₦airaland Forum

basilico:
Be honest . Trump never went to the Paedophile island. And he didn't fly in the lolita express like Clintons.
You are making laughable claims of Trump being a paedo.

Obama.. Mitchelle Obama praised Harvey Weinstein calling him "a wonderful human being, a good friend and just a powerhouse" . Her first born daughter interned at his firm. Does that connect her to Harvey literally raping ( not accused of that, in reality it was rape)..

You forget paedophiles try to ensnare as many people as possible, especially those like Epstein who blackmail their clients.

You are stopping too low.
Epstein list hopefully will be released, today it's 80000 pages of JFK files being released.
Epstein tried to blackmail Bill Gates remember , his friendship played a part in his divorce. Noone has accused Gated of being a paedo despite him visiting Epstein home after he had been released .

IjeBos:
I think it's pretty wild.
Habeas Corpus is one of our CORE rights.
Trump basically went to court yesterday and said he would not and does not have to answer the courts regarding who the people on the flights were or any info about the flights.
The Judge seemed was not happy and called them into court again today and gave them questions he wanted them to answer by noon today..

We are walking some dark paths right now.

cococandy:
They think it can never be them because they’re kissing his boots for now.

IjeBos:
I think it's pretty wild.
Habeas Corpus is one of our CORE rights.
Trump basically went to court yesterday and said he would not and does not have to answer the courts regarding who the people on the flights were or any info about the flights.
The Judge was not happy and called them into court again today and gave them questions he wanted them to answer by noon today..

We are walking some dark paths right now.

bemeruca:
Stop making noise, the judge has no jurisdiction. He is not the president

How Else Can Due Process Claims Be Resolved, Other Than by a Judge?
I also, as a political preference, want to deport illegal immigrants by the million and to deport violent immigrants by means of a trebuchet. But I am not at all convinced that, in the case of Judge Boasberg, we are witnessing an example of the same old capricious TrumpLaw that has afflicted this White House time and time again. In his post yesterday — in which he writes bluntly that “it is anything but clear that Boasberg’s order was lawless” — Andy McCarthy observes that:

The president ordered the deportation with no court process purportedly pursuant to the Alien Enemy Act, a late 18th century statute (now codified at Section 21 of Title 50, U.S. Code), which applies only to wartime conditions and has only been invoked three times in American history — during the congressionally declared wars of 1812, World War I, and World War II.

The powers contained within the Alien Enemy Act were conferred upon the president by Congress. This, naturally, creates a statutory question every time that the Act is used: Namely, “Has this law been followed by the executive?” In addition, the Alien Enemy Act is bound by the same Constitution as is any other law. This, consequently, creates a broader constitutional question: Namely, “Does this statute comport with the Constitution, which represents a higher law?” In this particular instance, both questions are in play. The statutory questions at hand are a) whether the Alien Enemy Act grants the president permission to deport individuals without due process outside of a congressionally declared war, and b) whether the president can deport “terrorists” who have never been declared as such. The constitutional question is whether, even if it is followed to the letter by the president, the Alien Enemy Act’s circumstantial waiving of due process is permissible, given the Constitution’s many protections of that right — which, in the Due Process Clause, remember, is applied to “persons,” not to “citizens.”

I do not know the answer to these questions. What I do know, however, is that they ultimately have to be mediated and resolved by the judiciary. And, because they have to be mediated and resolved by the judiciary, a judge is going to be involved. It would, of course, be better if that judge were nine judges, and if those nine judges all sat on the Supreme Court. But, practically speaking, that isn’t going to happen immediately in every case — especially when, as here, those whose due process rights are allegedly being violated are in the air on their way to a foreign prison.
...

This is true. But that’s also exactly why we have judges in the first place. A lot of the people who are in need of due process protections — that is, the people who need the right preserved in stone because it wouldn’t be granted to them willingly — are really unpopular. (Go back through the Supreme Court’s big speech or due process cases from the last hundred years and read up on the plaintiffs — many of whom were rapists, serial killers, child molesters, terrorists, and more.) It is, of course, a fact that the people involved in this case are reflexively loathed, and that it is no fun defending their rights. But that’s not a counterargument against the consideration of due process; it’s the whole point of the exercise. The protections being claimed here exist for exactly this moment. I agree that it creates perverse incentives that a person who illegally crosses the border is potentially entitled to far more process protections than a person who legally stays on the other side of it. But that’s just the way it is — and, if it’s not, the only way to test the waters is to bring the matter before the very judges who are now being accused of “interfering” with the law.

IjeBos:
I read National Review once in a while to understand the counter perspective to some of my arguments.
Generally find them unpersuasive. There is a dearth of well reasoned intellectual thought on the right.

Here is a article on this by one of the Conservatives on the site.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/how-else-can-due-process-claims-be-resolved-other-than-by-a-judge/

cococandy:
😏😏

You can’t honor anyone who’s not white anymore.
If they’re colored or a woman, it’s DEI

Over to their resident supporters. Find a way to justify it.

happney65:
BREAKING: In rare statement, Chief Justice John Roberts rebukes Trump's escalating calls for impeaching judges whose rulings he disagrees with.

News.

I laugh in Nigerian Leaders voice. America do not yet knows what has happened to them. Very very very soon. They will know and they will learn the very hard way..

happney65:
BREAKING: In rare statement, Chief Justice John Roberts rebukes Trump's escalating calls for impeaching judges whose rulings he disagrees with.

News.

I laugh in Nigerian Leaders voice. America do not yet knows what has happened to them. Very very very soon. They will know and they will learn the very hard way..

cococandy:
Did you read the bill a republican lawmaker in Minnesota introduced? To recognize dislike for Trump or his policies as a mental disorder? Basically they want to import their incel WhatsApp group definitions to become state law and of course if allowed, to become national law.

Obviously it won’t pass but it’s the audacity to think that we even have to debate their stupidity as if it’s a valid stance that deserves consideration.

But he is not fixing to become a dictator? Yea right.

IjeBos:
You can't make this stuff up.
One of the guys who sponsored the "TDS is a mental Illness" bill, just got arrested for soliciting a minor for prostitution.

IjeBos:
You can't make this stuff up.
One of the guys who sponsored the "TDS is a mental Illness" bill, just got arrested for soliciting a minor for prostitution.

IjeBos:
I'm sure all you're studying of the Constitution, understanding of how US Laws and Courts work and all your years living in the US informs you of this.
Lol. Yeah right. None of those things have ever happened.

You're a wanna be Black immigrant cheering on the President's right to disappear people.
Stupid is as Stupid does.

cococandy:
Oh my gosh🫨
But It actually checks out. Normal Tuesday on the right . Lord have mercy

cococandy:
Sometimes when I’m feeling masochistic, I let Fox News play for a few minutes before scrolling to a different channel and it’s easy to see why they appeal to their base. It would be funny if it wasn’t dangerous

bemeruca:
The constitution goes not make activists judges the president. The same lawless judicial insurrectionists who preemptively entered illegal orders to protect Venezuelan terrorists and rapists in our country illegally did nothing while our government illegally censored us, spied on us, tried to inject us, and called us domestic terrorists because of our religious and political views.

IjeBos:
One idiotic uninformed rant after the other from a delusional person who pretends he lives in the US.

Given your struggles with the English language, reading the Constitution is probably hard.
Here is a chart with describes the powers of the various branches as described by the Constitution.

You see the part about courts finding executive actions unauthorized and interpreting laws?

basilico:
John Roberts appointed Judge Boasberg to the FISA court on 2014.
When complaints arose about misuse of FISA warrants judge Boasberg was the one who oversaw the proceedings. He appointed Mary McCord who had presented false documents to spy on Trump to the FISA court as amicus curiae (friend of the court').
When the Roe vs Wade judgement leaked before the judgement was released, a senior staffer at Judge Robert office suddenly resigned.
He was Mary McCord s husband .

Coincidences I kid you.

happney65:
Trump administration says it is working to reinstate more than 24,000 fired federal workers

News

PDPGuy:
Wow!
I guess this judge may have to be “impeached” 🤷🏾

cococandy:
Let’s impeach everyone in authority that disagrees with him and label the rest mentally ill.

Not a dictator at all.

cococandy:
Let’s impeach everyone in authority that disagrees with him and label the rest mentally ill.

Not a dictator at all.