Rapid Response 47 @RapidResponse47
·
.@RealTomHoman: "People always want to say why are you so emotional?... I've talked to little girls as young as nine years old who are raped multiple times by the cartel members, and when you get to your knees and you talk to that little girl and everything innocent and pure has been ripped from her?

When you listen to Laken Riley… 17 minutes, that young lady fighting for her life?

Don't just think, okay, a young woman died, think of how she died—the terror that she went through—and these children are sexually assaulted. I stood in back of a tractor trailer and 19 dead people at my feet that baked to death.

Illegal immigration is not a victimless crime, and so every sick person we take off the streets—especially child rapists—it makes this country much safer.

9:26 AM · Apr 28, 2025. //

Media Research Center @theMRC
·
Tom Homan schools a reporter asking about illegal alien mothers being deported with their children:

"I don't hear any questions about Laken Riley's mother, she's never going to see her child again."

9:38 AM · Apr 28, 2025. //

anon-ev27
an hour ago
It is impossible for our corrupt media to see the victims of illegal immigration crimes. They believe all illegal immigrants are asylum candidates and have been through far worse. "So what are you Americans complaining about. The few who suffer are a small price to pay for the greater good of a magnanimous USA that welcomes all people from around the world with open arms. This is what my college professors taught me to believe".

On Monday, a reporter at the White House tried to nail Homeland Security advisor and White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller on the question of the deportations of the mothers. It did not go well for the reporter. The reporter asked if it was the "best use of the administration's resources" to go after "moms of young kids." Miller then completely turned it around on the guy. He asked him if he had an opinion on "what percentage" of the illegal aliens of the estimated 10 million illegal aliens that Joe Biden let into the country should get to stay.

"Is it your view that if a Democrat president releases 10, 15, 20 million illegal into the country — they all then should get to stay forever and for all of their life?" Miller inquired of the reporter.

When the reporter wouldn't answer, Millet just wrecked him, "You don't want to answer the question, because you know the answer. It's obvious — everyone that Biden let in has to go home. Of course. It's a crazy thing to even ask."

According to the government, Dugan directed federal agents away from the hallway outside of her courtroom to see the chief judge, then hustled illegal alien defendant Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, whose case she was supposed to hear, out another door. The affidavit also noted that, on top of all that, the case against Flores-Ruiz wasn't called. When the state's attorney asked, the attorney found out the case had been adjourned even though the state's attorney and the victims were there for it.

So much for that "due process" that the victims had come for, and that Democrats are now screaming about. Reminder: the illegal alien was facing multiple charges of domestic violence, and he had already been deported once, so he was a re-entry. //

So if you don't know the details, why are you commenting? How can it be "obvious" intimidation when you don't even know the facts of the case? You say you don't want to comment, yet you are commenting. This tells you all you need to know about why media today is in trouble.

Then Brooks made it worse.

And to me, if she- - let’s say she did escort this guy out the door. If federal enforcement agencies come to your courtroom and you help a guy escape, that is two things. One, it strikes me as maybe something illegal, but it also strikes me as something heroic.

And in times of trouble, then people are sometimes called to do civil disobedience. And in my view, when people do civil disobedience they have to pay the price. That’s part of the heroism of it, frankly. And so you can both think that she shouldn’t have legally done this, and that, morally, protecting somebody against, maybe not even in this case, but in other cases, frankly, a predatory enforcement agency... //

Unbelievable. Forget about the enforcement of the law or any of the victims. We've now moved from "no one is above the law" to "sometimes civil disobedience is necessary," and breaking the law is "heroic." He wants to be able to offer an opinion, without getting held to any of the bad details in this particular case, so what is what he says worth? Absolutely nothing. //

Dieter Schultz RedDog_FLA
8 minutes ago

Civil Disobedience by a Judge responsible for the rule of law?
Label me puzzled. Brooks has really left leaned his views.

