Posted on 03/28/2025 1:17:27 PM PDT by Macho MAGA Man
Congress best soon take a restraining action against these leftist “judges,” or else vigilante justice will do the job for them.
Trump needs to ignore this subversive piece of garbage and keep doing what he said he would do.
Force this clowns hand.
And have HIS DOJ start opposition research and find dirt on the judge.
After all, the previous administration set the precedent
And - if one American citizen, dies at the hands of one of these scumbag criminals, the judge needs to be arrested and charged as an accessory to murder.
I’d pay good money to watch US marshals drag this bastard out of his bed at 3 AM.
Use Joe Pedo’s Democrazy method. Ignore those black-robed idiots. Biden would blow them off and tell them to shove their “malarky”.
His wife runs a NGO killing babies, his daughter gets legal support for criminals / illegals.
The Judge Boasberg/Ray Epps connection should scare every American…
https://revolver.news/2025/03/the-judge-boasberg-ray-epps-connection-should-scare-every-american/
I agree. We’re at war. Our side should act like it.
Force these bastards to do something stupid, and then hammer them with Lawfare.
We have four years to save this country…
Trump needs to ignore this subversive piece of garbage and keep doing what he said he would do.
_____________________________________________________
Yep, the solution is really more simple than people think. Additionally, he needs to go after judges who are this low, base, and vile. He’ll have a lot of popular support in doing it.
Thought you might like to see this:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.11.0.pdf
Essentially, someone was mistakenly deported to El Salvador / CECOT, the Government admits it was a mistake, and the mistake was due to “administrative error”.
Measure twice, cut once. Mistakes like the above will get some people thinking “You know, maybe Boasberg is right after all”.
Totally unforced error.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69777799/abrego-garcia-v-noem/
Reading the Government’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Request for Emergency Motion for TRO reads like Al Gore’s “no controlling legal authority”. I think the Government has the stronger legal argument - which will come at the expense of the political consequences.
Keystone cops for this to have occurred.
Perhaps an argument can be made that Plaintiff remains in effective U.S. custody, with the U.S. paying El Salvador to babysit. Were they to stop paying, what would happen to the prisoner(s)? A court may find the whole setup is a sham to commit illegal acts and evade U.S. law.
It just seems the wrong is so obvious that a creative court must be able to come up with something. If this is how the administration wants to play it, a court might find a way to strike down the whole system of paying El Salvador to imprison people who were not sentenced to prison here.
A showing and admission that Abrego's removal to El Salvador was an error seems to require the availability of some relief. How they will do that I canny ken.
Dunno if you've seen it, but the Petition to Scotus re the J.G.G. case invites a complaint for false filing. I'm shocked and amazed.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A931/354225/20250328102104004_24a%20Trump%20v.%20JGG.pdf
Petition for SCOTUS writ of cert to appeal DC Circuit Court Opinion of 26 Mar 2025
SCOTUS DOCKET - TRUMP v. J.G.G.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24a931.html
24A931
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A931/354225/20250328102104004_24a%20Trump%20v.%20JGG.pdf
[28 Mar 2025] Donald J. Trump v J.G.G. et al, APPLICATION of Vacate the Order Issued by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and Request for an Immmediate Administrative Stay
[01 Apr 2025] Donald J. Trump v. J.G.G. et al, OPPOSITION to Vacate and Request for an Immediate Administrative Stay
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A931/354573/20250402092551698_JGG_Reply_4.2_Final.pdf
[02 Apr 2025] Donald J. Trump v. J.G.G. et al, REPLY in Support of Application to Vacate the Orders Issued by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
The government’s reply on 4-02-2025 at least, if I’m reading it correctly, demonstrates the issues with the current TRO’s class certification and the universal nature of the current injunction.
A majority of the D.C. Circuit panel held that the district court’s orders, though styled as temporary restraining orders (TROs), are appealable. App., infra, 7a-8a (Henderson, J., concurring); id. at 73a-75a (Walker, J., dissenting). That majority further agreed that the government faces “irretrievable injury” because the district court’s orders enjoining further removals “risk ‘scuttling delicate international negotiations’” during the critical juncture when the orders are in effect. Id. at 8a (Henderson, J., concurring); see id. at 76a (Walker, J., dissenting).
It is the big lie, repeated over and over.
Also, at 14-15 of the Petition:
A majority further agreed that the government “risks irretrievable injury” because the district court’s orders enjoining further removals “risk ‘scuttling delicate international negotiations’ ” during a critical juncture. Id. at 7a (Henderson, J., concurring) (citation omitted);
And at 15 of the Petition:
Judge Henderson voted to deny the stay. See App., infra, 2a-30a. She explained that the district court’s orders are appealable because they risk upending international negotiations and they run against the President. Id. at 7a (citation omitted); see id. at 5a-8a. But she determined that the government had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits. See id. at 9a-25a.
And also at 15 of the Petition:
Judge Henderson also determined that the equities did not support granting a stay. App., infra, 25a-28a. Although she had stated in finding the orders appealable that they “threaten[] truly ‘irretrievable’ harm” by upending “‘delicate international negotiations,’” id. at 7a (citation omitted), she concluded in analyzing the equities that the government does not face irreparable harm, see id. at 25a-27a.
At 35, the Petition states:
Indeed, a majority of the D.C. Circuit panel—Judges Walker and Henderson—agreed that the court’s orders “threaten[] truly ‘irretrievable’ harm” to foreign relations, App., infra, 7a (citation omitted);
And now the really bad news.
At 34 the Petition by committee states:
As Judge Henderson recognized, the government has asserted an irreparable injury, because the orders risk “scuttling delicate international negotiations” and may “forever stymie” those negotiations if they remain in place. App., infra, 7a-8a.
Judge Henderson at 7a-8a:
The government asserts two theories of jurisdiction. We need not decide the first because the second tips this case over the jurisdictional line. The government argues that the TROs risk “scuttling delicate international negotiations” and “may [] forever stymie[]” those negotiations if allowed to remain in place “even temporarily.” Gov’t Br. 9; see also id. at 12 (warning that “once halted, [deportations] have the significant potential of never resuming”). In an accompanying affidavit, the government alleges that it has negotiated time-sensitive agreements with the governments of El Salvador and Venezuela to accept certain Venezuelan nationals subject to the challenged executive order. See Kozak Decl. at 1 ¶ 2. If true, those allegations establish that the government risks irretrievable injury and thus that we may exercise appellate jurisdiction. Granted, the government does not specify why a two-week interlude would dismantle the agreements—it notes only that “foreign interlocutors might change their minds,” id. at 2 ¶ 4 (emphasis added)—but in assessing our jurisdiction, we assume these claims to be true. Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic, 726 F.2d 774, 775 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (per curiam).
Judge Henderson recognized what the government argued. The comment at page 34 shows they knew what Judge Henderson really said. She did not find the argument compelling, much less adopt it. The alleged court majority did not exist.
The false claim was repeated on 4/2.
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.