Posted On: Monday - May 12th 2025 7:25PM MST
In Topics: Immigration Stupidity Trump US Feral Government ctrl-left Legal Stupidity
A couple of weeks ago on Peak Stupidity we had a Reader Friend Suggestion: Judge shopping for re- and pro-active Reverse Lawfare. This friend, who has started commenting as "Coulda Had Lee Rille" (disclaimer: not his real name... not ANYBODY's real name), asked for input from any legal types on whether any of this was feasible or legal. He obtained some answers from Unz Reveiw commenters.
The ZeroHedge post I saw today, Trump's 'Nuclear' Deportation Options, did not bring up Coulda' Had's ideas, but the author, one James Rickards of The Daily Reckoning, summed up the already well-known possibilities nicely. Mr. Rickards focussed his article, as per his title, on immigration measures by Trump, though this judicial obstruction tactic can and has been used by the ctrl-left of stop other policy by Trump and others.
Therefore, the 1st portion of the article is a good summary of the struggle the Trump administration is having with its deportation efforts. At this point, those efforts are still mostly aimed at the violent gang members, convicted criminals and other of the worst aliens that most obviously should be sent out of this country NOW. That's why it's a real sight to see, when the ctrl-left is working so hard to defend your Venezuelan Tren de Aragua members who've already raped and killed people. It takes a sicko to work to stop their exit from America, a leftist-principled sicko, but a sicko nonetheless.
What I don't like here in the article is a trend I have predicted. Rather than see the big picture that there were already a rectally-extracted-but-ballpark 30 million illegal aliens here before the Brandon/Mayorkas treason brought in 10-12 million more, people are forgetting the initial 30 million! This writer writes as if the 10-12 million is the ultimate goal. I'm afraid the Trump administration will start thinking that way too. With all the success in the world, they'd figure they're done, when we've gone down to accumulated numbers from 2020!
I have not yet looked to see if any of the astute ZeroHedge commenters - they are a mixed bag - have corrected Mr. Rickards on this matter. That aside, his summary of 3 possible ways to stop/avoid the judicial obstruction is good quick reading:
One is for the Supreme Court to issue a definitive ruling that district courts cannot issue nationwide injunctions, can only issue orders for the plaintiffs in the case and not the entire class of illegals, and that the courts have almost no jurisdiction over the conduct of foreign policy. Those rulings would empower Trump’s deportation programs.Let me be brief on my analysis of these 3 options:
The second way is for Trump to ignore the courts and proceed as planned. Critics will scream this is “unconstitutional”, but it’s just as unconstitutional for courts to ignore their limitations and intrude on the power of the executive branch. It’s an outcome the courts will have brought upon themselves.
The third way is to abolish the district courts, or at least some of them. That’s not as radical as it sounds. The Constitution clearly gives Congress the power to structure the court system any way it likes with the exception of the Supreme Court. Congress created the district courts and Congress can abolish them as well..
1) I'm pretty sure someone has pictures of John Roberts with naked little boys or something just as incriminating. He can positively be counted on to let America down when he is needed. Trump really screwed up his 3 SCROTUS picks, arguably at least 2 of them. I don't think we can count on (1) happening.
3) Congress can do a lot using their Constitutionally specified powers. They don't though. There's no way any of this will happen. If it miraculously did, activist judges would obstruct any legislation that did away with their jobs. Hell, wouldn't you?!
Ooops, I skipped over (2).
2) This is the only method that can work. This is not the America of 1985, in which perhaps we could work to form an across-the-aisle coalition to solve these problems. Now, one side WANTS these problems. The other side has half its people WANTING these problems. Of the rest, half of them care more about being thought well of in Washington, FS, so they can be welcomed at the cocktail parties.
Trump needs to do an Andy Jackson. He started off the Trump-47 term with a Blitzkrieg. The ctrl-left has formed its skirmish line made of activist judges. It's time to get the tanks back into formation and roll on through. Lighting war does not stop for Judge Boasergs. How many divisions do these judges have? They should be squished into the mud under MAGA's tank treads.
Comments:
Moderator
Tuesday - May 13th 2025 7:07AM MST
PS: Hell, herring OR seaweed, deport them all! ;-}
Moderator
Tuesday - May 13th 2025 7:06AM MST
PS: I've written here before, SafeNow, that actual deportation numbers have to be high and the action visible, for people to think seriously about "walking before they make me run."
I like your idea, but I think if it's just a handful or few dozen cases, people might feel pretty comfortable with their chances. It'd be a good start though. Take whatever you wrote and start doing it daily, throughout, well, red states would be a good start, as the blue-staters would get pretty jealous (inwardly, that is) If the illegals flee from red to blue states, I don't see that being so bad a thing...
I like your idea, but I think if it's just a handful or few dozen cases, people might feel pretty comfortable with their chances. It'd be a good start though. Take whatever you wrote and start doing it daily, throughout, well, red states would be a good start, as the blue-staters would get pretty jealous (inwardly, that is) If the illegals flee from red to blue states, I don't see that being so bad a thing...
Coulda Had Lee Rille
Tuesday - May 13th 2025 2:28AM MST
PS
I think that if we sentence the illegals to "harsh terms", rather than DEPORTING them, the recently misused "due process" term begins to mean what it was intended to mean, even for illegals or visa holders. As long as you're not "punishing" (i.e. imprisoning or executing, maybe fining) the illegal and thus taking away life, liberty or property, the "due process" spoken of in the Constitution has no relevance. This is more clearly seen in the case of green card or visa holders in the US. They received that privilege with several stipulations. If any of those are ignored or violated, the so-called "due process" (really just "process" since it's unrelated to the Constitutional reference) is simply to quickly verify that they did or didn't do such-and-such, and send them on their way home. Of course, if they (or your average run of the mill Mexican illegal) actually committed a crime, I guess you could try to convict them. And they would likely have those 5th/14th amendment "due process" rights for a real trial. But when their prison time is over (paid by US taxpayers), the green card holder/student would then have his actions quickly examined against his original agreement (not much process there, and certainly nothing related to the 14th amendment "due process"), and out they go.
