Judge Boasberg cancels planned hearing to review Trump deportations

[anatta]

(Why can't trump have the patience to accomplish his goals without a mess?)



I already agreed. Scotus didn't say he couldn't use AEA again, they added habeus as a step to be included, as you post here later. I didn't post to criticize the AEA.

so what is the gist of the debate here?

But neither you or I can be sure any particular and individual prisoner in El Salvador is or isn't affiliated with Maduro+

An individual is part of the gang/foreign terrorist org. that Maduro is using as a "predatory incursion".. Those tats ain't just for shits and giggles. The FTO is an enemy of the USA

I'm fine with the ruling except Scotus disagrees with trump that people can be deported without notice in the way it happened three weeks ago. That would mean the lower court ruling would be sustained or bumped down. But why didn't they sustain the lower court?

Boasberg had no jurisdiction to take the case. It should have been filed in Tx where the TdA were detained.
Boasberg closed his case because of the fact the AEA is a Constitutional act, and he had no jurisdiction as a DC judge
SCOTUS says a habeus hearing is all that is needed ( favors the prosecution unless the defendant can show he is not deportable)

Scotus won't require something if they fear trump will not do it. ​

This case is a test of checks and balances that failed already. So yeah, I guess trump won.

The checks and balances couldn't be clearer with Trump exercising Article 2 powers, and SCOTUS rectifying the issue.
The problem is the District Judges who act like super-legislators.

 

[soap box]

so what is the gist of the debate here?

An individual is part of the gang/foreign terrorist org. that Maduro is using as a "predatory incursion".. Those tats ain't just for shits and giggles. The FTO is an enemy of the USA

Three weeks ago they didn't distinguish that and it's beside the point. The government can't abduct people.

Boasberg had no jurisdiction to take the case. It should have been filed in Tx where the TdA were detained.
Boasberg closed his case because of the fact the AEA is a Constitutional act, and he had no jurisdiction as a DC judge

You'll have to quote the court opinion where it says anything about the constitution regarding Boasberg. They claimed it was geographic.

"Challenges to removal under the AEA, a statute which largely ‘preclude judicial review must be brought in habeas,’” the majority said, citing several prior court decisions. “For ‘core habeas petitions,’ ‘jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement.’ The detainees are confined in Texas, so venue is improper in the District of Columbia.”

Alien Enemies Act case heads to federal court in Texas | Constitution Center

A divided Supreme Court on Monday night sent a high-profile case to Texas from Washington, D.C., involving a dispute over Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to deport alleged gang members.

constitutioncenter.org

SCOTUS says a habeus hearing is all that is needed ( favors the prosecution unless the defendant can show he is not deportable)

And the habeus hearings never happened three weeks ago and while some are guilty as you've posted we don't know how many. Simply, there was no process and trump saw no problem in that.

The checks and balances couldn't be clearer with Trump exercising Article 2 powers, and SCOTUS rectifying the issue.
The problem is the District Judges who act like super-legislators.

You can trust trump to obey Scotus but I won't.

 

[anatta]

Three weeks ago they didn't distinguish that and it's beside the point. The government can't abduct people.

The government can use law to detain and remove those whom are subject to the AEA as confirmed by SCOTUS

You'll have to quote the court opinion where it says anything about the constitution regarding Boasberg. They claimed it was geographic.

Jurisdictional is the term ..geographic is acceptable as well.
you just quoted that part of the decision

For ‘core habeas petitions,’ ‘jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement.’ The detainees are confined in Texas, so venue is improper in the District of Columbia.”

"Challenges to removal under the AEA, a statute which largely ‘preclude judicial review must be brought in habeas,’” the majority said, citing several prior court decisions. “For ‘core habeas petitions,’ ‘jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement.’ The detainees are confined in Texas, so venue is improper in the District of Columbia.”

Alien Enemies Act case heads to federal court in Texas | Constitution Center

A divided Supreme Court on Monday night sent a high-profile case to Texas from Washington, D.C., involving a dispute over Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to deport alleged gang members.

constitutioncenter.org

going forward as well

And the habeus hearings never happened three weeks ago and while some are guilty as you've posted we don't know how many. Simply, there was no process and trump saw no problem in that.

there was plenty of process. I started a thread where ICE uses a scale of points for identifying removal

Alien Enemies Act: Alien Enemy Validation Guide

https://www.newsweek.com/tren-de-aragua-membership-ice-points-system-alien-enemies-act-2053165 Among the filings from the ACLU submitted Friday was "Exhibit S," which included a form entitled "Alien Enemies Act: Alien Enemy Validation Guide," which is allegedly being used by federal agents to...

debatepolitics.com

You can trust trump to obey Scotus but I won't.

