Legal Experts Debate Trump's Use of Alien Enemies Act for Deportations

Legal Experts Debate Trump's Use of Alien Enemies Act for Deportations

Trump administration likely overstepped authority in immigration crackdown, experts say
When a tattoo means deportation, every American should be alarmed | Editorial

Judge incredulous in Trump deportation case as administration lawyers argue verbal court order isn’t binding – as it happened

Convicted Felon ​President Trump's recent invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to expedite the deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members has sparked significant legal debate. The Alien Enemies Act grants the president authority to detain or deport non-citizens from enemy nations during times of declared war or armed conflict. However, experts argue that its application in this context is unprecedented, as the United States is neither at war with Venezuela nor facing an armed attack from it. 

Legal challenges have arisen, with U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issuing a temporary restraining order to halt the deportations. Despite this, the administration proceeded with the deportations, leading to heightened tensions between the executive and judiciary branches. 

The Supreme Court has previously addressed the Alien Enemies Act, notably in the 1948 case of Ludecke v. Watkins, where it upheld the detention of a German national during World War II until a formal peace treaty was signed. However, the current situation differs, as there is no declared war with Venezuela.​

Given these circumstances, if the Supreme Court reviews President Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act, it may scrutinize the administration's broad interpretation of "invasion" and assess whether the act's application is appropriate without a formal declaration of war. Legal analysts suggest that the Court could rule against the administration's actions, considering them an overreach of executive authority. ​

In summary, while the outcome is uncertain, the Supreme Court may be inclined to limit the application of the Alien Enemies Act in this context, emphasizing adherence to constitutional boundaries and the importance of checks and balances.

However...

If the Supreme Court were to "smile and nod" or simply allow the Trump administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act without substantial scrutiny, it could signal a concerning trend of the Court being passive in the face of executive overreach. 

This might suggest a willingness to prioritize executive power over individual rights and constitutional limits. It could also indicate that the Court is reluctant to challenge or check the authority of the president, potentially undermining the role of the judiciary as a protector of constitutional principles and democratic checks and balances. Such a decision might lead to criticism of the Court as being overly deferential or politically influenced, weakening public trust in its independence and impartiality.

An overarching increase in executive power, especially when deemed unacceptable, raises significant concerns about the balance of power outlined in the U.S. Constitution. The framers of the Constitution deliberately designed a system of checks and balances to prevent any one branch of government from becoming too dominant. When the executive branch gains unchecked authority, it can undermine the separation of powers, leading to potential abuses.

If the executive is allowed to expand its powers without proper judicial review or congressional oversight, it could lead to authoritarian tendencies, where the president can act unilaterally without the necessary scrutiny or restraint. This centralization of power risks eroding the democratic principles that ensure accountability and transparency.

In such cases, the role of the Supreme Court becomes crucial. If the Court doesn't assert its responsibility to protect constitutional limits, the unchecked growth of executive power can transform the executive into an entity that is not only above the law but potentially able to dictate national policy without regard for the other branches' input. This could severely compromise individual freedoms, rights, and the democratic system of governance.

Thus, if SCOTUS were to "smile and nod" at Donald Trump's expansion of his executive powers without significant challenge, it sets a dangerous precedent, leading to an erosion of the checks and balances that are essential for preserving democracy and safeguarding civil liberties.

Trump really is not good for America. Never has been. Regardless the disinformation, the Russian influencing, or the MaGA political personality cult's beliefs.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Special Post - Kavanaugh vs Dr. Ford

What have we learned about the #Kavanaugh situation today? Accepting Dr. Ford is telling the truth as her testimony lends itself easily to that being the case. Considering therein Kavanaugh's own testimony today....

Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh

How can you explain this juxtaposition of testimonies if she is telling the truth?

Schools such as Kavanaugh attended during the time of his alleged attack can hold some of the wildest types of students. My own experience from being at a Catholic school was I couldn't wait to get back to a public schools.

I was told they only had the best kids at that private Catholic school and I had to be one to go there. I agreed. I looked forward to it. A school with kids who were good, decent? Awesome! Then I got in and found I was one of the best of those kids in a moral or ethical sense and I was STUNNED to find the behaviors they partook of.

There were several other kids who weren't Catholic, and I liked them far better than the career Catholic school kids we had to suffer though. I had thought public school kids were the lowlifes. I'm sure many of those private school kids graduated and got positions of importance and power and trust. As eventually I had myself.

