they are both enemy combatants and domestic enemies aligned and working for the CCP Peoples Liberation Army. we are in the " without a shot fired " phase of their declared Unrestricted Warfare.
Posted on 04/23/2025 5:33:14 AM PDT by MtnClimber
Suppose two presidents exercise the powers of the executive branch. One does so under an explicit statutory grant during a time of declared emergency. The other acts pursuant to administrative discretion in the face of record-breaking border incursions. Now suppose that federal judges enjoin both policies. What happens next?
If the president is a Democrat, the Supreme Court stays the injunction. It instructs the lower courts to stay their hand, warning that questions of immigration policy lie chiefly with the political branches. It urges patience, careful deliberation, and above all, continuity of government operations while the matter is litigated.
If the president is a Republican, the result shifts. The very same Court intervenes preemptively to halt the executive branch entirely, even when the policy in question is grounded in a statute passed by Congress and signed into law over a century ago. That is precisely what has happened under the Alien Enemies Act in 2025.
The inconsistency here is not trivial. It cuts to the core of the rule of law. And the pattern is now unmistakable: a judicial monocle for Republican policies, and a telescope for Democratic ones.
Consider first the case of President Biden's expansive use of parole authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act. That provision allows the executive to grant temporary entry to foreign nationals on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. Yet under Biden, the "case-by-case" requirement was stretched to breaking. Hundreds of thousands of migrants were paroled en masse, ushered into the country through programs like "CHNV" for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans. This administrative sleight of hand turned statutory exceptions into a parallel immigration pipeline.
Federal district courts saw the problem. They ruled that the programs violated statutory limits. One court even enjoined the Department of Homeland Security from continuing the parole effort. And yet, the Supreme Court stepped in, not to uphold the law as written, but to stay the injunction. The rationale? That immigration policy is a prerogative of the executive, and that litigation should proceed without disrupting operations. The Justices, in effect, told the lower courts to avert their eyes while the machinery rolled forward.
Fast forward to President Trump's return to office. In response to national security threats, Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act, a statute enacted and amended by Congress, to detain and remove non-citizens from hostile nations. The statutory text is unambiguous. It authorizes the president, during times an invasion, to order the arrest and deportation of nationals from belligerent countries. It is not an elastic clause. It does not require rulemaking, notice-and-comment, or judicial review beyond habeas corpus.
Nonetheless, when President Trump acted pursuant to this explicit statutory authority, litigation followed in the usual progressive strongholds. Predictably, a district court expressed discomfort. But more remarkably, the Supreme Court stepped in not to shield the executive from premature disruption, but to impose one. In a midnight ruling, it paused enforcement entirely, halting deportations even of individuals who had already been afforded habeas hearings and found removable. This was not a stay of a lower court injunction. It was the Court itself enjoining the president.
Why the reversal? Why does the Court invoke executive primacy to bless parole pipelines but assert judicial supremacy to block wartime removals?
A defender of the Court might suggest factual distinctions. Parole and removal are different contexts, and each case is unique. But this evasion collapses upon closer scrutiny. In both cases, a president acted under color of federal immigration law. In both, litigation ensued. In both, district courts weighed in. But only one president was permitted to continue enforcement during litigation. The other was not. The judicial principle, if one can call it that, is not one of law but of partisanship....SNIP
What will it take to clean things up?
The globalists need to take down America. They are using every tool at their disposal. Fortunately for the globalists, almost half of Americans are indoctrinated, mind numbed drones.
Why can’t Trump’s lawyers cite legal precedence to the USSC per the examples cited in the article?
“What will it take to clean things up?“
Trump asked for the job. We gave it to him. Now he must man up and stand up for the Law. It’s that simple. Whatever it takes.
“What will it take to clean things up?”
Not sure we have the will for that.
The courts, obviously, have a side. It is not America’s and it is not that of justice.
I have come to view the “robe” as a symbol of authority not earned.
(Why can’t Trump’s lawyers cite legal precedence to the USSC per the examples cited in the article?)
They have! The rogue judges are ignoring precedence!
start arresting people for crimes... when another judge “Balks”, arrest another person for crimes. In time, others who have committed crimes will become nervous and tell the judges to back off...
very very simple solution...
Guts, Action, Defiance (especially with “Allies”), Longevity, and Faith.
Unfortunately, good people lack an abundance of those qualities. Good people are too concerned with obedience to the wrong things.
An act of Congress outside of their restroom stalls (as has almost literally been exhibited thus far).
And the other half are cowards.
The ‘tell’ for sure.
Maybe “we” didn’t give anything. Maybe the same power brokers have been in charge since April 9, 1865.
Just maybe everything from then to now is actually part of the plan...
Nah nevermind, that’s too far-fetched considering “we” won...
When Trump Uses Legal Constitutionally Granted Power, Courts Balk,
When Biden Used Constitutionally Illegal, Denied and Usurped Power, They Bowed . . ....BIG difference.
That is easy. You used the word “the” in the above sentence defining “article”. Ever lawyer knows it should have been the word “an”. So now we have a completely different situation which needs to be adjudicated….. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
"When Trump Uses Power, Courts Balk, When Biden Did, They Bowed"
Also consider the following recent thread concerning allegations about Obama, deportations and judges.
75% of deportations under the Obama administration (2009–2017) were nonjudicial removals, meaning they bypassed immigration court hearings and judicial oversight... Did you hear one word about this from the media? (7.20.25)
When you understand that the Democrat Party and the Courts play for the same team, it will all fall in line.
they are both enemy combatants and domestic enemies aligned and working for the CCP Peoples Liberation Army. we are in the " without a shot fired " phase of their declared Unrestricted Warfare.
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.