Quote:

---

But the Biden-appointed judge said state officials’ arguments that the state was being punished or unfairly treated by the federal government were insufficient to justify blocking the surge altogether. And in a 30-page opinion, the judge said she was “particularly reluctant to take a side in the debate about the purpose behind Operation Metro Surge.”

The surge has involved about 3,000 federal officers, a size roughly triple that of the local police forces in Minneapolis and St. Paul. However, Menendez said it was difficult to assess how large or onerous a federal law enforcement presence could be before it amounted to an unconstitutional intrusion on state authority.

“There is no clear way for the Court to determine at what point Defendants’ alleged unlawful actions…becomes (sic) so problematic that they amount to unconstitutional coercion and an infringement on Minnesota’s state sovereignty,” she wrote, later adding that there is “no precedent for a court to micromanage such decisions.”

Menendez said her decision was strongly influenced by a federal appeals court’s ruling last week that blocked an order she issued reining in the tactics Homeland Security officials could use against peaceful protesters opposing the federal operation. She noted that the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals lifted her order in that separate lawsuit even though it was much more limited than the sweeping relief the state and cities sought.

“If that injunction went too far, then the one at issue here—halting the entire operation—certainly would,” the judge said in her Saturday ruling.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

It's why I'm going to just laugh at you all year long while you bring up any polling numbers or this or that. Which will be even funnier if in the meantime the economy improves and you're forced to stop talking about polling numbers alltogether.

Not only is the entire system of voting going to look a LOT different going forward, but mark my words we will also have an emergency Census done before the 2028 election so many of the new rules are applied before what could amount to the most important election in the history of America.

Be Evil. Be a dick.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:
Jack, you keep saying I have no idea what is about to happen, but you never say what that is. Why, because you're full of shit.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

. . . the census rules are changed to not include illegals (which will result in net losses upward of another -30 Democrat +30 Republican seats in June)

Be Evil. Be a dick.

---

Quote:

---

Gavel-wielding partisans are losing the power to grant special privileges to noncitizens. The 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals last week demolished the fanciful theories that lower-court magistrates have come up with to treat people who broke into the country better than Americans.

Within Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi and anywhere else courts are persuaded, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents will no longer have to sit back and watch as the villains they captured are set free in a matter of hours after left-wing groups that hate law, order and borders post bail.

Attorney General Pam Bondi called the first-of-its-kind decision “a significant blow against activist judges who have been undermining our efforts to make America safe again at every turn.”

The three-judge panel reached this conclusion by reasoning that when the federal act says, “Any alien subject to the procedures under this clause shall be detained pending a final determination … until removed,” it means illegal aliens shall be detained until they are removed.

Democratic-appointed district court judges take creative liberty in interpreting the relevant provisions to stand congressional intent on its head. Their goal is to bail out as many illegal aliens as they can, while groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union lodge appeals at each stage to drag out proceedings and ensure justice is never accomplished.

Writing for the 5th Circuit panel, Judge Edith H. Jones points out that the federal objective is to handle immigration cases differently. “The text says what it says, regardless of the decisions of prior Administrations,” she concluded. “Years of consistent practice cannot vindicate an interpretation that is inconsistent with a statute’s plain text.”

Granting full “due process” rights to foreign intruders can have deadly consequences for the rest of society. California’s sanctuary policies, for instance, will eventually let loose 33,179 criminals who don’t belong in this nation, including 399 murderers, 3,171 burglars and 1,293 sexual predators.

Liberals lie about the impact these freed crooks can have on the public good. Last week, a Boston jury found Lina Maria Orovio-Hernandez, 59, guilty of using a stolen identity to vote in the 2024 election — and probably not for President Trump. Orovio-Hernandez sneaked into the country from Colombia and is not entitled to stay here, yet she also scammed $400,000 in Social Security, housing and food stamp benefits.

Foreigners aren’t the only ones cashing in. Immigration lawyers pull in big money as they file endless motions for an ever-expanding client base. Liberal billionaires are happy to reward anyone who thwarts deportations. In the past decade, the Board of Immigration Appeals caseload skyrocketed from 37,000 to more than 200,000.

Mr. Trump is done playing these games.

His One Big Beautiful Bill Act imposes a mandatory $1,000 fee on each immigration case and shortens the deadline for filing complaints from 30 days to 10. Effective March 6, the administration’s default position will be to deny all challenges unless a majority of immigration board members vote to hear the case.

“And such dismissals will occur quickly — within 15 days of filing the appeal — allowing aliens to seek Federal court review expeditiously, rather than potentially waiting for years for a Board decision that in the vast majority of cases would affirm the underlying Immigration Judge decision,” the new Justice Department regulation explains.

These developments will go a long way toward restoring a “due process” that returns noncitizen offenders to their home countries as swiftly as possible.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:
Supreme Court says no to Trumps tariffs!!! Oh no, I was right again and again, Jacks is wrong.

T

---

Quote:

---

The Trump tariffs are dead. Long live the Trump tariffs?

