Posted on 04/19/2025 9:59:09 AM PDT by Jubal Harshaw
The U.S. Supreme Court temporarily blocked the removal of Venezuelan detainees accused under a wartime law of being foreign gang members early Saturday morning, after the ACLU argued the men were at risk of imminent removal to an El Salvadoran prison ....
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Heads they win
Tails we lose
The game is rigged
/sarcasm
Hoo Boy, are you gonna be in trubble on this forum for Noticing.
Honestly? He’d be an improvement
butt..O’Connor ruled against Plyler v. Doe.
Oh Goody, cut ‘n paste Woody is back with his Illegal Alien Supremacy scam.
Alito and Thomas disagree as you copied and pasted from the order but you side with El Supremo Catolico Roberts and his band of Papal Insurrectionists.
All of the SOB’s being deported now are either guilty of “crimes against the public safety” (including Garcia) or definitely chargeable. It’s been standard practice for decades for illegals to be given the choice: leave now or we charge you. You are apparently not from any border area and so are unfamiliar. Note also that 50 U.S.C. § 22 assumes someone is here legally, such as Nisei farmers in the Pajaro Valley, not people chargeable under 18 USC 1325.
So ALL of them are chargeable.
Yeah. They’ll just call him an Undocumented Citizen.
“We are living in a kritocracy”
That we are, and it’s tied at the hip to the other un-elected power silo known as “The Bureaucracy”.
Hoo Boy, are you gonna be in trubble on this forum for Noticing.
______________________________________
Bring it. The last Evangelical to serve on the Supreme Court was Hugo Black. Who retired in 1971.
I mean, would Kid Rock be any worse?
____________________________________
Yes, he would be.
AI:
Kid Rock, whose real name is Robert James Ritchie, is generally considered conservative in his political alignment, particularly as a vocal supporter of the U.S. Republican Party and Donald Trump. However, his views are somewhat nuanced: he identifies philosophically as a libertarian, holding socially liberal positions on issues like abortion and gay marriage, while maintaining conservative views on economics.
Due process absolutely must be defined much more narrowly.
Yeah, I know. In a country that was 99% Protestant at its founding, and is still 49% Protestant, we get exactly one of our people on the “Court”, and even he’s suspect.
Jewish people are 2 1/2 % of the population so that means Kagan being there is a vast overrepresentation. And two black people? They’re still less then 14% of the population, meaning once again, a “group” that is vastly overrepresented. Can’t they just be satisfied being in every commercial?!
They will undoubtedly say “well quotas are not necessary, only capability!”. Which is crap, because they a) are the ones who mandated quotas and b) are typically chosen precisely BECAUSE they are part of some designated Victim group.
And it’s 8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien, not 18 USC.
No apologies. You don’t even know it exists.
so send them to gitmo
“Who reviews their action?“
The EXECUTIVE! He tells the court to get back in their lane.
Bitch McConnell and Trump are not the same party.
McConnell’s party represents the RINOs and Trump’s party represents the American people.
Nope. And you are correct, don’t have to be a lawyer.
Excellent point
Sounds like we have an end around available to us. That thing was not Treaty passed by the Senate:
Did the U.S. Senate validate the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees as a full treaty to which the United States would adhere?
ChatGPT said:
No, the U.S. Senate did not ratify the original 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees as a full treaty. Instead, the United States became a party to the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, which amended and expanded the 1951 Convention.
The 1951 Convention was adopted at a United Nations conference in Geneva, but the United States did not sign it, citing concerns that its provisions were not well adapted to U.S. laws and practices regarding refugees.
Office of the Historian
In 1968, the U.S. Senate ratified the 1967 Protocol by a unanimous vote of 59–0. This Protocol removed the Convention’s temporal and geographic limitations, thereby broadening its applicability and aligning it more closely with U.S. legal frameworks. The Protocol entered into force on November 1, 1968.
Congress.gov | Library of Congress
+3
Congress.gov | Library of Congress
+3
Congress.gov | Library of Congress
+3
Office of the Historian
Therefore, while the U.S. did not ratify the 1951 Convention, it did adhere to the 1967 Protocol, which serves as the operative international instrument governing refugee status in the United States.
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.