Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I'm asking the latter question mainly as a point of interest as I watch the Opposition Party (yes, we're England now). 

According to exit polling in the November election, the two highest priorities of voters were illegal immigration and men in women's sports (not anything economy-related, to my surprise).  In fact, it still polls to be an 80/20 issue, same as back in November, and it's the two areas where the current administration has the highest approval ratings, even amongst people who poll as overall dissatisfied with the current administration. 

Somewhat astoundingly, what I've mainly seen from office-holding democrats is doubling down on those two issues in which 75% of their own base is against them (80% is the aggregate, I believe voting democrats are only 75% on the two issues).  There are some exceptions, of course. 

It's a bold strategy, Cotton....let's see how it works out for them. 

So anytime I see any judges gumming up the works in deportation processes, I am curious how much is genuine jurisprudence and how much is "F*** this guy." 

This.  In spades.  I gave you credit for dedicating this much time to people who want to defend violent, criminals, and men playing in women’s sports      They can decorate all they want and polish the turd all they want, but that’s their position      And they wonder why they’re so unpopular right now  😂😂

You got me. I'm all in for violent criminals and I hate women's sports.

Yep

Someone needs to look up this judge and also find out what his daughter does for a living.

Distressing that trying to follow THE LAW leads to this. 

The law?

There’s a legal due process for deporting people. 

And considering we’re shipping folks into slavery, seems like a safeguard of sorts wouldn’t be bad. Maybe I’m alone there. 

Someone needs to look up this judge and also find out what his daughter does for a living.

Knock this crap off. You're better than this.

There’s a legal due process for deporting people.

And considering we’re shipping folks into slavery, seems like a safeguard of sorts wouldn’t be bad. Maybe I’m alone there.

Well of course- you are right.  Due process is an important concept. 

on the other hand, I’m finding it very difficult to muster up sympathy for people who did not follow the process and started their presence in the United States by coming in here illegally, and you are members of violent gangs and have committed crimes both before they got here and after they got here.

And saying that they’re going back to slavery is extremely misleading. Many of them were let out of prison specifically to come to the United States.  Again, I struggle to come up with sympathy 

What I find most interesting is the folks here and in the party that you represent taking the position of defending them and going to great lengths two rationalize it.  That’s my whole point. That’s the party position and it isn’t very popular for obvious reasons.

After catching up a bit more yesterday evening, it appears the point I was raising is correct.  And not one y'all are talking about, that I can tell. 

If I'm understanding correctly, bayareabadger et al are talking about due process, including that which extends to non-citizens.  Fair.

What this administration is contending is its powers under the aliens enemy act, which is a separate thing.  This is what detractors should be contesting, because everything else they're talking about does not apply.

I've almost finished reading the act, and I was able to find and read the SCOTUS opinion I mentioned earlier.  Indeed, if this act applies, looks to me like SCOTUS has already clearly sided with the executive branch's authority to do this.  When I'm finished with the act itself hopefully I'll have a better opinion of whether it applies.

(My opinion would be worth what you paid for it.  I ain't a lawyer.)

So far, I see what the administration is saying.  The language triggering the power about only needing an "incursion" seems broad and I can see it here.  IMO, if that remains my stance, then it seems the detractors should set about advocating for an update to that act so it couldn't be used in that way, if that's the way they see it.  Because in that case, it would more be a matter of people who don't like the law rather than the executive branch breaking the law. 

Incidentally, I noticed Chief Justice Roberts yesterday rebuked the idea of impeaching this judge, or other judges for stuff like this, and encouraged congressional members to settle down, because that's not how we deal with doofus judges.  Also, there's nowhere near the votes to impeach, but I'm more interested in his take on principal.