUCKING DOING you dense motherfucker.  Take the guy who was illegally deported to a prison in El Salvador as an example. He got no notice of his deportation, so no ability to bring a habeas action prior to being deported. Oh, and the government's defense isn't that he should have been deported, it is that now that he is deported, the government can't do anything about it and can't be forced to do anything about it. So, Roberts has now said that you can't do anything in advance of being deported to defend your right. And he has vacated an order from the District Court that provided the only mechanism to prevent the administration from violating the law. Oh, and Roberts has now also stayed an order of the District Court, fully endorsed in an unanimous opinion by an appellate panel, that would have required Trump to at least fucking try to get the guy back from El Salvador who was illegally deported there. 

So, you tell me motherfucker, how exactly am I wrong? What is the legal mechanism is practically available to a person illegally deported without notice? Oh, none. Thanks. Go fuck yourself. 

 

5 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Let me be very clear, you, @Ojo Rojo, deserve to be deported without notice and sent to prison for being either densest motherfucker on the planet or just an actual shit stain. I sincerely hope it happens to you, fucking leopards and shit. 

You have lost your fucking mind.

Posted
1 minute ago, Ojo Rojo said:

and wail about things that haven't actually happened yet

lzitqza6fza41.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&a

Haven't actually happened yet?  Dude.  There's a guy.  In a Salvadoran prison.  Right now.  The play has ALREADY BEEN RUN.  All that has to happen now is....run it more.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Ojo Rojo said:

 

You have lost your fucking mind.

And you're a fucking idiot. You've been illegally deported without notice. What is your remedy?  How do you enforce it? 

Answer from Roberts: None. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

lzitqza6fza41.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&a

Haven't actually happened yet?  Dude.  There's a guy.  In a Salvadoran prison.  Right now.  The play has ALREADY BEEN RUN.  All that has to happen now is....run it more.

 

Just now, DigglerontheHoof said:

It's already happened you obtuse piece of shit. 

I know. What hasn't happened yet is that the case has not reached the end. Gentleman's bet - the courts will order him returned and he will be.

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

And you're a fucking idiot. You've been illegally deported without notice. What is your remedy?  How do you enforce it? 

Answer from Roberts: None. 

You also can't read or understand legal opinions.

Posted
1 minute ago, Ojo Rojo said:

 

I know. What hasn't happened yet is that the case has not reached the end. Gentleman's bet - the courts will order him returned and he will be.

The Court will not do that. And if it did, Trump will not do that. And the dude is probably already dead. 

Here is what Roberts will say: He should not have been deported and that was wrong, but separation of powers prevents the courts from forcing the executive to engage in foreign policy. The proper remedy is to file a habeas petition prior to deportation. You may also be able to file a civil rights action for violation of rights assuming you even manage to get back to the country. Too bad, so sad. He has fucking telegraphed this shit and fucking Barrett joining the dissent should tell you that she knows what is about to happen too. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
Just now, Dahobbs said:

The Court will not do that. And if it did, Trump will not do that. And the dude is probably already dead. 

Here is what Roberts will say: He should not have been deported and that was wrong, but separation of powers prevents the courts from forcing the executive to engage in foreign policy. The proper remedy is to file a habeas petition prior to deportation. You may also be able to file a civil rights action for violation of rights assuming you even manage to get back to the country. Too bad, so sad. He has fucking telegraphed this shit and fucking Barrett joining the dissent should tell you that she knows what is about to happen too. 

Gentleman's bet?

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

You also can't read or understand legal opinions.

What's the remedy? How do you do it? 

Here is what we know you can't do:

1) enjoin the government from deporting you without notice

2) actually file a habeas petition because, you know, you weren't given notice

3) force the government to get you returned (because even if the court could order that, it doesn't practically matter if the other country doesn't want to return you). 

Edited by Dahobbs
Posted

Until a white female is sent off to El Salvador by mistake, people won’t give a shit IMO.

Too busy getting caught up with the clown show and watching their 401K

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

Gentleman's bet?

I'll bet $1,000 sent to this guys family that he doesn't get returned to the US within the next 2 years, if ever.  I truly hope I'm wrong and I'm paying. 

P.S. your take is still stupid. 

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And you have lost your fucking Republic, you just haven't figured it out yet.