If the dems were consistent, they would be out there screaming and protesting whenever drivers get too many points/violations and have their license suspended.
They would scream "no due process", as if there should be a trial with a judge and possibly jury before such a clearcut and predefined action could be taken. The process in such a case is NOT at all related to the "due process" of the Constitution. Rather, it is just having an official look at your driving record, and say yep, you have too many violations. Your license will be suspended for six months, at which time you can retest (or whatever). But of course, we don't have Democrats acting consistently, and therefore out protesting peoples' driver suspensions with claims of "he needs Due Process...and needs it NOW". They know it would be ridiculous, and they only do it in this specific circumstance (3rd world immigration) to try and get dem voters or transform the country, etc.
Actually, one could make a case that the suspended driver is having much more liberty taken than 99% of deported illegals would experience. Except for some city dwellers, the ability to drive in this country is extremely important and essentially necessary.
I think that if we sentence the illegals to "harsh terms", rather than DEPORTING them, the recently misused "due process" term begins to mean what it was intended to mean, even for illegals or visa holders. As long as you're not "punishing" (i.e. imprisoning or executing, maybe fining) the illegal and thus taking away life, liberty or property, the "due process" spoken of in the Constitution has no relevance. This is more clearly seen in the case of green card or visa holders in the US. They received that privilege with several stipulations. If any of those are ignored or violated, the so-called "due process" (really just "process" since it's unrelated to the Constitutional reference) is simply to quickly verify that they did or didn't do such-and-such, and send them on their way home. Of course, if they (or your average run of the mill Mexican illegal) actually committed a crime, I guess you could try to convict them. And they would likely have those 5th/14th amendment "due process" rights for a real trial. But when their prison time is over (paid by US taxpayers), the green card holder/student would then have his actions quickly examined against his original agreement (not much process there, and certainly nothing related to the 14th amendment "due process"), and out they go.
If the dems were consistent, they would be out there screaming and protesting whenever drivers get too many points/violations and have their license suspended.
They would scream "no due process", as if there should be a trial with a judge and possibly jury before such a clearcut and predefined action could be taken. The process in such a case is NOT at all related to the "due process" of the Constitution. Rather, it is just having an official look at your driving record, and say yep, you have too many violations. Your license will be suspended for six months, at which time you can retest (or whatever). But of course, we don't have Democrats acting consistently, and therefore out protesting peoples' driver suspensions with claims of "he needs Due Process...and needs it NOW". They know it would be ridiculous, and they only do it in this specific circumstance (3rd world immigration) to try and get dem voters or transform the country, etc.
Actually, one could make a case that the suspended driver is having much more liberty taken than 99% of deported illegals would experience. Except for some city dwellers, the ability to drive in this country is extremely important and essentially necessary.
SafeNow
Tuesday - May 13th 2025 1:24AM MST
PS
(oops sorry make Korean seaweed restaurants. I originally wrote Norwegian herring restaurants, but then I realized that’s stupid because nobody from Norway sneaks into the United States.)
(oops sorry make Korean seaweed restaurants. I originally wrote Norwegian herring restaurants, but then I realized that’s stupid because nobody from Norway sneaks into the United States.)
SafeNow
Tuesday - May 13th 2025 1:18AM MST
PS
This analysis of deport-them scenarios is correct but if it’s not too off-topic, please tell me: What about triggering SELF-deportation? I have posted this here before. You arrest a few leafblower guys and chicken-pluckers, under the federal charge of, simply, being here illegally. You sentence them to a very harsh term. You would have to include in the above some Korean guys here illegally operating herring restaurants, in order to avoid “selective prosecution.” Indian guys working in convenience stores. Etc. But wouldn’t this scare millions of illegals into self-deporting? The flaw I see is that you could only prosecute illegals in red states. And so, illegals in red states, rather than self-deporting, would flee to blue states.
This analysis of deport-them scenarios is correct but if it’s not too off-topic, please tell me: What about triggering SELF-deportation? I have posted this here before. You arrest a few leafblower guys and chicken-pluckers, under the federal charge of, simply, being here illegally. You sentence them to a very harsh term. You would have to include in the above some Korean guys here illegally operating herring restaurants, in order to avoid “selective prosecution.” Indian guys working in convenience stores. Etc. But wouldn’t this scare millions of illegals into self-deporting? The flaw I see is that you could only prosecute illegals in red states. And so, illegals in red states, rather than self-deporting, would flee to blue states.
As for visa (and I'm not sure about Green Card) holders, they are here due to the grace of the US State Dept. Does Trump actually run that place this time? Rubio is the guy, and he has seemed to have changed, but one still wonders about his inner beliefs on immigration.
We (you and I, CHLR) know quite a bit about the situations at the universities with the massive numbers of foreign visa-holders of various sorts, especially in the (uggh, don't like the term) STEM grad schools. I bet Trump doesn't know very much about that. I wish someone could explain to him the numbers and how Americans used to be there and CAN do this work and. study. It'd be great if he could be convinced to "Pull them! Pull them all, now!", the visas that is.
It's time to play hardball - get the Blitzkrieg back going.