Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

You two keep cheering on your ever-diminishing, temporary wins right up until there's no more for you to cheer.

We as a country are moving on from you.

You're welcome to come along with us. Otherwise, you're stuck in the past, in a world that no longer exists.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

You two keep cheering on your ever-diminishing, temporary wins right up until there's no more for you to cheer.

We as a country are moving on from you.

You're welcome to come along with us. Otherwise, you're stuck in the past, in a world that no longer exists.

---

---

Trump says illegals who are working can stay. Oops...

T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

You two keep cheering on your ever-diminishing, temporary wins right up until there's no more for you to cheer.

We as a country are moving on from you.

You're welcome to come along with us. Otherwise, you're stuck in the past, in a world that no longer exists.

---

---

Trump says illegals who are working can stay. Oops...

T

---

You haven't believed a single word that has come out of Trump's mouth in 10 years.

Why start now?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

You two keep cheering on your ever-diminishing, temporary wins right up until there's no more for you to cheer.

We as a country are moving on from you.

You're welcome to come along with us. Otherwise, you're stuck in the past, in a world that no longer exists.

---

---

Trump says illegals who are working can stay. Oops...

T

---

You haven't believed a single word that has come out of Trump's mouth in 10 years.

Why start now?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Until whatever your clickbait of the day gets overturned when it goes to a real court.

Just like every other case.

Loser.

n

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Until whatever your clickbait of the day gets overturned when it goes to a real court.

Just like every other case.

Loser.

n

---

---

You really must not know how stupid you look when you post shit completely ignoring the facts. Trump in May, lost 96% of his trials. I don't know what his loss rate is for June; we will see.

T

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court made it easier Monday for the Trump administration to deport convicted criminals to "third countries" to which they have no previous connection.

In a brief unsigned order that did not explain its reasoning, the court put on hold a federal judge's ruling that said those affected nationwide should have a "meaningful opportunity" to bring claims that they would be at risk of torture, persecution or death if they were sent to countries the administration has made deals with to receive deported immigrants.

As a result, the administration will be able to try to quickly remove immigrants to such third countries, including South Sudan. Affected immigrants can still attempt to bring individual claims.

"The ramifications of the Supreme Court’s order will be horrifying; it strips away critical due process protections that have been protecting our class members from torture and death,” said Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, one of the groups that brought the legal challenge.

Tricia McLaughlin, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, said in a statement that the decision was a "victory for the safety and security of the American people." She also criticized the Biden administration, saying its immigration policies allowed too many migrants into the country.

"DHS can now execute its lawful authority and remove illegal aliens to a country willing to accept them," McLaughlin said. “Fire up the deportation planes.”

The three liberal justices on the conservative-majority court all dissented.

Follow live politics coverage here

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a dissenting opinion that the court had stepped in "to grant the government emergency relief from an order it has repeatedly defied."

She said the court was "rewarding lawlessness" by allowing the Trump administration to violate immigrants' due process rights.

The fact that "thousands will suffer violence in far-flung locales" is less important to the conservative majority than the "remote possibility" that the judge had exceeded his authority, Sotomayor said.

Massachusetts-based U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, who has come under heavy fire from MAGA world for his decisions in the case, later clarified that people should have at least 10 days to bring a claim.

As Sotomayor referred to, Murphy recently said the administration had violated his previous order by flying eight migrants to South Sudan. The men are being held in a U.S. facility in Djibouti while the litigation continues.

The unnamed plaintiffs, Murphy wrote in his original April decision, are merely seeking "an opportunity to explain why such a deportation will likely result in their persecution, torture and/or death."

All those potentially affected by the litigation are already subject to deportation but cannot be sent to their countries of origin. Murphy's rulings, like other cases that have arisen as a result of the Trump administration's hard-line immigration policy, focus solely on what legal process they receive before they can be deported.

His order required detainees to be given notice if the government intends to send them to entirely different countries, to their countries of origin or to alternative countries that the government had indicated they could be sent to.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer had complained in a court filing that Murphy's decisions imposed an "onerous set of procedures" that encroached on the president's power to conduct foreign policy.

He said the government wishes to deport "some of the worst of the worst," which is why their home countries are "often unwilling to take them back."

Persuading third countries to accept criminally convicted immigrants in particular "requires sensitive diplomacy, which involves negotiations and the balancing of other foreign policy interests," he added.