So far Trump 47 hasn't had any contempt charges laid on him by any court

 

[redbeer]

hey hey good bye now. ****ing activists judges gotta get pruned

Judge Boasberg cancels planned hearing to review Trump deportations

A federal judge has canceled a planned hearing on the Trump administration's use of an 18th-century law to deport foreign nationals after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the president.

www.foxnews.com

In a minute order published Tuesday morning, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg announced that the previously scheduled Tuesday afternoon hearing would be vacated in light of the high court's ruling, which determined, among other things, that the "appropriate venue for such proceedings is the Southern District of Texas," or wherever plaintiffs that are subject to potential removal are currently being held.

The left's trying like hell to regain some iota of power.......sorry, back to the Peanut Gallery with ya!

 

[SavannahMann]

hey hey good bye now. ****ing activists judges gotta get pruned

Judge Boasberg cancels planned hearing to review Trump deportations

A federal judge has canceled a planned hearing on the Trump administration's use of an 18th-century law to deport foreign nationals after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the president.

www.foxnews.com

In a minute order published Tuesday morning, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg announced that the previously scheduled Tuesday afternoon hearing would be vacated in light of the high court's ruling, which determined, among other things, that the "appropriate venue for such proceedings is the Southern District of Texas," or wherever plaintiffs that are subject to potential removal are currently being held.

It’s interesting. Three quarters of the objections were upheld. One wasn’t. But this is a great victory. Or something.

Trump can use the act to deport people. But he can’t just load them on a plane. He has to give them notice to file motions before the court. In other words, Trump has to be able to prove they are members of this gang. Further he has to show what crimes they have committed to be considered dangerous criminals.

Trump can’t just say they are. Trust us. We know. No we don’t need to prove anything.

That is practically stopping the thing right now.

So instead of one activist judge, now you all will be blaming activist judges all over the nation who won’t let Trump do this.

 

[Fletch]

And those facts are......................?

See the SC ruling. Boasberg had no jurisdiction here.

 

[soap box]

The government can use law to detain and remove those whom are subject to the AEA as confirmed by SCOTUS

With due process.

Jurisdictional is the term ..geographic is acceptable as well.
you just quoted that part of the decision

That part says it was NOT a constitutional question. The ruling did NOT say anything about the judge's constitutional authority to rule on federal cases because it's clear he can.

going forward as well

With due process.

there was plenty of process. I started a thread where ICE uses a scale of points for identifying removal

Alien Enemies Act: Alien Enemy Validation Guide

https://www.newsweek.com/tren-de-aragua-membership-ice-points-system-alien-enemies-act-2053165 Among the filings from the ACLU submitted Friday was "Exhibit S," which included a form entitled "Alien Enemies Act: Alien Enemy Validation Guide," which is allegedly being used by federal agents to...

debatepolitics.com

Now there will be, but the case is about the lack of due process that the administration attempted.

So far Trump 47 hasn't had any contempt charges laid on him by any court

He has defied the rulings of many courts already.
They won't defy him Because that would lead to a constitutional crisis. I said the courts will not require anything they fear trump will not do. We have lost checks and balances.

 

[soap box]

See the SC ruling. Boasberg had no jurisdiction here.

To clarify, Scotus said the case will be moved to Texas because that's where the defendants were detained. The judge is fully authorized to rule on federal cases.

"Challenges to removal under the AEA, a statute which largely ‘preclude judicial review must be brought in habeas,’” the majority said, citing several prior court decisions. “For ‘core habeas petitions,’ ‘jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement.’ The detainees are confined in Texas, so venue is improper in the District of Columbia.”

 

[AZRWinger]

No need, some people are sure all brown people are gang members.

We're good.

WW

And, some people like the Wise Latina on the SCOTUS bench believe a brown complexion gives superior judgement.

 

[HonestJoe]

hey hey good bye now. ****ing activists judges gotta get pruned

Nobody got "pruned", the judge is simply continuing to apply the relevant laws as written in the face of a federal government desperately seeking to circumvent them for political purposes.

 

[anatta]

Nobody got "pruned", the judge is simply continuing to apply the relevant laws as written in the face of a federal government desperately seeking to circumvent them for political purposes.

Boasberg isnt applying anything. he shut the case down

 

[HonestJoe]

Boasberg isnt applying anything. he shut the case down

Well, at the moment he's apparently just postponed a single hearing pending the details of the Supreme Court ruling but if that ruling stands he will likely deny the case before him due to the jurisdictional ruling. That isn't necessarily the end of the case since further cases could be filed in what have been deemed the correct jurisdictions (I believe some already have) and the SCOTUS ruling also apparently clarifies the requirement for the administration to give a suitable level of due process to their deportation suspects. There is also the legitimate consideration of contempt of court judgements that would remain very much within Boasberg's jurisdiction.

So again, nobody getting "pruned", just the legitimate application of the legal process (which I appreciate may be confusing to you).