Judicial Tyranny

We really need constitutional amendments, but we know that will never happen without support of a large chunk of the democrats, so that options is out.
The Convention of States group is plugging along, albeit very slowly. They need 2/3 of the states to sign on to call the convention. The problem is the hype is all negative and is intended to convince voters that an actual convention could overturn the entire Constitution which it can't. But this lie has legs and it refuses to die. Each state legislature has to have the bill brought up for a vote and that takes lots of lobbying of the representatives. Then the vote has to pass. This has been going on for years. I worked with the group for a few years but lobbying stupid people is exhausting.
That leaves the big beautiful bill to save us.
This may be true but this type of thinking is exactly what is wrong with every single bill brought up for a vote. They are all omnibus bills and contain everything including the kitchen sink. NO ONE EVER READS THEM!!!!!!!!!!! They are voting on talking points.

One of the amendments has to be to define some kind of actual punishment if the House doesn't do its damn job and create proper budget bills. Maybe if the house can't do its job, the Speaker and all committee leaders are prevented from standing for reelection. The punishment needs to be real , not this "censure" bullshit.
 
I am generally speaking in favor of deporting illegals, but if there is a due process that must be followed then they need to be following it.
 
Due process depends on both sides following the law. Under the Biden administration, the illegal immigrants were "invited" in by the millions. There was no vetting (due process) being conducted by government. In fact the illegal immigrants were exempt from a lot of requirements, such as Covid restrictions. The Biden administration violated US immigration policy.

Now it is time to deport the illegal immigrants. Those on the left sanctimoniously assert that the law (due process) has to be followed after purposely ignoring it for four years. Legal processes tend to be slow. Moreover, the legal process for deportation is further slowed through judicial delays and appeals. So it may take years to deport an illegal immigrants who simply took five minutes to walk across the border. Now multiply that times X million. There won't be enough judges and/or time to actually deport them. Essentially the left is using the Cloward-Piven Strategy of overwhelming our bureaucracy so that the government collapses. The realpolitik solution unfortunately is to "short-circuit" due process to expedite deportations. So as much as we may want to follow the law in its purist form, reality will force us to "cut corners" especially when one side purposely violated the law to create this humanitarian crises.

A sub issue revolves around the extent of due process. The US does not have the time and/or resources to afford giving millions of illegal immigrants (brought into this country illegally) endless court hearings, endless delays in the process, and endless appeals. Due process, can simply be reduced to an inability to provide proof of citizenship. If none can be presented, then that person is immediately deported.
 
The controversy around Abrego Garcia has raised a lot of media discussion. The response by the Trump administration has been great, especially the remarks by Stephen Miller. The pithy summary of Miller: if the media was able to provide these illegal immigrants due process as the media envisions it, no one would ever be deported due to endless unending legal proceedings. As questioned by Trump and Miller, why does the left want to keep illegal immigrants, especially those in gangs, to be kept in the US? That is not rationale.
White House advisor Stephen Miller was also tapped in by Trump to respond to Collins, saying it was "very arrogant even for American media to suggest that we would even tell El Salvador how to handle their own citizens." He added that because Trump had declared MS-13 a foreign terrorist outfit, Abrego Garcia was ineligible for immigration relief in the U.S.
The videos below are well worth watching:
 
@Steve R. - thanks for the links. I am truly disappointed that reporters can't let go of an issue such as deporting a person who was here illegally, with standing deportation orders, to his country of origin where he IS a "natural-born" citizen thereof. Reporters want courts to conduct foreign policy, but that 9-0 ruling makes it clear. Judges... hands off foreign policy issues.

My only question is whether they will EVER get the message that we need to get rid of the terrorist trash. Yes, we should have some kind of reform on immigration. The policy is old and probably needs updating. But we need to control our borders so that we can phase people in with a more reasonable approach so that we can minimize disruption.
 
Due process, can simply be reduced to an inability to provide proof of citizenship. If none can be presented, then that person is immediately deported.
Works for me. Especially as they are concentrating on rounding up actual criminals at the moment. Once ICE gets to the rest, we can have expedited hearings. None of this releasing people on their own recognizance. People who are legally here will be able to prove it and everybody else goes home with perhaps a short delay in an ankle bracelet to clear up their affairs here. As time goes on, we should be less lenient rather than more because people who came illegally or overstayed their visas will have had ample opportunity to self deport.
why does the left want to keep illegal immigrants, especially those in gangs, to be kept in the US?
For the same reason they think all death row inmates should be released and any unwanted child can be killed- even in the delivery room. They have completely lost touch with reality. They were on this slippery slope with the criminal element actually being victims for some years but Trump entered the picture and TDS spread like wildfire. The left has now done about faces on pretty much every position they used to hold because they cannot ever take the same side of an argument as Trump. This is a true sickness and will someday end up in the medical books it has been so pronounced.
Yes, we should have some kind of reform on immigration. The policy is old and probably needs updating.
Enforcing existing law goes a long way toward reform. We already take in more permanent immigrants than any other country and we take more than our fair share of refugees from the rest of the world. Plus millions of temporary guest workers. That does NOT mean we should import more Muslims. Sorry. they have been raised to hate us and what we stand for, especially those who call themselves Palestinians. That is why NO Muslim nation will accept them. They are not as stupid as we are and they have been burned multiple times since WWII by opening their arms. Egypt even built its own wall on the other end of Gaza to keep the residents from crossing into Egypt and causing trouble there. Halas!!! as they say in Arabic - always with emphasis. Let the countries who share the same culture and ethnicity take care of the refugees. Not our problem. We didn't break it. We don't have to fix it and you can't guilt me into changing my stand on this one. The Muslims cannot/will not assimilate and will do their level best to get control over our country so they can make it just as bad as the one they escaped from. Islam tells them they must because we are inferior and they believe that to their core.

