• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Shock and Law

Student Visa cases:

Hoque v. Trump decision on bail.

Based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings in this case,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner Mohammed H.’s claim seeking release on bail pending adjudication is GRANTED. Petitioner’s other claims remain under review.
2. Petitioner shall be released from custody immediately, subject to the conditions previously imposed by the Immigration Judge, including the $7,500 bond.
3. Release shall be to the custody of counsel or another responsible adult whose identity and contact information have been submitted to the Court and approved within 2 days of this Order.
4. Within 48 hours of this Order, Respondents shall notify the Court of the date and time of Petitioner’s release.

Ozturk v. Hyde decision on bail.

The Court reaffirmed its ruling made at the bail hearing earlier on 5/9/25. In light of the Court’s finding of no risk of flight and no danger to the community, Petitioner is to be released from ICE custody immediately on her own recognizance, without any form of Body-Worn GPS or other ICE monitoring at this time. Petitioner is not subject to any travel restrictions.
 
NWRatCon said:
Student Visa cases:

Hoque v. Trump decision on bail.

Based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings in this case,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner Mohammed H.’s claim seeking release on bail pending adjudication is GRANTED. Petitioner’s other claims remain under review.
2. Petitioner shall be released from custody immediately, subject to the conditions previously imposed by the Immigration Judge, including the $7,500 bond.
3. Release shall be to the custody of counsel or another responsible adult whose identity and contact information have been submitted to the Court and approved within 2 days of this Order.
4. Within 48 hours of this Order, Respondents shall notify the Court of the date and time of Petitioner’s release.

Ozturk v. Hyde decision on bail.

The Court reaffirmed its ruling made at the bail hearing earlier on 5/9/25. In light of the Court’s finding of no risk of flight and no danger to the community, Petitioner is to be released from ICE custody immediately on her own recognizance, without any form of Body-Worn GPS or other ICE monitoring at this time. Petitioner is not subject to any travel restrictions.
Click to expand...
Political prisoners. For shame.
 
Last edited:
DOGE access to SSA records.

I'm thoroughly disgusted by this action. This is a Supreme Court that is completely unconnected to legality, constitutionality or the rule of law. Their decision is completely unjustified. Literally. They provide no analysis.

The dissent, however, is worthy of a close read.

The decision.
 
Last edited:
Freedom of Information action regarding DOGE.

The Supreme Court simultaneously allowed DOGE to keep its activities secret. Again, no analysis.

DOGE v. CREW.
 

California lawsuit over National Guard deployment​

____


COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
INTRODUCTION
1. The Governor of the State of California and the State of California bring this action to
protect the State against the illegal actions of the President, Secretary of Defense, and Department
of Defense to deploy members of the California National Guard, without lawful authority, and in
violation of the Constitution.
2. One of the cornerstones of our Nation and our democracy is that our people are
governed by civil, not military, rule. The Founders enshrined these principles in our
Constitution— that a government should be accountable to its people, guided by the rule of law,
and one of civil authority, not military rule.
3. President Trump has repeatedly invoked emergency powers to exceed the bounds of
lawful executive authority. On Saturday, June 7, he used a protest that local authorities had under
control to make another unprecedented power grab, this time at the cost of the sovereignty of the
State of California and in disregard of the authority and role of the Governor as commander-in-
chief of the State’s National Guard.
4. The vehicle the President has sought to invoke for this unprecedented usurpation of
state authority and resources is a statute, 10 U.S.C. § 12406, that has been invoked on its own
only once before and for highly unusual circumstances not presented here. Invoking this statute,
the President issued a Memorandum on June 7, 2025 (Trump Memo), “call[ing] into Federal
service members and units of the National Guard.” Secretary of Defense Hegseth, in turn, issued
a Memorandum (DOD Order) that same day to the Adjutant General of California, ordering 2,000
California National Guard members into federal service. And on June 9, 2025, Secretary Hegseth
issued another Memorandum (June 9 DOD Order) ordering an additional 2,000 California
National Guard members into federal service.
5. These orders were issued despite the text of section 12406, which, among other
things, requires that when the President calls members of a State National Guard into federal
service pursuant to that statute, those orders “shall be issued through the governors of the States.”
10 U.S.C. § 12406. Instead, Secretary Hegseth unlawfully bypassed the Governor of California,
issuing an order that by statute must go through him.
-----
It appears that the Governor has legitimate constitutional and statutory grounds for this suit.

10 USC §12406. National Guard in Federal service: call​

Whenever—

(1) the United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation;

(2) there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or

(3) the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States;

the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws. Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.
 
Trump called some Americans "left wing radicals that hate our country." Funny, how I didn't see a single one of those people yesterday on Flag Day, The only real threat to our country is Trump.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom