SCOTUS
-
wrote on 8 Apr 2025, 14:21 last edited by
-
wrote on 8 Apr 2025, 14:23 last edited by
Most of the SCOTUS news revolved around this one person...
-
wrote on 8 Apr 2025, 15:51 last edited by Mik 4 Aug 2025, 15:51
The admin should have returned him. As far as I can see there's no reason to deem him a gang member. He was here legally under an asylum claim.
-
The admin should have returned him. As far as I can see there's no reason to deem him a gang member. He was here legally under an asylum claim.
wrote on 8 Apr 2025, 15:59 last edited byThe admin should have returned him. As far as I can see there's no reason to deem him a gang member. He was here legally under an asylum claim.
Meh, a lot of the media claims about his perfect behavior are incorrect. The guy has been arrested on multiple occasions and has also been denied bail by a a judge due to his gang affiliations. There is more to this story…
-
wrote on 8 Apr 2025, 16:06 last edited by
Too bad they don't have his high school graduation picture.
-
The admin should have returned him. As far as I can see there's no reason to deem him a gang member. He was here legally under an asylum claim.
Meh, a lot of the media claims about his perfect behavior are incorrect. The guy has been arrested on multiple occasions and has also been denied bail by a a judge due to his gang affiliations. There is more to this story…
wrote on 8 Apr 2025, 16:06 last edited by@LuFins-Dad said in SCOTUS:
The admin should have returned him. As far as I can see there's no reason to deem him a gang member. He was here legally under an asylum claim.
Meh, a lot of the media claims about his perfect behavior are incorrect. The guy has been arrested on multiple occasions and has also been denied bail by a a judge due to his gang affiliations. There is more to this story…
I haven't seen any of that. Do you have a link I can review?
-
wrote on 8 Apr 2025, 16:07 last edited by
OK, I looked him up. That isn't the guy I was thinking of.
-
wrote on 8 Apr 2025, 17:54 last edited by
Weird how they spin this as a victory when the court took away their one reason for invoking the AEA to begin with.
-
wrote on 8 Apr 2025, 19:53 last edited by
Still, if you’re going to stick someone in max security in El Salvador, you’d better have something more than vague tattoos.
-
wrote on 8 Apr 2025, 19:57 last edited by
Yeah SCOTUS is requiring that they get their day in court, and Trump invoked the AEA so as to avoid that.
-
wrote on 8 Apr 2025, 21:37 last edited by
-
wrote on 8 Apr 2025, 21:41 last edited by
Sounds right.
-
wrote on 11 Apr 2025, 14:13 last edited by jon-nyc 4 Nov 2025, 14:14
9-0, get the administrative error guy back from El Salvador.
-
wrote on 11 Apr 2025, 16:01 last edited by Jolly 4 Nov 2025, 16:19
If they can.
BTW, did they give Trump a mechanism to do so?
Margolis' take:
-
wrote on 11 Apr 2025, 16:31 last edited by jon-nyc 4 Nov 2025, 16:32
Alexander Graham Bell gave it to them.
-
wrote on 11 Apr 2025, 17:28 last edited by
Read the decision.
-
wrote 30 days ago last edited by
Scotus halts Alien Enemies Act deportations.
-
wrote 30 days ago last edited by
7-2?
-
wrote 30 days ago last edited by
Yep. Alito is going to issue a statement.
-
wrote 28 days ago last edited by
Yep. Alito is going to issue a statement.
If I read correctly, he did not necessary disagree with the decision, but more the timing.
Alito disapproved of the timing of the decision, which he described as being "literally in the middle of the night."
"[T]he Court issued unprecedented and legally questionable relief without giving the lower courts a chance to rule, without hearing from the opposing party, within eight hours of receiving the application, with dubious factual support for its order, and without providing any explanation for its order," Alito wrote.
The justice, who has served on the court since 2006, was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas in his dissent.
"I refused to join the Court’s order because we had no good reason to think that, under the circumstances, issuing an order at midnight was necessary or appropriate," Alito continued.
"Both the Executive and the Judiciary have an obligation to follow the law. The Executive must proceed under the terms of our order in Trump v. J. G. G., 604 U. S. ___ (2025) (per curiam), and this Court should follow established procedures."
