—> US Sends Immigrants to Salvadoran Prison | DC Circuit upholds TRO

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 453
  • Views: 8K
  • Politics 


“… The administration carefully orchestrated the removals so as it make it nearly impossible for attorneys to notice and sue, and for courts to intervene to slow down or halt the deportations. Once it became clear that Trump was invoking the Alien Enemies Act to remove more than one hundred Venezuelans without due process, the deportations were already underway: detainees had been prepositioned to depart, with many lawyers unaware or unable to contact their clients. Deportees were over the Gulf of Mexico by the time the court issued its order to freeze deportations, on their way to an El Salvadorian work camp. …”

——
As an aside, I side-eyed Noem for using “El Salvadorian” instead of “Salvadoran” but here it is again, so I guess that is accepted nomenclature— I stand corrected.
 
Dershowitz quote
“Ultimately, the case will be decided on the merits, and eventually I think it will probably get to the United States Supreme Court. I think the power of the president to order deportation with due process will be upheld,” Dershowitz said.

“So, my prediction is a divided one. Substantively, the power of the president will be upheld,” Dershowitz said. “Procedurally, they’ll have to get due process and the remaining question is: Do federal courts have the power to enforce due process against the wishes of the executive, or is this purely an executive function? The Congress could pass a law removing jurisdiction from the federal district court on issues like this, but they haven’t.”
 
A friend is moving to Canada, in direct response to this admin. Friend’s partner was born in Canada, is half Bolivian, and holds dual US/CA citizenship. Their kids are quite tan.

The partner was suppose to travel to CA this week to select an apartment, but they scrapped the idea out of fear the partner would get detained and/or disappeared. They’re still leaving, post haste, but feel they can’t rely on return trips, indefinitely.
 
mpaer said:
Dershowitz quote
“Ultimately, the case will be decided on the merits, and eventually I think it will probably get to the United States Supreme Court. I think the power of the president to order deportation with due process will be upheld,” Dershowitz said.

“So, my prediction is a divided one. Substantively, the power of the president will be upheld,” Dershowitz said. “Procedurally, they’ll have to get due process and the remaining question is: Do federal courts have the power to enforce due process against the wishes of the executive, or is this purely an executive function? The Congress could pass a law removing jurisdiction from the federal district court on issues like this, but they haven’t.”
Click to expand...
Dersh's well past his peak. I don't even understand what he means by "substantively" here. The power to declare an invasion? I very much doubt the Supreme court will even reach that question. The present case is coming as a challenge to deportation. It might be joined with one challenging detention (I know, this sounds like a meaningless distinction but it's important for jurisdictional issues and class certification), but either way, if they find a procedural defect, they will rule on that basis.

They would only reach the "substance" of the AEA proclamation (or the constitutionality of its use) if they upheld the deprivation of due process. In that case, yes, the court would almost certainly uphold the substance -- it would be a Trump v. US style capitulation and we're fucked anyway. But I would expect the district court to enter a full injunction after trial, the appeals court to affirm, and then it goes to the Supremes.

I'd put even money on the Supremes even refusing to hear about the "substantive" AEA issues. They would probably certify any appeal as presenting the question, "is due process required if the president invokes AEA."
 
Healing said:
The partner was suppose to travel to CA this week to select an apartment, but they scrapped the idea out of fear the partner would get detained and/or disappeared. They’re still leaving, post haste, but feel they can’t rely on return trips, indefinitely.
Click to expand...
This is smart. Sad, but smart. The border has become a zone of stochastic detention.
 
Healing said:
A friend is moving to Canada, in direct response to this admin. Friend’s partner was born in Canada, is half Bolivian, and holds dual US/CA citizenship. Their kids are quite tan.

The partner was suppose to travel to CA this week to select an apartment, but they scrapped the idea out of fear the partner would get detained and/or disappeared. They’re still leaving, post haste, but feel they can’t rely on return trips, indefinitely.
Click to expand...

Don't blame them one bit. If I could get my wife to move, my ass would have been gone on November 6th 2024
 
nycfan said:


Donald Trump GIF by INTO ACTION
Click to expand...

Thing is, it doesn't really matter if it's classified. The Espionage Act would clearly cover this conduct, and the Espionage Act don't give a fuck about classified. I give you 18 USC 793(f):

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

3 elements to the crime by my eyeball, and all are clearly satisfied here.
 
4thgenheel said:
they'll start doing this shit to actual citizens next, these are test runs.

we've gone full fascism.
Click to expand...
That's what the courts are saying and that's why it's an easy call to block it.

If this is a test run, they did it about as well as the Yemeni war plans. If you're going to sell someone on your plan, you've got to make sure the plan is flawless, or mostly flawless. You can't be sending a lot of people who clearly don't even meet the stated criteria, and then come back and be like, "trust us."

Maybe they are planning on defying the courts, but they haven't acted like it so far. The defiance has been, characteristically for Trump of course, more of a tantrum than actual defiance. It's making fun of the teacher before obeying the rules. They appear to be trying to win these cases, in my view. It's also possible to interpret their actions as trying to lose, but I think that speaks more to the lawyering and the impossibility of defending this shit. Like the state secrets privilege -- it's preposterous, but what else are you going to argue? That due process isn't in the constitution?
 
superrific said:
That's what the courts are saying and that's why it's an easy call to block it.

If this is a test run, they did it about as well as the Yemeni war plans. If you're going to sell someone on your plan, you've got to make sure the plan is flawless, or mostly flawless. You can't be sending a lot of people who clearly don't even meet the stated criteria, and then come back and be like, "trust us."

Maybe they are planning on defying the courts, but they haven't acted like it so far. The defiance has been, characteristically for Trump of course, more of a tantrum than actual defiance. It's making fun of the teacher before obeying the rules. They appear to be trying to win these cases, in my view. It's also possible to interpret their actions as trying to lose, but I think that speaks more to the lawyering and the impossibility of defending this shit. Like the state secrets privilege -- it's preposterous, but what else are you going to argue? That due process isn't in the constitution?
Click to expand...
"U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani blocked the Trump administration in a three-page order Tuesday from moving Ozturk outside the District of Massachusetts without providing notice."

did they move her to louisiana before this happened?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top