When you consider the way that progressives reason, namely, that they start with the conclusion that they want to draw and then work backwards to find a line of rationalization that gets them there... when you consider that... well, it's hard to be surprised by what emanates from the mind of a progressive.

It seems to me that Judge Dugan and Brooks both approach the world, including the legal world, from that paradigm... well... it's not all that surprising to hear their views on civil disobedience.

That worldview and reasoning runs counter to the way axiomatic systems like the law, and math, works but nobody ever said they were rational.

What Gene Rossi, a former federal prosecutor, is doing is essentially conceding the facts of the case (that Dugan did what she's alleged to have done) while trying to argue that it was improper for the Trump administration to arrest her because of the "spectacle."

Did Rossi ever make that case about any of the people around President Donald Trump who were frogmarched out of their homes by the Biden administration? Or what about Trump himself? If you're going to argue that judges deserve deference, didn't a then-former president deserve deference? Only now are these CNN flacks acting as if using measure exists, and that's a patently political complaint. //

JENNINGS: Let me tell you my view. The spectacle is important because the message has to be sent to everybody else, "We are not going to put up...you have been elected by people to uphold the law, and some of the laws that have been most flagrantly violated in his country are immigraiton laws. You've got to get on board with upholding all the laws. //

Yes, if the facts of this case are proven true, this judge committed a crime, but sending her to jail is only part of the equation. The other part is using her as an example and showing other judges and officials around the country that they will be treated just like every other alleged criminal if they break the law. There will be no special treatment. There will be no summons orders to avoid the cameras. //

Fishin'withFredo
2 hours ago
"Spectacle"? Let's not forget that this same network was CALLED and positioned by the feds to broadcast Roger Stone and his wife marched out of their home in cuffs at 0400.

Retired Professor tcgeol
3 days ago
I hope this isn't misunderstood, but sometimes Catholics who are otherwise socially conservative have what most of us would consider quite liberal views on things like immigration and welfare, arising out of a misguided notion that the government is supposed to play the same kind of role as the Church in helping those less fortunate. Of course, the only way the government can do that is by forced wealth transfers, which the Constitution never contemplated.

If the average American were asked to point to the section of the U.S. Constitution granting the Supreme Court authority to execute immigration laws, chances are he would have a tough time finding it. Why? Because such a power doesn’t exist.

That pertinent fact didn’t seem to matter to seven justices on America’s highest court, however.

This past weekend, these justices took it upon themselves to usurp President Trump’s Article II powers over immigration enforcement by temporarily halting the planned deportations of dangerous Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act. Released in the early hours of Saturday morning, the court’s one-page order arbitrarily directed the administration “not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this Court.”

The order provided no rationale for the decision, prompting Associate Justice Samuel Alito to pen a blistering dissent, in which Associate Justice Clarence Thomas joined. In addition to chastising the majority for “hastily and prematurely” granting emergency relief in a case still working its way through the lower courts, Alito laid out a bulleted list of everything wrong with the high court’s “unprecedented and legally questionable” actions. He notably wrote, “It is not clear that the Court had jurisdiction” over the matter, and, “Both the Executive and the Judiciary have an obligation to follow the law” (emphasis added). //

While hordes of illegals came across the U.S.-Mexico border, the Biden administration facilitated the placement of foreign nationals throughout the country in places like Springfield, Ohio, upending countless American lives in the process.

Some American families suffered great losses as a result of Biden’s open border policies. Illegal aliens who never should have been allowed to set foot in the U.S. to begin with took the lives of young girls like Laken Riley and Jocelyn Nungaray.

And yet, when Trump attempts to reverse this anarchy by lawfully utilizing his Article II powers and existing statutes to remove foreign nationals infringing upon America’s sovereignty, the courts interfere and tell him he can’t. That is patently absurd and illogical.

For one, the Constitution gives the authority to execute the nation’s laws to the president — not to the Supreme Court or any other lower court judge.

