judge's request for answers about deportation flights

volsrocks said:
All of the information the Judge requests should be classified ‘top secret’ National Security and since he doesn’t have clearance, tough cookies Judgie.
Click to expand...
The Constitution says the defendants have the right to examine evidence against us. If the evidence is top secret, they cannot examine it. Therefore, there is no evidence.
 
It doesn't matter. The judge doesn't have jurisdiction. The deportees have been declared enemies of the United States and are being deported as such. It would be like the judge demanding that Japanese citizens in the US who were in the process of being deported after Pearl Harbor should be returned to the US so they can have their day in court.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
It doesn't matter. The judge doesn't have jurisdiction. The deportees have been declared enemies of the United States and are being deported as such. It would be like the judge demanding that Japanese citizens in the US who were in the process of being deported after Pearl Harbor should be returned to the US so they can have their day in court.
Click to expand...
Great, we can have you declared an enemy, and deport you.
 
Walt said:
Great, we can have you declared an enemy, and deport you.
Click to expand...
Dumb comment. The judge knowingly overstepped his authority.

In the 1867 case of Mississippi v. Johnson, the Supreme Court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to issue an injunction against President Andrew Johnson, preventing him from enforcing the Reconstruction Acts, as the President's actions were considered executive and political, not ministerial.

Here's a more detailed explanation:
  • Background:
    After the Civil War, Congress passed the Reconstruction Acts, which divided the former Confederate states into military districts and outlined the process for their readmission to the Union.

  • The Case:
    The state of Mississippi sought an injunction from the Supreme Court to prevent President Johnson and his officers from enforcing these acts, arguing they were unconstitutional.

  • The Court's Ruling:
    The Supreme Court, in a 9-0 decision, held that it lacked jurisdiction to issue such an injunction.

  • Reasoning:
    The Court reasoned that the President's duties in enforcing the Reconstruction Acts were executive and political, requiring discretion and judgment, rather than ministerial duties that could be subject to judicial oversight.

  • Significance:
    This case established the principle that the President, in the exercise of his executive powers, is not subject to judicial control or injunctions, reinforcing the separation of powers.

  • Key Takeaway:
    The Court recognized that judicial intervention in executive matters could lead to conflicts between branches of government and undermine the separation of powers.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
It doesn't matter. The judge doesn't have jurisdiction. The deportees have been declared enemies of the United States and are being deported as such. It would be like the judge demanding that Japanese citizens in the US who were in the process of being deported after Pearl Harbor should be returned to the US so they can have their day in court.
Click to expand...

Or they could be placed in internment camps. We've done that before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top