But they were some of the wildest and most crass kids I had ever attended school with up to that time. They knew they were highly scrutinized, morally kept to an annoyingly higher standard and consideration and so they tended to be smart about hiding things. They were well educated and very good at hiding their looked down upon activities  Even over years. And how they loved to party.

At 17 Kavanaugh was approaching the height of his sexual intensity in his life, his libido undoubtedly high as it was for many of the male gender at that age. Male libido during these formative years can be unwieldy, almost impossible at times to control and so you seek out accepted behaviors. With a girlfriend, or through sports or exercise. He said he had a full schedule, worked hard to be #1 in his class.

These require hard work and a good degree of stress. Those who party, as he admits he did, do tend to party hard as the old saying goes, "work hard, play hard". It can also as we've seen repeatedly with high stress hard working people under pressure, to get weird. If not at times, even criminals. That is a well known stereotype proved out with many well known as well as high pressure jobs. Nothing we've seen so far precludes Dr. Ford's allegations to be patently untenable.

Or as some especially rich and privileged kids do, like Kavanaugh (and we've all seen those teen movies about these types), exercising their libidos through taking advantage of any situation where they can get sex.

I never understood sex with your male friends on one woman. But those I knew who liked it, found it an intense bonding experience with the guys. One where they might in the future give their lives for you, or lie to Congress about things you all once did together. Especially if it was sick or sadistic. And those activities objectified and denigrated women, those girls of their  focus, in living those experiences in those ways with those very special male friends.

Sometimes the bad behaviors of those formative years alone are enough for many to get onto a good path in later learning of one's mistakes and how bad they may really have been. They may, push one to be an advocate for women, as Kavanaugh claimed, which actually supports the contentions here and not his allusions.

Thus governing future actions. Perhaps even with a future orientation of hoping your past never surfaces and your future will take a new and better path. And never getting caught for things you'd never today attempt.

During high school and college you are living the years of freedom! Hiding your behaviors, living your fantasies as you can get away with them during a publicly sanctioned period of exploration and even of "sowing one's wild oats" as the "old saw" goes.

After Kavanaugh got into the work force and began to work in highly scrutinized legal professions and positions, his libidao was on the decline after his peak years. Perhaps he wisely controlled himself as he could more easily by then as he aged out of his teenage testosterone insanity, and from then on he COULD be investigated and vetted with a clean bill of health.

IF this is the situation, if he was a predator during high school and college and for some reason stopped, it simply indicates that minus his system being flooded with testosterone as happens to all of us guys, as happens more intensely to some of us more than others and then levels off at some point, that Kavanaugh is actually a decent person, who felt guilty, adjusted, and at some point after college got his act together. And in the process, he is denying what Dr. Ford is sharing, and what is that doing to her, in Kavanaugh trying to salvage his life, his career and his family? At the expense of a woman he accosted and altered the course of her life for her, forever.

As long as they stayed out of his high school and college years. Or started looking into his sexual activities more closely, with an eye for those types of activities. Even the FBI could miss all that, if they were not clued into a need to consider them. Especially when vetting such a well respected, well documented and high profile type such as a Kavanaugh. Or even perhaps, a Bill Cosby. or Justice Clarence Thomas.

Is Kavanaugh guilty? It sure and reasonably looks like it. What about his comments today about being a virgin till later? It may be true. I doesn't change what Dr. Ford went through or who accurately believing he was sexually assaulting her.

The question then is, should we punish these people for bad behaviors in their formative years when they have cleaned up their lives and made a decent life and career from that point on?

Because many would fall if that were the case. But that isn't the point here.

The point here and now is that he would have lied to Congress. For a position on our highest court in the nation. And that being the situation, Kavanagh has then condemned himself to being barred from the position as a Justice of the #SCOTUS, himself. Or worse. As he lied under oath. To Congress. And the FBI. Which some Republicans have gone on record recently saying, was not a crime. Really? They do have an odd sense of who they are and what is real, or criminal.

After all, doesn't it always seem to be the cover up, not the crime, that brings an end to these people and their careers?

Let me just end with this clever little video response.


#gop #pOTUS #vpOTUS #Republican #conservative #Congress

SCOTUS On Notice - A Centered Supreme Court

I may be missing something but this seems patently stupid how we select Supreme Court Justices. On a nine Justice Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) we need an always balanced court with four conservatives, four liberal and one swing voter.

There is a new petition on WhiteHouse.gov calling for what we desperately NEED. A balanced SCOTUS, by Constitutional Amendment!