Secondly, the notion that the judiciary is “supreme” to the other branches directly contradicts the views of the Founding Fathers. As The Federalist’s John Daniel Davidson recently explained, the founders “didn’t think the judiciary was the sole arbiter of what is and is not constitutional.” “While the courts, headed by the Supreme Court, indeed have an independent power to interpret and apply the Constitution,” Davidson wrote, “that doesn’t mean they are supreme over the other two branches, or the states for that matter.”

Alexander Hamilton even suggested in The Federalist No. 78 that the judiciary is to be considered the weakest of the three branches, as it “has no influence over either the sword or the purse, no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever.”

Is he a "Maryland father?" No, he's an illegal alien who's lived in the U.S. for years and has never made any attempt to become a citizen. Is he an American citizen who was unlawfully deported? No, he’s in this country illegally and had a valid deportation order issued against him. (It is true that he wasn’t supposed to be deported to El Salvador because he was fearful of opposing gangs, but he is not and never was an American citizen. //

CNN and MSNBC referred to Kilmar Abrego Garcia as a “Maryland man” or similar terminology a total of 506 times in three weeks.

Garcia was described as being from Maryland nearly five times more often than he was described as being from El Salvador.

Only 10% of the 318 reports about Garcia on both networks included any mention that he was in the U.S. illegally.

Talking heads on MSNBC were almost twice as likely to misrepresent Garcia’s immigration status as they were to describe it correctly.

Julio Rosas
@Julio_Rosas11
·
Follow
NEW: Here is a copy of the sworn statement signed by Jose Hermosillo. During questioning, which was done in Spanish, Hermosillo stated he:

-Was born in Mexico
-Was not a U.S. citizen
-Crossed the border illegally via the desert
-Wanted work
-Was in the U.S. illegally
Frank Luntz
@FrankLuntz
Replying to @FrankLuntz
“He did say he was a U.S. citizen, but they didn't believe him.”

An American citizen named Jose in Arizona was detained by immigration officials for 10 days. His family later provided officials with his birth certificate and Social Security card.

https://azpm.org/p/headlines/2025/4/18/224512-us-citizen-in-arizona-detained-by-immigration-officials-for-10-days/. //

If I go up to the cops and tell them I murdered someone and then sign a statement to that effect, they are going to detain me until they figure out what's going on. That's what happened here, and it is not the fault of ICE or CBP that they were lied to.

And that brings us to the obvious question, given how odd this situation is. Was this a setup? //

Red in Illinois
39 minutes ago edited
So we have one of two things here:

1) Lying to a federal agent and knowingly making a false report

2) Forged/fake official documents

Charge him either way to deter this kinda behavior.

If Democrats wish to travel to El Salvador and meet with a foreign illegal MS-13 gang member, they can spend their own money to do so.

I will not approve a single dime of Oversight Committee taxpayer funds for use on the excursion Democrats have requested. //

idalily
3 hours ago
No, no, I want a couple dozen of them to go. And take some Dem senators with them. While they're gone, bring every item on the GOP wish list to the floor and pass it.

President Joe Biden brought at least 8 million illegal immigrants into the United States through an assortment of semi-legal programs.

Now, President Donald Trump is seeking to do the will of the American people by deporting them, but the Democrats’ tooth-and-nail legal fight against him shows that keeping them in the country forever was always their plan. //

If the full array of amnesty hearings and appeals were to be given to all the millions of illegal immigrants Biden ushered in, it would take not decades but centuries to clear the backlog of cases.

Biden’s aides knew this when they opened the floodgates, and they knew it when they brought suit against Texas for securing its part of the US-Mexico border.

They knew this when they abolished “Remain in Mexico” and told millions of people to simply hang out until their court dates came up — or until the administration did away with their court dates altogether, leaving them as de facto permanent residents.

Polling shows that mass deportation is what the voters want. They propelled Trump into office to fulfill this promise, just as they did in 2016 before the Democrats made the border a mess again. //

The party’s plan is now laid bare: Bring in millions of people, let them work illegally, increase blue-state congressional power, draw on state and federal benefits, and expand government reach — all to prop up the lifestyle of the laptop class.