Spoiler alert: they don't know the difference between a Republic and a Fascist State, and when they learn it in real time they won't want their Republic back anyway.

I think a lot of us are waiting for these "A-ha!  Oh, shit!" realizations that aren't coming.  They're going to accept it all with open arms.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

I'll bet $1,000 sent to this guys family that he doesn't get returned to the US within the next 2 years, if ever.  I truly hope I'm wrong and I'm paying. 

But are you a gentleman?

  • Haha 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

What's the remedy? How do you do it? 

Here is what we know you can't do:

1) enjoin the government from deporting you without notice

2) actually file a habeas petition because, you know, you weren't given notice

3) force the government to get you returned (because even if the court could order that, it doesn't practically matter if the other country doesn't want to return you). 

File a habeas petition in the jurisdiction where I'm detained.  If they ship me off before I can do that then I also claim a violation of the 5th Amendment for lack of due process. My case will go through the courts and, if the courts follow the law (and their most recent opinion), I will be returned.
 

  • Haha 7
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, Ojo Rojo said:

I will be returned.

haha.gif

I mean...I could also have posted that in response to "file a habeas petition" -- because there is no fucking way this Regime will actually provide anyone sufficient notice to allow them to do so.

You are down to one mechanism of defense against being disappeared at the whim of this regime.  The only question is "what caliber mechanism are you gonna have ready?"

Edited by Brisketexan
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
Just now, Ojo Rojo said:

File a habeas petition in the jurisdiction where I'm detained.  If they ship me off before I can do that then I also claim a violation of the 5th Amendment for lack of due process. My case will go through the courts and, if the courts follow the law (and their most recent opinion), I will be returned.
 

I ask this with all due respect, are you mentally disabled?

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Haha 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I'll bet $1,000 sent to this guys family that he doesn't get returned to the US within the next 2 years, if ever.  I truly hope I'm wrong and I'm paying. 

P.S. your take is still stupid. 

You don't have to do anything; that's what a gentleman's bet is. If it turns out I'm wrong I will be the first to accept and admit it.  I will also be the first out on the street with my torch and pitchfork.

Just now, royiv said:

I ask this with all due respect, are you mentally disabled?

Nope.  Just following the directions of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Posted
3 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

File a habeas petition in the jurisdiction where I'm detained.  If they ship me off before I can do that then I also claim a violation of the 5th Amendment for lack of due process. My case will go through the courts and, if the courts follow the law (and their most recent opinion), I will be returned.
 

Is there a name for what's wrong with you?  I don't want to laugh at a guy with an actual condition.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

File a habeas petition in the jurisdiction where I'm detained.  If they ship me off before I can do that then I also claim a violation of the 5th Amendment for lack of due process. My case will go through the courts and, if the courts follow the law (and their most recent opinion), I will be returned.
 

LMAO.  You appear to be somewhat ignorant as to how the old rule of law is being rapidly eroded.  Are you actually a lawyer?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, TexArcher said:

Is there a name for what's wrong with you?  I don't want to laugh at a guy with an actual condition.

Non-histrionicism?

It's sad that a guy with some faith in the system gets insulted and shouted down like this. No dissenting opinions allowed? Sounds familiar. I haven't lost all hope yet, and for good reason.  None of this shit has played out, despite what anyone says. If all of you really believed that the Republic was dead, why haven't you done something?  I mean, something other than lament it on the internet. If the courts abandon the Constitution and bend the knee or if Trump Co. openly violates a final court order, then I'll believe it's over.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
11 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

You don't have to do anything; that's what a gentleman's bet is. If it turns out I'm wrong I will be the first to accept and admit it.  I will also be the first out on the street with my torch and pitchfork.

It isn't a bet unless there is something at stake. Don't worry, I'll be reminding you regularly that you're wrong. 

Posted
1 minute ago, Ojo Rojo said:

If all of you really believed that the Republic was dead, why haven't you done something?  I mean, something other than lament it on the internet.

Because I have an aging parent to take care of.  When that's over, I'm out of here.  I'm going to check out Argentina next month, and next year to Costa Rica, Panama, and Spain.  And I'm learning Spanish.  I will watch the final death rattle of this failed empire from somewhere else.

So, I am doing something.  Not as fast as I'd like, but as fast as I can.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1


×
×
  • Create New...