This morning, in a 6–3 opinion, the Supreme Court struck down the bulk of the president’s sweeping global tariffs. The majority ruled that the law Donald Trump had used to carry out most of his trade policies does not, in fact, allow the president to impose tariffs at all. This is a major setback for Trump’s trade agenda, but it is far from a fatal one. The president has several alternatives that he can use to reconstruct his tariff regime, and his administration has spent months putting a plan in place to do so. Those efforts, too, may eventually be challenged in court, but fully litigating them would take years. Unless the president suddenly has a change of heart, Trump’s tariff adventure is far from over.

The case before the court centered on a 1977 law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act or IEEPA, which authorizes the president to “regulate” the importation of goods in a national emergency that arises from an “unusual and extraordinary threat.” The Trump administration had interpreted this vague statute, which had never been used to justify tariffs, to mean that the president can issue tariffs of whatever kind he wants, whenever he wants, on any country he wants, so long as he says an emergency exists, all without getting congressional approval. IEEPA was the basis of Trump’s tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China last February, the “reciprocal” tariffs he levied on almost every country in the world on Liberation Day, and most of the one-off tariffs he has issued or threatened to impose on trade partners such as Brazil, India, and, more recently, Europe and Canada. (Industry-specific tariffs on goods like steel and aluminum have been imposed under separate, more legally sound authorities, and are not affected by the ruling.)

Last year, the lower courts ruled that although IEEPA might allow some tariffs, it certainly didn’t allow these tariffs—many of which were set at arbitrary levels, on an arbitrary set of countries, using justifications that could hardly be thought of as a true national emergency (such as the existence of a trade deficit or an imaginary surge of fentanyl shipments from Canada). The Supreme Court went even further. “We hold that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs,” Chief Justice John Roberts declared.

But even as it insisted that the law was on its side, the administration spent much of the past year preparing a backup plan to rebuild Trump’s tariff wall in case the courts ruled against them. Because, as the president observed on Truth Social a few hours after the ruling, “the Supreme Court did not overrule TARIFFS, they merely overruled a particular use of IEEPA TARIFFS.”

According to top Trump-administration officials such as National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, the administration’s plan draws on two main authorities. The first is Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. That law allows the president to levy tariffs of up to 15 percent on any country for up to 150 days to address “large and serious balance-of-payment deficits,” a term that refers to more money leaving the country than coming into it. After the initial window, the tariff must be reauthorized by Congress. According to estimates by Clark Packard and Stan Vueger, trade experts at the Cato Institute and the American Enterprise Institute, respectively, this technique alone would allow Trump to reinstate 70 percent of the tariff revenue struck down by the Supreme Court. This would be a temporary solution, and overbroad use of Section 122 could also be invalidated by the courts. It would most likely be intended only as a stopgap measure to buy time while the administration begins work on the second part of its plan.

Phase two would draw on Section 301 of the same law. Section 301 allows a presidential administration to levy essentially permanent tariffs of any kind on any country in response to “unfair” trade practices. The catch is that the tariffs can only come into effect after the federal government has navigated several layers of bureaucratic process, including launching an official investigation into the unfair practices of the country in question, compiling a report detailing those practices, and offering a public notice-and-comment period. That’s where the 150 days comes in. The administration could use that time to launch investigations into the U.S.’s major trading partners so that once the five months are expired, the paperwork is already in place to switch to indefinite tariffs under Section 301. This authority rests on stronger constitutional grounds. The first Trump administration and the Biden administration both used section 301 to impose or raise tariffs on Chinese goods. Courts have generally been deferential to how presidents use the authority as long as the proper process has been followed.

Trump has already signaled that he plans to use all the legal authorities at his disposal. “Therefore, effective immediately, all National Security TARIFFS, Section 232 and existing Section 301 TARIFFS, remain in place, and in full force and effect,” he wrote in his Truth Social post. “Today I will sign an Order to impose a 10% GLOBAL TARIFF, under Section 122, over and above our normal TARIFFS already being charged, and we are also initiating several Section 301 and other Investigations to protect our Country from unfair Trading practices.”

Most experts I spoke with think that this one-two combination will allow Trump to functionally rebuild most of the current tariff regime in a way that could survive in court. “Nearly 90 percent of U.S. trade comes from our 20 largest trading partners,” Peter Harell, who served as a top trade adviser in the Biden administration, told me before the ruling came down. “I don’t think it would be too difficult to reconstitute tariffs on most of them in 150 days.”

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

. . . the census rules are changed to not include illegals (which will result in net losses upward of another -30 Democrat +30 Republican seats in June)

Be Evil. Be a dick.

---

A 2024 Cato Institute report noted that 95% of noncitizen population growth between 2019 and 2023 occurred in states with Republican-leaning (red) delegations, suggesting that removing them could actually cost red states seats.
https://www.cato.org/blog/apportionment-immigration-95-noncitizen-grow
th-went-gop-states-2019

Estimates regarding the number of House seats that would shift from blue to red states if undocumented immigrants were excluded from the census apportionment count vary, with recent studies suggesting a relatively small impact compared to some political claims.

Based on analyses of the 2020 census, removing undocumented immigrants would have resulted in a minimal shift, with only about 1 to 3 seats changing hands.

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+seats+will+red+states+gain+wh
en+all+illegal+aliens+are+purged+from+blue+states

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

---