Meanwhile, keep the American working class hooked on cheap imported goods, fighting with undocumented workers for housing, health care, and jobs.

They’ve said it outright and repeatedly — proof that the “humanitarian concerns” they profess for illegal immigrants are hollow. //

Democrats took advantage of America’s legal system. Republicans must use every tool to right their wrongs.

Thousands of complicated legal cases go on every day, and many are resolved in ways that are deeply unsatisfying because complicated legal cases are rarely as cut and dried as they appear on TV. When you get into high-stakes, politically charged cases, they never are perfect.

This one, in an immigration case, should be a slam dunk.

To me, the interesting thing about this case is not how it is resolved--after all, if Garcia somehow is sprung from prison in El Salvador he is still deportable and will just wind up somewhere else. He will never return home as a "Maryland man" because he is an illegal alien who is set to be deported by court order. //

Still, in a world where Nigerian Christians are being massacred by the thousands, hundreds of thousands of Americans are overdosing on fentanyl, children are being raped and murdered by illegal immigrants, and politicians are forcing women and girls to undress in front of men, the entire liberal establishment is in a tizzy over this one ever so barely ambiguous case. //

Why are they fighting so hard on this likely losing issue? Whatever they say, it isn't about what they claim. There are between 20-30 million illegal immigrants in the United States--Joe Biden let in over 10 million through illegal means--and Americans want them gone. Democrats do not. //

Winning Garcia's case is so important because they want to establish that every single deportation case should go to a trial, basically, where the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt." He appears to be an MS 13 gang member? Prove it in court! He is accused of beating his wife? Well, she never pressed charges!

As if these are the standards for deporting an illegal alien with a deportation order. //

Not only is that not the legal standard, but as a practical matter, they are demanding that once an illegal alien sets foot in the United States, they get what amounts to a trial before they get deported. That is, logistically, impossible. 30 million trials? Not going to happen. It is logistically impossible for it to happen. Nobody wants it to happen, not even Democrats.

What they want is as few deportations as humanly possible, so demanding an impossible standard is about stopping deportations. //

The passion isn't about justice. This case is just another tool to use to get ignorant people riled up against deportations. //

This is about thwarting Trump's policies, not due process or anything else.

Consider that Joe Biden allowed approximately 20 million illegal aliens into our country. This placed extraordinary burdens on our country--our schools, hospitals, housing, and other essential services were overwhelmed. On top of that, many of these illegal aliens committed violent crimes, or facilitated fentanyl and sex trafficking. That is the situation we inherited.

There's a reason they did that, of course, and a lot of it has to do with the census and the apportionment of House districts. Don't think it's about compassion or anything like that; illegal aliens living in a city are counted by the census just as are citizens, which is patently ridiculous, but that's the hand we are dealt - for the moment - and that's why Democrats are so determined to bring these people in and keep them here. No matter who they are.

When the media and the far left obsess over an MS-13 gang member and demand that he be returned to the United States for a third deportation hearing, what they're really saying is they want the vast majority of illegal aliens to stay here permanently. //

Here's a useful test: ask the people weeping over the lack of due process what precisely they propose for dealing with Biden's millions and millions of illegals. And with reasonable resource and administrative judge constraints, does their solution allow us to deport at least a few million people per year?

If the answer is no, they've given their game away. They don't want border security. They don't want us to deport the people who've come into our country illegally. They want to accomplish through fake legal process what they failed to accomplish politically:

The ratification of Biden's illegal migrant invasion. //

Adam Selene / Simon Jester
7 hours ago
Counting non-citizens for representation in the census makes about as much sense as allowing me to claim anybody who spends time in my house on Dec 31 as a dependent on my taxes. //

idalily
7 hours ago
Tweet of the Day (from the thread): "This isn’t about due process—it’s about using bureaucracy as a weapon to erase our borders. The same people who’d audit your grandmother for a $600 Venmo want MS-13 protected like endangered species. Trump was elected to stop this madness, not manage it politely."

AMEN.

Rapid Response 47 @RapidResponse47
·
.@PressSec: "It's appalling and sad that Senator @ChrisVanHollen and the Democrats applauding his trip to El Salvador today are incapable of having any shred of common sense or empathy for their own constituents and our citizens. Nobody knows this more than the woman standing to Show more

5:01 PM · Apr 16, 2025.

Rapid Response 47 @RapidResponse47
·
Patty Morin — whose daughter, Rachel, was brutally murdered by an illegal immigrant in Maryland:

"To have a senator from Maryland ... fly to El Salvador to bring back someone that's not even an American citizen ... I don't understand this."

5:08 PM · Apr 16, 2025

Just when you thought you knew everything there was to know about the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the illegal alien from El Salvador with ties to MS-13 who was recently returned to his homeland by the Trump administration, even more news surfaces that doesn't paint the "Maryland man" in a very good light.

It turns out that Abrego Garcia had not one, but two, protective orders taken out against him by his wife, Jennifer Vasquez, for domestic violence. This is the same wife who appeared in front of TV cameras Tuesday to dramatically tell the media, "I will not stop fighting until I see my husband alive" -- oh, and please donate to my GoFundMe when you get the chance. //

The Trump White House was quick to note that Van Hollen had tweeted at least 10 times in support of the violent illegal while not once ever mentioning Rachel Morin, the Maryland mom-of-five who was brutally raped and murdered by yet another illegal Salvadoran.

To recap, Chris Van Hollen and the Democrat Party are going all-in on "protecting" the "rights" of illegals, consequences to actual Americans like Rachel Morin be damned.

Senator Chris Van Hollen

@ChrisVanHollen
·
Follow
I've been clear: if President Bukele doesn't want to meet here in D.C., then I intend to go to El Salvador this week to check on Kilmar Abrego Garcia's condition and discuss his release.

Kilmar was illegally ABDUCTED and deported by the Trump Admin. He must be brought home NOW.

9:59 PM · Apr 14, 2025. //

For comparison, Van Hollen never showed one-tenth this amount of energy when Rachel Morin, one of his constituents, was murdered by an illegal alien in 2023. Let a Salvadoran be sent back to El Salvador, though, and he's ready to board an international flight and beat down someone's door.

The senator wasn't the only one with that idea, though. As I type this, House Democrats are organizing a congressional delegation to go to the Central American nation. Oh yeah, and you get to pay for it. //

What exactly is the end goal here? Kilmar Abrego Garcia is from El Salvador. The United States has no mechanism by which to somehow return him to Maryland to resume his position as an illegal immigrant. Further, El Salvador's president has already said he won't facilitate that. Democrats going down there and shouting for the cameras isn't going to change that.

All of this is just so stupid. Where was this outrage when 13 American service members were murdered due to the Biden administration's rank incompetence and politicization of the Afghanistan withdrawal? Where was this outrage when Laken Riley was murdered in cold blood? But let an illegal immigrant be deported to his country of origin, and they are ready to invade El Salvador over it, and I'm not sure I mean that figuratively. //

JGS772
14 hours ago
So in El Salvador Bukele does something very simple, he denies entry to these clowns. Picture this, they fly down to El Salvador (actually the city of San Salvador) and get off the plane and go to customs and when they get there the customs official tells them that their entry is denied. What do they do then? Try to go through customs anyway and get arrested? Maybe Bukele puts them in the same prison as as Abrego Garcia?

It would make for terrific theater!

Piers Morgan:

All right, what if I was a young student at Columbia, there on a green card, British, come in, happy to be here, doing my paperwork, get to Columbia, and I start leading a group which is a bunch of white supremacists, and we start terrorizing black students in the way that they are terrorizing Jewish students.

In that circumstance, would we all be as comfortable with this? Or is it the reality, which was exposed by the mobs at Columbia, which is that for some reason, Jews get treated differently to anybody else when it comes to this kind of thing?

Because if that had been, honestly, white supremacists treating black students like that, they would be out of the country in 10 minutes. In 10 minutes.

[...]

What about if he had said all of this at his green card interview? Would he have got a green card? No. If he said, 'I support a prescribed terror group in the United States,' you're not coming in on a green card.

All Marco Rubio is doing, it seems to me, is taking it back to that scenario and saying, 'Well, if you'd been honest, then' - and, by the way, he was dishonest on his green card application about other stuff, which is another part of the equation, which might in itself disqualify him from staying in the country.

But the idea that he would have said, 'I support Hamas. I support a global intifada. I support the destruction of Western civilization. Now give me a green card to come and live in America.' F*** off!

Let's review the bidding. Biden creates a facially illegal and purely discretionary program. He brings in a half-million Third World illegals who are, according to the definition of the program, "inadmissible or otherwise ineligible for admission." President Trump, supported by the secretary of homeland security, orders an end to the program and jumps through the administrative hoops of using a Federal Register announcement to reverse Biden's purely discretionary program and a Deep State, or Deep State-adjacent federal judge says he can't and requires an individual interview to end the paroles, which is not required by law, when they never received the legally require individual parole.

This is not new. Barack Obama created the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals program (DACA or Dreamers) out of whole cloth. It is simply a scheme whereby the federal government covers its eyes and pretends these people don't exist. This program was not created by executive order, law, or administrative rulemaking. Nope. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano issued a freakin memo directing that "prosecutorial discretion" be exercised. However, when Jeff Sessions got around to pulling the plug on DACA, lawfare ensued, and the administration was told it could not rescind the Napolitano memo.

Just stop for a moment and consider this. Federal courts literally told the Trump administration that they could not rescind a memo written five years and three Homeland Security secretaries earlier. Logically, this means a cabinet secretary’s memo is more powerful than an actual law because it takes no consensus to issue it, and it can’t be withdrawn when management changes. To make matters worse, the Roberts Court, in a 5-4 decision, upheld the logically ridiculous notion that the whim of a Democrat president has the same standing, in terms of permanence, as the Constitution.

We clearly have a two-tiered justice system. Not only do BLM rioters get a pass while pro-life grannies go to jail for demonstrating peacefully outside an abortion center, the president himself has his decision treated with derision by the federal courts while all manner of Democrat humbug receives the adulation of our black-robed overseers. //

houdini1984
3 hours ago
The Supreme Court has become the problem. By refusing to keep the judicial branch in its own lane, the Roberts Court has greenlit a nationwide judicial coup against our elected representatives, including the President. The Founders never intended to create a nation that was subject to judicial tyranny of this kind.

The only solution is for the elected branches to push back decisively, soundly rejecting all judicial decisions that interfere with or run contrary to constitutionally-established congressional and presidential powers. Unfortunately, Democrats will block and congressional attempts to rein in these rogue judges, which means that it's up to executive to restore our constitutional order.

The President has taken an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. If that requires him to defend it against one of the other branches, so be it.

Dieter Schultz houdini1984
3 hours ago
The Supreme Court has become the problem. By refusing to keep the judicial branch in its own lane, the Roberts Court has greenlit a nationwide judicial coup against our elected representatives, including the President.
Oh, if it were only that simple.

IMHO, it is not just the SC that is the problem, all of the branches of the federal government are confused and conflicted. Congress sets up independent departments and functions in the executive branch and puts language in the law prohibiting the President from removing them. Then, the executive branch makes rules, and binding rulings, that look, and are, a lot like lawmaking and the judiciary, respectively.

Today the most pressing problem is the judiciary and it being out of control but the problem is bigger than that and requires something more than just the SC doing its job.

Although, right now I'd settle for the SCOTUS actually doing its job.

houdini1984 Dieter Schultz
2 hours ago
Admittedly, our entire constitutional order is out of whack, but we have to start somewhere if we want to get things back on track. The problem is that too many on the right are sitting around waiting and hoping for SCOTUS to do the right thing. That's not going to happen with Roberts at the helm, since he's more concerned with protecting the Court than safeguarding the country.

Meanwhile, Congress is completely broken. They can't even do their job and complete a budget. Every year, they wait until the last minute and push some stupid continuing resolution at us while threatening a shutdown. The Dems have been waging war against normalcy for decades, and the Republicans are too disunited to mount any effective opposition.

Sadly, it's up to the Executive to stand against this nonsense and try to restore sense and order to the nation. The only good news here is that this administration seems to understand that the administrative state needs to be rolled back, so maybe that will mute some of your concerns about executive rulings, rules, and pseudo-lawmaking.

Hope is a terrible strategy, but it appears to be all we have at this point. //

houdini1984 Scholar
30 minutes ago
Just so. If I were Trump, I would assemble some of my most plain-spoken cabinet members and organize an instructional speech to the nation. We would explain, in simple words, exactly how our government has become so off-track, and the steps needed to put things back in order. Explain how this current dysfunction directly affects their lives, and the benefits they'll enjoy from a restoration of constitutional governance.

Oh, and make a point to talk about the people who support the current misrule, and the corrupt benefits they enjoy from corrupting our constitutional system. Then challenge Democrats to join us in fixing these problems -- while making it clear that we won't allow their anti-American revolution to do any further damage to the American people. //

mopani houdini1984
9 minutes ago edited
What it is going to take is years of push back and work by the executive branch, including making regular updates to the people.

There is no easy solution, and any quick fix will be quickly broken.

Buckle up, any victory worth having is worth fighting for.

I thank God we have a chief executive who understands this and is willing to wage the war. But he has got to take it to the people when frequent special addresses and pressure Congress to make his executive orders into law.

I hate to do it, Bill, but I’ve got to correct you on every single thing that you said 'cause it was all wrong. First, we won the Supreme Court case clearly, 9-0. A district court judge said, unconscionably, that the president and his administration have to go into El Salvador and extradite one of their citizens, an El Salvadorian citizen - so that would be kidnapping - that we have to kidnap an El Salvadorian citizen against the will of his government and fly him back to America, which would be an unimaginable act and an invasion of El Salvador's sovereignty. So we appealed to the Supreme Court, and it said - clearly, no district court can compel the president to exercise his Article II foreign powers … In 2019, he was ordered deported. He has a final removal order from the United States. These are things that no one disputes. Where is he from? El Salvador. Where is he a resident and citizen of? El Salvador. Is he here illegally? Yes. Does he have a deportation order? Yes. A DOJ lawyer who has since been relieved of duty, a saboteur, a Democrat, put into a filing incorrectly that this was a mistaken removal. It was not. This was the right person sent to the right place.

The Supreme Court’s continuing failure to define lower courts’ authority is wreaking havoc on the reputation of the courts — and our constitutional order. //

The Supreme Court has interceded six times in less than three months to rein in federal judges who improperly exceeded their Article III authority and infringed on the Article II authority of President Donald Trump. Yet the high court continues to issue mealy-mouthed opinions which serve only to exacerbate the ongoing battle between the Executive and Judicial branches of government. And now there is a constitutional crisis primed to explode this week in a federal court in Maryland over the removal of an El Salvadoran — courtesy of the justices’ latest baby-splitting foray on Thursday. //

Yet, those requests, as the Trump Administration pointed out yesterday in its response brief, directly infringe on the president’s Article II authority. “The federal courts have no authority to direct the Executive Branch to conduct foreign relations in a particular way, or engage with a foreign sovereign in a given manner,” the Trump Administration wrote. Rather, “[t]hat is the ‘exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations.’”

While the Supreme Court has declared that “[s]uch power is ‘conclusive and preclusive,’ and beyond the reach of the federal courts’ equitable authority,” given her orders to date, Judge Xinis is unlikely to stand down. Rather, expect the Obama appointee to enter another scathing order demanding details and actions. But with its core executive powers at stake, the Trump Administration cannot comply.

The justices should have foreseen this standoff and defused the situation last week by clearly defining the limits of the lower court’s authority. The Supreme Court’s continuing failure to do so is wreaking havoc on the reputation of the courts — and our constitutional order.

"The relief sought by Plaintiffs is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s instruction requiring this Court to respect the President’s Article II authority to manage foreign policy," says the DOJ brief, "The Court should therefore reject Plaintiffs’ request for further intrusive supervision of the Executive’s facilitation process beyond the daily status reports already ordered." They also note, "Defendants object to the requirement of daily status reports and reserve the right to challenge that requirement further." So, we can expect another fight to erupt over the frequency of case updates to make its way to the Fourth Circuit.

To make the point crystal clear to Judge Xinis, the brief goes on to say, "The Supreme Court explained that on remand, any new order must “clarify” the “scope of the term ‘effectuate,’” in a manner that did not “exceed the District Court’s authority.” The Court instructed that any “directive” must give “due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.” And it made clear that any “directive” should concern “Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador” and “ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.”

This is critical because Judge Xinis and the Abrego Garcia's legal team have framed "facilitate" as "bring back to the US." The clear reading of the SCOTUS order is that it was referring to getting him out of prison. The DOJ brief makes it very clear that the administration does not consider "facilitate" to have anything to do with bringing an illegal alien and alleged gang member back to the US: "Defendants understand “facilitate” to mean what that term has long meant in the immigration context, namely actions allowing an alien to enter the United States. Taking “all available steps to facilitate” the return of Abrego Garcia is thus best read as taking all available steps to remove any domestic obstacles that would otherwise impede the alien’s ability to return here. Indeed, no other reading of 'facilitate is tenable—or constitutional—here." //

To make the matter more emphatic, the brief tells the judge that she is mucking about in areas where the Constitution tells her she cannot tread. "They [the plaintiffs] ask this Court to order Defendants to (i) make demands of the El Salvadoran government (A1), (ii) dispatch personnel onto the soil of an independent, sovereign nation (A2), and (iii) send an aircraft into the airspace of a sovereign foreign nation to extract a citizen of that nation from its custody (A3). All of those requested orders involve interactions with a foreign sovereign—and potential violations of that sovereignty. But as explained, a federal court cannot compel the Executive Branch to engage in any mandated act of diplomacy or incursion upon the sovereignty of another nation." All of this is true. Abrego Garcia is a Salvadoran citizen in the custody of the Salvadoran government. The US government has no authority to demand his release, even if it wants to do so. //

The government summarizes the demands made by the plaintiffs this way: "In response, Plaintiffs moved for three categories of relief: (1) an order superintending and micromanaging Defendants’ foreign relations with the independent, sovereign nation of El Salvador, (2) an order allowing expedited discovery and converting Tuesday’s hearing into an evidentiary hearing, and (3) an order to show cause for why Defendants should not be held in contempt. //

Galatians 5:22 Sandy-like the beach I can be
an hour ago
He is a citizen of El Salvador, a foreign nation. He is an MS-13 gang member in the custody of the El Salvadoran government. The United States has no authority to take a foreign citizen in the jail of that foreign citizen's country out of that country. //

1776-2023RIP
an hour ago
That is a lot of legalese and lawyerezing. The co equal Executive Branch should, for the sake of “separation of powers”, “ coequal branches of government “ and for our Constitution, completely ignore ALL district court judges. The Supreme Court is equal to the President. Not superior or “supreme “.
Lesser courts are not even equal.
It is arguable that even the Supreme Court doesn’t have the authority to countermand the President.
The supreme court has been wrong many times before and have been ignored by past presidents. Any conflicts arising between the executive and judicial branches get resolved by the legislative branch. That is our system. We are not to be ruled by edicts by the executive branch, true. But it is just as true that we are not necessarily to be ruled by edicts from the judicial branch either. The executive branch , to preserve executive authority, Must ignore these lower court rulings. Force the Supreme Court to take action. Then proceed from that point.