Trump administration deports Venezuelans despite court order, says judge has no authority

You can't seriously think this is a dictatorship.

 

You guys sure are mad about these criminal illegal aliens being deported.

So can the judge make a law that someone in Africa has to obey?

Their petty little authority doesn't dictate international airspace.

Why don't you guys ever cheer for America and Americans for a change?

 

You said that his application of the act can never be subject to review by anyone else, dude. Talk to the other Lil Mike about it.

 

Man, if you think that in anyway translates into "Trump can do whatever he wants" that explains a lot.

Although...it seems to be that there used to be a time when you were actually capable of making arguments. Did Trump just break you or is there something else going on?

 

As long as he says it is due to this act . . . yes. That's what it means. You haven't thought about this.

I understand why you are too scared to present any kind of actual argument or rebuttal and have to cower behind garbage like this.

 

You really seem to be doubling down on the this:

 

Show me an apples to apples comparison of 'dems doing it', and you might have a point, but a guy fighting with ISIS on foreign soil is not an apples to apples comparison, especially after the aclu sued and lost in court.

 

You’ve now pivoted to “predatory incursion,” as if slapping a new label on it makes it fit within the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The Act applies exclusively to citizens or subjects of a declared enemy nation--not loose-knit, criminal organizations running operations across borders. You can dress up Tren de Aragua in all the scary terminology you like, but it does not transform them into a foreign nation engaged in war with the United States.

If your argument were correct, the president could declare any loosely connected criminal entity an "incursion force" and start deporting people en masse with no due process. By your logic, the Sinaloa Cartel, the Russian mafia, or even an especially unruly biker gang could suddenly be used as pretext for unilateral presidential power to expel whomever he pleases. That is not how law works. But you know that--you just don’t care.

No, it didn't. Why? Because it gives a condition. What is the condition?

Declared war, Who declares war? Congress. Did congress declare here? No.

Ludecke v. Watkins-- The ruling upheld the executive’s ability to detain enemy aliens under the Alien Enemies Act during a period of war--but it did not permanently strip the courts of their ability to review applications of the law.
The ruling stated that courts could not second-guess the executive's determination of "hostile allegiance" during a time of declared war. But here’s the thing, Lil Mike: we are not at war.

Furthermore, even if you misconstrue Ludecke to mean "no judicial review ever," as you so desperately wish, you’re ignoring the most basic principle of constitutional law: No Supreme Court ruling is permanently immune from reconsideration. The Court overturns precedent when it deems it necessary. The idea that no judge, anywhere, at any level, can challenge an executive action because Ludecke once ruled on a different application of the law in a wartime context is both laughable and legally illiterate.

So now you backpedal, claiming that you never said judicial review was tyranny. No, you merely implied that courts stopping a president from unilaterally wielding powers beyond the scope of the law is an affront to democracy. You are throwing a tantrum because a judge dared to review an executive action that is not clearly authorized by law, and when that judicial check gets in the way of your preferred strongman approach, you scream about unelected judges stomping on democracy.

The entire point of the judiciary is to interpret the law, not to rubber-stamp the executive’s excesses. If a president could wave his hand, invoke an old law beyond its intended scope, and deport whomever he pleases without judicial recourse, that wouldn’t be democracy--it would be the end of it.

Appeal. Why is that so hard to understand?

Now you claim judicial review itself is "misbehavior on the bench" if it doesn't align with your preferred outcome. You ask what the remedy is if the judiciary oversteps--but what you really mean is: what can we do when the courts don’t bend to our authoritarian impulses?

Here’s a newsflash, Lil Mike: the proper remedy is the appellate process. If you believe a lower court has erred, you appeal. If you believe the Supreme Court has erred, you seek to have the precedent revisited through future cases, legislation, or constitutional amendment. But you don’t start impeachment proceedings every time a judge rules against your preferred dictator du jour.

Your insistence that a judge who dares challenge presidential power must be impeached is nothing more than a toddler’s fantasy of unchecked executive authority. It is precisely the logic of despots throughout history--"remove all constraints on power and call it democracy."

So, let's review:

• Tren de Aragua is not a nation, and the Alien Enemies Act does not apply.
• Ludecke does not create a judicial-free zone
• Judicial review is not authoritarianism--it is a safeguard against it.
• Impeaching judges for ruling against your preferred executive action is the playbook of would-be tyrants, not constitutionalists.

 

About time, how are governments supposed to govern effectively when they are constantly being second guessed unelected judges who interpret the law at their whim?

 

Let us examine your disinformation and dishonest debate strategy. These Americans were not on a battlefield. They were at home, asleep in their beds, and we assassinated them along with their innocent children. But it's fun to see you believe due process doesn't exist for Americans if they're not on American soil. So if Trump took these terrorists out of America and assassinated them you'd apparently be okay with it because YOU can't find a Supreme Court case that says you can't assassinate Americans and their children without due process, let alone illegal aliens.

 

You are "reviewing" all the things I already responded to, by explicitly ignoring the points I made. So I don't know how to continue this argument if you are just going to ignore my arguments. Given your legal prediction history, you and your AI are not where I would bet however.

 

Case 1:25-cv-00766-JEB Document 1 Filed 03/15/25 (Saturday)
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436.1.0_2.pdf
this judge was so obsessed he came in to court on a Saturday to do court business

This judge does not have jurisdiction over the entire country... he does not have "standing" (remember that word from election days) over any other state... none of the lower court judges do..

 

I did not think it was. But what you described is.

 

What evidence do you have that they are all criminal illegal aliens?

 

You can't seriously think trump isn't working on marginalizing both Congress and the judiciary in order to centralize power for himself. DOGE is trying to usurp Congress's power of the purse while the DoJ makes ludicrous claims about the limits of judicial authority.

 

Oh I'm sure they're just random American citizens...
The idea is to deport the criminals first but if some illegal aliens who are not criminals get caught up in the dragnet... You should have came here legally to begin with instead of illegally.

 

Trump said so. You're actually asking for due process in Trump's Nazi Amerika? Behave yourself or you and your family could be on a plane headed for El Salvador just for the crime of asking that question.

In court documents, an official with Immigration and Customs Enforcement said Monday that many of those who were removed from the United States under the Alien Enemies Act “do not have criminal records in the United States.”

The official said that “the lack of specific information about each individual actually highlights the risk they pose” and that the government does not have a “complete profile” of alleged gang members who were deported to El Salvador.

Yamarte’s family said that he had an open asylum case with a hearing set for July and that he does not have a criminal record and was not connected to Tren de Aragua.

A check of criminal records in the city of Irving, Dallas County and the state of Texas, as well as federal court records, by NBC News did not find any charges or convictions for Yamarte. The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to a request for more information on whether he had a criminal background.

https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/new...ers-deported-venezuelans-el-salvador/4138529/

 

So you have no such evidence to point to? Other than your dear leader merely saying so? I would not be comfortable with that happening in my country.

Deporting is one thing. I agree with you that people should in most cases be deported if not in legally. Sending to a prison in El Salvador is another thing. If some are merely there illegally but not violent criminals or gang members, you are comfortable sending them to a notorious prison in El Salvador? All without any court appearance? I would not be ok with that. I would find it very alarming.

 

Biden ignored a court order?

 

Fake news. Biden did not defy the courts.

 

You have any evidence they don't have any sort of court hearing in El Salvador?

 

No. But the onus should be on Trump to show that they are what he is saying they are, not on me, them or anyone else to prove they are not. That's why the courts should probably be involved.

 

Not yet.

 

No, we just want to make sure due process is being followed.

Strawman galore.

Look up 'due process'. Study it, understand it's importance.

You see, FatBack, without it, you have a banana republic.

 

You decry "disinformation and dishonest debate strategy," yet your own argument is a masterclass in both.

First, let's dissect your dramatic portrayal: "These Americans were not on a battlefield. They were at home, asleep in their beds, and we assassinated them along with their innocent children." This vivid imagery might tug at heartstrings, but it conveniently sidesteps critical facts. Anwar al-Awlaki, the American citizen in question, was not merely "at home"--he was a senior operative of Al-Qaeda, actively engaged in plotting attacks against the United States. His targeting was not a whimsical decision but the result of extensive intelligence and legal scrutiny.

Now, to the crux of your argument: the alleged equivalence between a targeted military action against a declared enemy combatant and the Trump administration's defiance of a federal court order to deport alleged gang members without due process. This comparison is as flawed as it is disingenuous.

In the case of al-Awlaki, the Obama administration navigated uncharted legal waters, grappling with the complexities of a U.S. citizen aligning with a foreign terrorist organization. The decision, controversial as it was, occurred within the context of armed conflict authorized by Congress under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). It was not a dismissal of due process but an application of the laws of war to an unprecedented situation.

Contrast this with the Trump administration's actions: invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798--a statute designed for wartime scenarios involving foreign nations--to deport alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. These individuals were apprehended on U.S. soil and were entitled to the due process protections afforded by the Constitution. A federal judge, recognizing the potential overreach, issued an order temporarily halting the deportations to ensure these individuals received their legal rights. The administration's decision to proceed with the deportations, despite the court's directive, was a blatant disregard for the rule of law and the separation of powers.

Your attempt to conflate these two distinct scenarios is a textbook example of false equivalence. The targeted killing of a high-ranking terrorist actively engaged in hostilities against the U.S. is not analogous to the wholesale deportation of individuals without judicial review, in direct violation of a court order. One involves the execution of wartime powers against an enemy combatant; the other, a domestic action undermining constitutional safeguards.

Moreover, your insinuation that I condone extrajudicial actions based on geography is a straw man argument unworthy of serious discourse. The principles of due process are foundational to our legal system, irrespective of the individual's location. However, the application of these principles varies significantly between a battlefield engagement and a domestic law enforcement action.

So, if you wish to critique the complexities of national security decisions, by all means, let's engage in that discussion. But to use such critiques as a smokescreen to justify or deflect from clear violations of due process in domestic affairs is both intellectually dishonest and legally untenable.

IOW, right back atcha, Cornpop.