Posted on 03/24/2025 9:16:01 AM PDT by Macho MAGA Man
Obama-appointed Judge James Boasberg on Monday rejected the Trump Administration’s request to vacate the temporary restraining order (TRO), but offered to convert it to a preliminary injunction.
Since TROs are typically unappealable, the Trump Administration will be able to appeal if the TRO is converted to an injunction.
The Trump Administration has until March 26 to inform the court.
Boasberg said the deported aliens are entitled to individual hearings!
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
The First Amendment isn’t just for ideas we like.
The law reads, “Pull hard to get your head out of your ass,judge.”
I have a better idea. Hold the hearing on the plane after take off.
Yeah, just don’t tell the judge where the plane is heading.
So based on some of the information flying around. If the judge converts the TRO to an injunction; shouldn’t someone have to put up a bond?
So do I understand correctly from this weekend, is Rand in agreement with the Judge on this?!?
Collect all violent illegals and send them to the judge’s zip code.
It does not matter if you "agree with the judge".
It matters what the law says.
Trump’s lawyers made a mistake in invoking that law. It gives the judges a hook to illegally snag. Trump should have moved them out using the same authority that Biden used to illegally move them in.
“If they entered the USA unlawfully, then the Presidential Authority to deport is still valid.”
Where is that written, and how do you know they entered unlawfully? That’s the whole point of “due process”.
Unfortunatelunly this is a tough one to get by. I wish there was some law somewhere that explicitly allowed that.
Does the law say that, or does it not?
This discussion is retarded. Of course they are out to get Trump. Of course the judge has a conflict of interest and should be recused.
What matters is what US immigration law says about illegal aliens. Not how FR feels about the judge.
Best wait for a statement
I highly doubt that a coherent argument could be made that “within its jurisdiction” means that states have to provide all of the legal protections and due process afforded citizens to anyone who just happens to be passing through (in this case, illegally). I suspect “jurisdiction” in this case doesn’t mean mere presence in a geographic area, but rather applies to those people who are under a state’s jurisdiction, and that most certainly doesn’t include illegals.
If that interpretation were correct, then a foreign tourist, because he was “within (a state’s) jurisdiction” while visiting, would be able to obtain public benefits, vote in elections, etc. Heck, I suppose we would even have to provide due process to every soldier in an invading army before we could expel them. This is a complete misreading of the intent of the 14th Amendment.
The problem is our immigration system is moronic.
If anyone sets a foot in our country and ICE catches them, apparently they can’t just toss them back. They have to hold them have a hearing and provide them with a lawyer paid by us.
That was the whole purpose of the wall, to keep them from setting a foot in our country and starting this idiotic process.
Also the “remain in Mexico” policy served a similar purpose for those seeking refugee asylum, they would be determined whether they qualify BEFORE they entered the country.
Millions of illegals, individual hearings for non citizens is outrageous. Maybe declare a criminal invasion or disregard the rogue judge completely to force a constitutional crisis.
Since there is a conflict between the two (the law and the judge), I’d like to know where our pols stand.
Are you encouraging someone to murder Judge Boasberg?
I believe you are a Hard Left Troll.
Your account has been dead for 20 years.
Suddenly - six weeks ago - you return.
He has that “ewww” factor about him, doesn’t he. I wonder what a peek at his browser history would reveal.
And since we have 8m trials to hold now, thank you Judge Boasberg, many of them will now have to wait literal decades, in that Central American holding cell, before they can have their day in court.
What's that? It violates their 6th Amendment right to a speedy trial? Well then, Judge Boasberg, please inform us on how to run 8m individual trials, where every defense attorney will go for delays and continuances as much as possible, to drag that out? Which do you choose, the 5th or the 6th Amendment? When they are in direct conflict with each other, tell us what shall be done.
To me, it seems like the exigent circumstances clearly mean that an exception has to be made when 8m litigants are all needing their 5th Amendment Due Process ASAP. Ya think???
That is highly interpretable, with tons of examples in which the interpretation was different. This was and is an invasion, aided and abetted by an element of society (the radical left) who hate the America we love.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.