The Supreme Court on Monday lifted a pair of orders by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., that had barred the government from removing noncitizens who are designated as members of a Venezuelan gang under a March 15 executive order issued by President Donald Trump. read more
President Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order that would dramatically overhaul how federal elections are run, a move that follows years of exaggerated claims from Trump about mail ballots and noncitizen voting. read more
#28 | Posted by oneironaut
Nucking Fidiot pontificates about s**t they don't know s**t about. From today's per curium:
Per Curiam succeed on the merits of this action. The detainees also sought equitable relief against summary removal. Although judicial review under the AEA is limited, we have held that an individual subject to detention and removal under that statute is entitled to "judicial review'" as to "questions of interpretation and constitutionality" of the Act as well as whether he or she "is in fact an alien enemy fourteen years of age or older." Ludecke, 335 U. S., at 163'164, 172, n. 17. (Under the Proclamation, the term "alien enemy" is defined to include "all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of TdA, are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States." 90 Fed. Reg. 13034.) The detainees' rights against summary removal, however, are not currently in dispute. The Government expressly agrees that "TdA members subject to removal under the Alien Enemies Act get judicial review." Reply in Support of Application ToVacate 1. "It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law" in the context of removal proceedings. Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 306 (1993). So, the detainees are entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard "appropriate to the nature of the case." Mullanev. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 313 (1950). More specifically, in this context, AEA detainees must receive notice after the date of this order thatthey are subject to removal under the Act. The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.drudge.com
Stick to s**t you know something about which from what I've seen is nothing.
#4 | Posted by oneironaut
#9 | Posted by BellRinger
Today the Court specifically ruled in favor of due process not summary removal. Do keep up. drudge.com
Supreme Court allows Trump to enforce Alien Enemies Act for rapid deportations for now
Nope, not what the Court said. They effectively changed venue from DC to the place of detention, Texas. In a direct slap of the Buffoon, they can bring habeas petitions to challenge their detention and removal. In other words, instead of summary removal they get due process before being removed. drudge.com
#14 | Posted by itchyp
Nucking Fidiot quoting Zero Hedge. www.zerohedge.com
Unfortunately for Zero Hedge and the Idiot there is no language in the SC's per curium opinion that "Joun lacked authority." www.documentcloud.org
Yeah, well good luck with dat.
This typical Lawfare Media deep dive explains why. www.lawfaremedia.org
So none of you Buffoon worshiper's can identify the legal authority for the Buffoon's order. Typical. They never can because it doesn't exit. The Buffoon's strategy is create chaos and reap whatever falls out. Not governance.
Btw, here you'll find a copy of the Buffoon's stupid. Enjoy. electionlawblog.org
Nuckin' fidiots.
As expected following the recent Supreme Court ruling.