Lawyers for the four lead plaintiffs, identified by their initials, said in court papers that Murphy's injunction merely "provides a basic measure of fairness" to ensure the government is following the law. The plaintiffs identified in the lawsuit are from Cuba, Honduras, Ecuador and Guatemala.

Under immigration law, the government can deport people to third countries only if it is “impracticable, inadvisable, or impossible” to send them either to their home countries or previously designated alternative countries, the plaintiffs’ lawyers added.

The Guatemalan plaintiff, identified as O.C.G., is a gay man who the plaintiffs say was quickly deported to Mexico this year even though it was not previously designated as a country he could be sent to. O.C.G. had said that was kidnapped and raped in Mexico last year.

The Mexican government sent him to Guatemala, where he was, until recently, in hiding.

On June 4, the Trump administration returned him to the United States.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Was gonna post those myself.

I love the irony of putting them in "Trunp [sic] loses again in Court".

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Was gonna post those myself.

I love the irony of putting them in "Trunp [sic] loses again in Court".


-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal."- Henry Kissinger

AMERICANS SUPPORT AMERICA

---

Quote:

---

The Supreme Court on Friday backed President Donald Trump’s request to scale back lower-court orders that have for months blocked the administration’s ban on automatic citizenship for the U.S.-born babies of undocumented immigrants and foreign visitors, ruling that those nationwide injunctions went too far.

The 6-3 decision, with the liberal justices dissenting, largely strips federal judges of a powerful tool they have used to temporarily halt many of Trump’s policies nationwide while litigation is pending. It will reshape the early stages of the judicial process when it comes to challenging executive action.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Supreme Court sides with Maryland parents who objected to LGBTQ books in schools

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/supreme-court-s
ides-with-montgomery-county-parents-who-objected-to-lgbtq-books-in-schools/6310090/

--------------------------------------------------

"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon

---

Quote:

---

Turley: The Chilling Jurisprudence Of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson

For most citizens, the release of Supreme Court opinions is about as exciting as watching paint dry, particularly in a case dealing with the limits of district courts in issuing universal injunctions.

Yet Friday’s Trump v. CASA case included a virtual slugfest between Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

The decision was one of the biggest of the term. The Court moved to free the Administration from an onslaught of orders from district judges seeking to block the President in areas ranging from the downsizing of government to immigration.

However, it was the departure of the normally staid court analysis that attracted the most attention.

The tenor of Jackson’s language shocked not just many court watchers, but her colleagues.

It seemed ripped from the signs carried just a couple of weeks earlier in the “No Kings” protests.

... and an attempted assassination of Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

There was also a change in the tenor of the exchanges in oral argument and opinions between the justices.

Recently, during the argument over the use of national injunctions in May, Chief Justice John Roberts was clearly fed up with Justice Sotomayor interrupting government counsel with pointed questions and commentary, finally asking Sotomayor, “Will you please let us hear his answer?”

This hyperbole seemed to border on hysteria in the Jackson dissent. The most junior justice effectively accused her colleagues of being toadies for tyranny.

It proved too much for the majority, which pushed back on the overwrought rhetoric.

While the language may seem understated in comparison to what we regularly hear in Congress, it was the equivalent of a virtual cage match for the Court.

Some of us have argued that our system is working just as designed, particularly as these issues work through the courts. The courts have ruled for and against this Administration as they struggle with the difficult lines of authority between the branches.

Liberals who claim “democracy is dying” seem to view democracy as getting what you want when you want it.

It was, therefore, distressing to see Jackson picking up on the “No Kings” theme, warning about drifting toward “a rule-of-kings governing system”

She said that limiting the power of individual judges to freeze the entire federal government was “enabling our collective demise. At the very least, I lament that the majority is so caught up in minutiae of the Government’s self-serving, finger-pointing arguments that it misses the plot.”

The “minutiae” dismissed by Jackson bhappen to be the statutory and constitutional authority of federal courts. It is the minutiae that distinguish the rule of law from mere judicial impulse.

Justice Barrett clearly had had enough with the self-aggrandizing rhetoric. She delivered a haymaker in writing that “JUSTICE JACKSON would do well to heed her own admonition: “[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.” Ibid. That goes for judges too.”

She added, “We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”

In other words, the danger to democracy is found in judges acting like kings. Barrett explained to her three liberal colleagues that “when a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.”

---