BDKJMU wrote: ↑Mon Mar 17, 2025 8:48 am
UNI88 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 17, 2025 8:06 am
This is just one step in taking away due process from anyone he deems an enemy/opponent. I have no problem with evicting them if the legal process is followed. He isn't following it. aileen cannon was also an activist "single judge in a single city".
The trump regime willfullly disregarding a judicial order is a step toward a Constitutional crisis.
Judges' orders should be respected while the legal process plays out. If the final court ruling finds in trump's favor then he can move forward with each initiative.
He was fine dragging things out for his indictments but now he's in a hurry and doesn't like the process being used against him.
He swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States to the best of his ability not when it was convenient for him.
Cannon was hearing a case that occurred in HER JURISDICTION.
As far as this deportation flights case, the judge had no authority. Of course SCOTUS can decide if it goes that far.
It could be argued that the documents were taken from DC, belonged in DC and that DC was the proper jurisdiction for the case.
Why doesn't the judge have authority? If you don't want liberals shopping for friendly jurisdictions then the government shouldn't be able to move an illegal immigrant in order to remove him/her from an unfriendly jurisdiction. The proper jurisdiction should be the court where the immigrant was picked up.
What happens if the case plays out and SCOTUS (or whatever the final court is) rules against the executive branch?
- Will they be responsible for finding and returning the immigrant(s)?
- Will they be criminally and civilly liable for denying the immigrant(s) their right to due process?
The prudent approach is to pause the executive branch action and let the case play out in the courts. The executive branch can proceed if they're successful and you avoid a serious mess if they're aren't.
This is a slippery slope. If they're willing to deny immigrants their right to due process, what's to say they won't attempt to deny it to you or me in the future?