Article Two of the United States Constitution requires the President of the United States to nominate Supreme Court Justices and, with Senate confirmation, requires Justices to be appointed. ... he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court... - Wikipedia

It would seem to me regardless who is in power, on a nine Justice SCOTUS we need balance to protect America and our laws. We are seeing now a days a problem in those in power being able to choose more power through appointing judges and Gerrymandering. It's broken. The original intent is broken. We need to balance this out going forward. The concept of the President being selected by the People, is no longer accurate. It has purposely been skewed by the Republican party, conservatives, and of late, by a contrary anti Democratic nation, in Russia, and more specifically a criminal leader, Vladimir Putin.

Wouldn't it be better, to have four conservative justices selected by a bipartisan Congressional confirmation process, weighted more heavily with conservatives\Republicans as they choose?

Then four liberal justices selected by a bipartisan Congressional confirmation process weighted more heavily with liberals\Democrats as they choose.

Then finally one justice to be selected by an equally bipartisan Congressional confirmation process to select the swing vote Justice. I think it may be time to end the President having this power to submit justices for SCOTUS, or otherwise. As for judges in each state, that's another matter. Having central government select judges across the nation leads to too many conservatives, or too many liberal judges nationwide.

When we need moderation. Judges for life is another questionable issue based in a need of them being above being threatened, but bringing into the mix what we see now in some judges who should no longer be judges and yet, they are there until they quit, or die?

Supreme Justices can still be suggested by the president, but also filtered as now through Republicans and Democrats, equally in Congressional Confirmations This isn't about the president, it's not about Congress, it is after all and should be, about the PEOPLE.

When a Supreme Justice vacates depending on position as conservative, liberal or swing voter, that Congressional panel (conservative weighted or liberal) would be put together to properly execute the process so that in the end the People will have a well balanced and functional SCOTUS. And end this nonsense we have now as we've seen in an abuse Republican Congress who denied Pres. Obama his selection for a Supreme Court Justice, then allowing a Republican Congress now to push through another conservative Justice when it should have been a liberal one.

That, is wrong. It is illiberal. It is unAmerican.

It would then matter not who is in power at any one time because that seems to be the mistake we're seeing today. A mistake that has made America world wide, not only a laughing stock at times, but a bully super power.

Where we have one party in power illiberally as we have now with the GOP, giving us apparently a SCOTUS with soon to be a too long of a term court weighted incorrectly for the actual desires of the people overall.

Especially after again, what Republicans did during the Obama administration in denying a Supreme Court Justice in order to purposely skew the People's Supreme Court which is obviously not a fully Republican one and yet they seem to wish that to be the case.

Which would be a travesty of jurisprudence and Congressional oversight.

Did not know, as John Oliver points out, that we're the only democracy in the world with SCOTUS life terms. Not say, 18 year terms to coincide with presidential administrations. We need to pay attention about this. As Oliver mentions, during the Constitution writing, life expectancy was shorter and judges retired younger.

Now we have justices who in some cases are too older to be thinking clearly or quickly enough as we've seen actually happen in the past. And we've seen outdated, outmoded thinking by elder Justices affect our modern needs and concerns. Not to mention, many conservative Republican beliefs are typically outdated and out moded to begin with.

We have got to fix these issues one way or another (better in more enlightened intelligent ways however) because this, is not a functional situation and this, is going to happen again.

Besides we don't want an extreme America that is way too liberal or way to conservative. The world doesn't want that though I submit they would prefer a too liberal America over a too conservative one as we're seeing in being protectionist, and a bully.

We need now to do something! We need to guarantee from here forward that rather than this haphazard guessing game that is literally in some cases, killing people, a more stable and guaranteed continuous reliable and decent America. Because in skewing America one way or another in our judicial, in acting as our national personality governing our orientations and attitudes through our laws, that does indeed affect the entire world.

And as of this time I fear, some of that is leaning not the direction of the majority of the American people, not in a more democratic direction, but in one that makes the leader of another country, in that of Russia, smile in Putin is getting into bed each night. In believing the world is becoming more Russian than American, more autocratic than... democratic. Undemocratic. Illiberal. UnAmerican.

Understand, these comments about Putin and Russia are not just about them hacking our elections. This has been a long term goal of Russia over decades. It's been reported that Russia's "useful idiot" in Donald Trump (a KGB reference to useful foreigners they can use, many times even without their explicit knowledge) first got involved with Russian crime through their oligarchs back in 1987 (it's been more recently reported his connections go even further back to 1984 when he sold parts of Trump Tower to one of them, leading to money laundering issues). It has to do with the Republican party using old tried and true KGB methodologies on the American citizenry for decades now. Yes, it's a mess. One we need to clean up.

We need to get back control of America. Not for Republicans. Not for Democrats. Not for Russia or Putin. But for the American People overall. Which means also for those people of the world who wish to come here, be here or simply be proud again of knowing always in the world that there is a county such as America to be the shining light it once was for fairness and compassion.

And can be again. We have not had to make America Great Again" until the man who ran on that platform brought this country to her knees and now does indeed need to become the great country it once was, before he came on the scene. Before the Republican party for decades now, set the path downward for someone like a Donald J Trump to come onto the scene to disrupt, damage and destroy who we are and should be, at our core.

And it all starts...with our Supreme Court of the UNITED STATES of America.


#SCOTUS #Republican #Democrat #conservative #Liberal #Progressive #realDonaldTrump #POTUS #VPOTUS #Trump #illiberal #Autocratic

Today's Gender Roles - Marriage Equality now SCOTUS Supported

I am a phenomenologist. Truly. I have a degree in psychology and I studied phenomenology. I am here not to make judgement as much as I am to observe and describe what I see.

I was just talking with my daughter and her friends about transgender issues and modern gender issues in general. I'm pretty open minded, transcendental. But I am human and was born in a time where a certain paradigm was prominent even though I was usually ahead of change due to my love of science fiction since the early 1960s.

We had talked about Bruce Jenner, my daughter and her friends, and individuals we've all known, personally. We were talking about how one relates to a transgender person. How is that defined?

My daughter said it's all about how the individual wants to be defined. But I think there is more to it than that.

As I see it there are three versions of gender. How a person defines themselves. How the person's gender is defined legally (what's on your birth certificate). And how you are defined by your physicality.

It used to be easy. There was an order to that, it wasn't a concern or consideration. No one thought about it because there was nothing to think about. Or so it seemed.

You're born either male or female, you're male or female, respectively. Surely a small percentage are born without a physical and prominent distinction. One in 1,500 babies from one report. So more than one might think, or have thought at one time.

Then things like gender reassignment came up. We were defined by our physicality but eventually we were defined by the individual's beliefs more than their physicality.

So Bruce Jenner takes hormones, comes out to the world as a woman. He's a woman? But he said he will not go the full course and lose his penis so physically he will be a man with breasts and a feminine appearance. What's his gender then? Female? Male\female? Male? What's the defining factor?

My daughter said if someone dyes their hair from blond to green, isn't it green or will you say, "No, you're still a blond."

I said that wasn't how I saw it at all. It was more like they were blond, dyed their hair green and said it's red. If that is the case, do we accept then that it's red? Or is it blond. Or green? How do we define their hair color?

Still there would be the three ways to define that. Legal, physical, personal. But in this case the hair would physically be green, though called red, and fundamentally blond.

It occurred to me that part of the issue here is in those gender reassigned or partially reassigned individuals over-complicating the issue.

See, it's really a fairly simple issue.

But individuals need to feel, well, what they feel. In the old days, they'd have gotten therapy. Basically, that is what they do need IS therapy. But the therapy has gone from mental, to physical and therein lay the confusion. For everyone.

I've always been told I was over complicated. But as I saw it, I was merely able to see the complexity in things that most people couldn't see. In this issue it seems to me that these people are overcompensating things for their therapy. They are over complicating their gender issues (yes, gender issues are complicated, I'm not denying that, just bare with me), so they will feel normal.

Now look. I don't have a problem with people trying to feel normal. Up to a point. We all have limits, right?

I mean, if you're a serial murderer, or a pedophile, you need to kill or molest to feel normal. Well, I don't want you to feel normal in that case, I want you not to feel normal. However for most people I do want them to be able to feel normal. I don't have a problem with THAT. Not if it doesn't affect others (as in death I mean).

But there is more to life than a person simply needing to feel normal.

As I'd said you can call yourself a rocket ship even, if you like, but you are still going to have to be designated on legal documents as something discrete, a compartmentalized unit. Such as male, female, or even, let's call it, trans. I don't think we need legal definitions to go to the lengths of Facebook and allow fifty-six gender titles. We just need a general idea of what we all can agree that you are.

I mean, really Facebook, do we really need 56 genders? Well it's social networking so, sure why not? I do think that's going a bit far, though. Okay, perhaps not for social media, but certainly for legalities. Three should be enough, or six, but let's not get carried away.

Here's in part my point. Some will over complicate their gender or title because they need to in order to feel either special, or that is, normal. I'm more concerned about the special, but the normal can also be an issue.

When you over complicate your gender to the group, you are also asking them for something for you. Understanding, if nothing else. I mean you can call yourself anything in the privacy of your home but when you go out and expect others to relate to you in non normal (general, average, etc.) ways, you are entering a different realm. You are then asking the group to help you make you feel normal. That simplifies things for you but complicates them for the group. Whether or not they see it that way really doesn't matter, because it simply does what it does. And that's fine. To a point.

But it is more complicated than that, too. If I were to point that out then those who are over complicating the issue will rebel and say that I am over complicating their issue. So they are saying they want things to be simpler and I'm the one over complicating things on their agenda.

You can't have it both ways. It's either complicated, or simple.

Obviously we can just relate to someone as they wish to be related. But should we, really? If they aren't based in some form of reality? And what is reality but a definition of what is? What is which, physical, emotional, legit, intellectual? What? Where is the definition? What or which is more important? The individual? The group?

Basically the individual is expecting the group to take on part of their therapy. And that too is okay, up to a point. We all do that and the individuals who do it too much are labeled as troublesome, possibly to be avoided and at some point they are usually locked up.

Thankfully we don't do that anywhere as much as we used to. There are people walking around free today who at one point in time would have been locked up in a prison, or an asylum. Of course there are those in prison now who should be in a mental institution for help and are instead being brutalized in prison because we are too cheap as a country to pay for the proper care in the proper environment.

So someone gets gender reassignment and doesn't change their genitals. Male or female? Is it only their decision? Well, for the most part outside of legalities, sure, why not. However, when it gets into things like pronouns, how much can they require before it gets out of hand?

What if it carries over to their pets? Do you call their dog a "he", a "she", a "their"? Or some other form. When it gets to the point that when someone meets your pet for the first time and they have to ask, "Oh, what pronoun does "she" ("he?") like to be called?" Isn't that kind of over complicating things?

At what point does it become over complicated to the point that it is too complicated and unacceptable, or should be unacceptable?

Here's part of the consideration. It's easy to just be accepting and say, "Whatever an individual wants to be referred to as, is what I will refer to them as." It sounds pretty, it's feelgood. but when you consider a group of all non standard gender types, the consideration becomes something else; as I was indicating above about the hair dye.

Sure, on an individual basis you can refer to someone as however they prefer to be referred to. At some level, it's just good manners. We should try to be considerate and cater to our fellow human's identity of who they see themselves to be.

But you can also reach a point where it simply isn't reasonable, or where it isn't even good for the individual making the claims in calling for their desired designation.

For the most part I think, just refer to someone as they choose.

But when you start talking about it in the abstract as we are here and now, and as I was with my daughter and friends, it really grows into a bigger and more inclusive issue than just the consideration of a single individual as you initially wish it to. It quickly grows into a societal issue and not just a personal or subgroup issue.

That is where some of this can quickly become very emotional to discuss. Because you can get one person talking about it at an individual level, even though they are or may also be discussing it on a much larger scale. Many times debates run into that issue. It's why you see so many heated discussions or arguments on topics like this, not even going into the potential pathology of someone arguing about their own identity.

Bottom line I think is, just treat someone kindly and compassionately. Outside of that and in the larger sense, just give it a little more thought than you might normally have done. Life isn't simple anymore. We  have masses amounts of information to deal with, ways to behave are more sophisticated, people can more easily be hurt by way of inattention or ignorance, or a fear of the different.

Don't be one of those people. Be thoughtful and kind and try to understand. If you find yourself reacting negatively, then try to find a more productive way to deal with it. You may find that many times what you fear or hate, find distasteful or disgusting, is out of ignorance, or unfamiliarity. Consider if it's based in elements of what you have grown to see as reality and where any of that  might wrong, or if you are right but you can still treat others strange to you with compassion if not at least, common good manners.

To each their own. And maybe we can tall talk and get to know one another, regardless of how annoying they may be, or we may be, to them.

Speaking of which, SCOTUS, the Supreme Court of the United States has just declared same sex marriage legal in all fifty states. It's nice to see sanity rule the day for a change. From them today on this..