We should get better control over our guest worker programs and probably expand the numbers. We should also fix the H1b visa program so the tech companies stop cheating and cutting out American workers in favor of the cheap imported labor.
 
We should get better control over our guest worker programs and probably expand the numbers. We should also fix the H1b visa program so the tech companies stop cheating and cutting out American workers in favor of the cheap imported labor.

When I said we should update our immigration laws, I didn't offer specifics. I've got no problem at all with what you just proposed.
 
Schumer, as confirmation of judicial tyranny expressed: "The good news here is, we did put 235 judges, progressive judges, judges not under the control of Trump, last year on the bench, and they are ruling against Trump time after time after time.” Clearly the Democrats are appointing progressive partisan judges who will "color" their rulings to conform to the agenda of the Democratic party. For Democrats, the law serves the political ideology of the Democratic party.

Schumer makes his observation at about the 8 minute mark of the video.
 
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Friday in the controversial “birthright citizenship” case that lower courts cannot simply issue nationwide injunctions, and that doing so is an abuse of their judicial power.
A copy of the decision attached.

The Supreme Court on Friday delivered a major victory in President Donald Trump's quest to block lower courts from issuing universal injunctions that had upended many of his administration's executive orders and actions.

Justices ruled 6-3 to allow the lower courts to issue injunctions only in limited instances, though the ruling leaves open the question of how the ruling will apply to the birthright citizenship order at the heart of the case.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
if there is a due process that must be followed then they need to be following it.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia was seen by not one but TWO judges regarding his deportation. The 2nd judge was the appellate judge who heard the appeal after the 1st judge said to send him packing. That WAS his due process. The hold on his deportation became void once MS13 was declared to be a gang of international terrorists.

Due process DOES exist for illegal immigrants; it just doesn't have the range and scope that applies for USA citizens. It STARTS with the premise that the defendant is here because he broke an immigration law for which the penalty is deportation.
 
The High Court issued a 6-3 decision — with the three most liberal-leaning justices dissenting — ruling that the board’s introduction of LGBTQ+ curriculum, along with its decision to withhold opt-outs, “places an unconstitutional burden on the parents’ rights to the free exercise of their religion.”
What I found to be amusing (not covered in this article) is that the Maryland Montgomery County school system did (originally) allow parents to withdraw their kids. So many kids did withdraw, that the school system could not fill the classroom. Instead of dropping the offensive books (the logical solution) from the curriculum, the school system doubled down by prohibiting students from withdrawing!!! Not only that but they pursued this tyrannical policy all the way to the US Supreme Court. Left wing lunacy at its finest.

PS: Since posting, I ran across some comment that reminded me of prior comments that I made. That the purpose of the "law" for those on the left is to promote an ideology. This is a case that never should have made it to the US Supreme Court, but it did because activist school board members and activist judges where attempting to force LGBTQ+ polices on a public that did not want them.
 
Last edited:
Given that the material related to that lawsuit was being presented to kids below 6th grade, I think that was egregious behavior on the part of the school board. HOWEVER, also given that homosexuality exists and is a fact of life, it is a disservice to children to not mention it in a controlled environment, at least in the curriculum for older kids. I would say that sex education should at least mention it and that the topic of sex education cannot be avoided. But only present it in junior high or high school context.
 
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.”
The headline is misleading in the sense that the issue is not really civility, but that activist judges are usurping political power by negating the political power of elected officials. Elected officials are the ones who are supposed to run the country.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Last edited:
Excellent monologue by Mark Levin. He covers two topics. First, the attempt by the left wing activist judges in the District Courts to impose Nationwide injunctions. Second, the failure of Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan to adhere to the U.S. Constitution.
As a side note to a previous post, Levin independently noted that Montgomery county school board case should have been immediately tossed at the District Court level and should never have made it to the US Supreme Court.
 
Last edited:
I think now there will be more class action lawsuits
 
I think now there will be more class action lawsuits
You're probably right but class actions cost more to put together so at least the people footing the bill will experience some pain.
 
I think now there will be more class action lawsuits

True. Pat's right about cost, but there are other hurdles regarding whether the proposed class is in fact a valid class. Apparently, that is quite a high hurdle to jump.
 
Actually in the class actions you're used to seeing, It cost more to defend than to prosecute. In a products case for instance, you may have 10 named plaintiffs pooling resources where a defendant stands alone.

It will be interesting how the courts will handle certification. I don't see it being that hard in cases like the birth right cases. There is obviously enough identifiable affected persons for a class, Their issues of law is equally common amongst them, and there's plenty of competent counsel.
 
Yeah I think in the immigration cases the class certification has got to be easy, other things I"m not sure
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom