Re: RE: Re: What the Constitution, Supreme Court say about 'due process' for Trump deportees:

On 6/9/2025 12:45 PM, cyclintom wrote:

On Sat Jun 7 15:06:15 2025 Beej Jorgensen  wrote:

In article <1020f63$2pd7f$4@dont-email.me>, AMuzi  <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

In our Constitution, the Article III courts may only decide "cases and
controversies" by applying the laws as written. They have no policy,
legislative or oversight authority.

>
My point is that if you are wrongly arrested, the courts can free you.
That "oversight" is what I'm referring to.

    I have asked you your age and what you do for a living and you have not answered. I can therefore only assume that you are young and not employed. And unemployable people usually are drug addicts. It doesn't bother you in the least if you're a drag on society and you're not paying taxes and so wish not to follow the Constitution in the most economical way, hut rather wish to take us on the most expensive route possible.
 It appears to me the direction you're traveling is towards homelessness and fentanyl addiction ending in overdose and death. While the world would be better off without Flunky, Liebermann and Krygowski, it needs all of the lawful and honest young people that it can get and the Democrats have twisted the narative that having money is bad and it should be taxed away from you. That is communism pure and simple. So what are your actual beliefs?

Either Mr Jorgensen's argument is valid or it isn't. In this case it is (IMHO of course).
Given his argument, you may agree or you may disagree as you wish. If you disagree, you ought to provide a counter argument or disparate facts. You did neither.
No matter who Mr Jorgensen may be, no matter what he does or does not do, it's immaterial. You either agree or disagree with what he wrote and that's that.
Instead you assumed he is young.  For no obvious reason.
You assumed young people are unemployed.
You assumed unemployed are drug addicts.
You even posited that drug addicts are a drag on society. Some indeed are. Some are not.
You accused Mr Jorgensen of not paying taxes. That's the same sort of vicious lie Mr Reid used to unfairly smear Mr Romney in an historically deplorable incident, even for the general low character of US Senators.
In short, nothing of value was added and instead of pondering Mr Jorgensen's character, your post made us all question yours.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971