Posted on 09/03/2025 10:23:50 AM PDT by Regulator
A split three-judge panel has rejected President Donald Trump’s appeal that he can activate special deportation rules when the nation is being damaged by mass migration organized by foreign governments.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
The dissenting judge sums it all up accurately:
"Time and time and time again, the Supreme Court has instructed that the President’s declaration of an invasion, insurrection, or incursion is conclusive. Final. And completely beyond the second-guessing powers of unelected federal judges…
For President Trump, however, the rules are different. Today the majority holds that President Trump is just an ordinary civil litigant. His declaration of a predatory incursion is not conclusive. Far from it. Rather, President Trump must plead sufficient facts — as if he were some run-of-the-mill plaintiff in a breach-of-contract case — to convince a federal judge that he is entitled to relief.
That contravenes over 200 years of legal precedent. And it transmogrifies the least-dangerous branch into robed crusaders who get to playact as multitudinous Commanders in Chief."
And it looks like the judges were appointed by Xiden and Shrub Jr.
Rehearing en banc will overturn this. 17 active judges, only 5 appointed by Democrats while 6 were Trump appointees.
Our problem is the “representative” wing of our government has no interest in governing. They have ceded almost all power to the executive and judicial branches because actually governing could risk being thrown out of the club. Had the people actual representation congress would be de-funding or dismantling courts that overstep their bounds. They could also temper some of Trumps actions since nobody bats 1.000. The purchase of Intel comes to mind.
There is no way 435 house members can effectively represent 340,000,000 American citizens. The Founders had no intention of there being such a lopsided representation within the people's house. It is broken and needs to be returned to original intent. And yes, I know full well what that would mean as far as the number of congressmen and, no, it isn't impossible or unmanageable to do so.
You’re right about the lack of representation.
The population at the time of the Revolution was about 3.9M, so back then, there was a Congressman for about every 9-10K people. We’re two orders of magnitude off that now.
But there are not 340M American citizens. More like 250M; with about 40M illegals and 60M visa holders of various stripes, the proportion of actual Citizens of the United States to the total population is at its lowest point ever.
This after the government trash lecturing us that we were “overpopulated” for 30 years starting in 1970. Meanwhile they were importing tens of millions of replacements.
Democracy: the God that Failed, as Hans Hoppe put it.
That’s an interesting idea. If congress were expanded in number an individual seat would not be anywhere near as lucrative for the corrupt and legislators would be more responsive and beholden if their constituencies shrank. Flip side is that it is already difficult to herd the current 535 cats. Expanding might lead to worse stasis than we have now.
USSC issues an injection as soon as the appeal hit’s Alito’s desk.
Even the 5th en banc could overthrow shortly.
The dems are desparate. They know they cant cheat enough in the next election without all the illegal votes.
5th Circuit dissent (Oldham) basically wrote the grounds for the appeal, and basis for overturning.
From the dissent:
"Time and time and time again, the Supreme Court has instructed that the President’s declaration of an invasion, insurrection, or incursion is conclusive. Final. And completely beyond the second-guessing powers of unelected federal judges. That rule does not only apply to Presidents. It also applies to Governors. In one famous case from the 1930s, for example, the Governor of Texas declared an “insurrection” because some oil barons in East Texas were pumping too much crude. Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378, 387 (1932). It seems patently absurd to call profit-maximizing business practices an “insurrection.” But that’s irrelevant. The Supreme Court unanimously held: “By virtue of his duty to ‘cause the laws to be faithfully executed,’ the executive is appropriately vested with the discretion to determine whether an exigency requiring military aid for that purpose has arisen. His decision to that effect is conclusive.” Id. at 399 (emphasis added)."
“The war power is the war power.” Presidents actions under Title 50 for protecting the nation, determine the nature of the threat, and response to that threat, are non-justiciable, per SCOTUS. The case should have dismissed for lack of standing and jurisdiction. Courts are not competent to hear cases on AEA.
Consider this, as well: The declaration of enemy alien status of TdA makes them “enemies”. That’s the trigger word for treasonous acts.
Here is the link to the opinion and dissent.
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-10534-CV1.pdf
Yeah. The famous oil proration “insurrection” I thought was hilarious. Only learned about it recently. My immediate thought was...Sterling declared an insurrection over some guys pumping too much black goo outta their own property, and Trump gets castigated for declaring it over actual violent attacks?!
Ridiculous
Traitor Roberts nurtures ‘Rat lower Judges.
Probably has no shortage of back-channel communications for stratergy.
Ignore them. Let them enforce it.
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.