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

On 6/8/2025 8:18 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 6/8/2025 6:39 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 6/8/2025 12:10 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 6/8/2025 9:47 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 6/8/2025 9:52 AM, AMuzi wrote:

On 6/7/2025 9:08 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 6/7/2025 12:26 AM, AMuzi wrote:

On 6/6/2025 8:24 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:

In article <pbq0Q.746378$qmJf.738823@fx16.iad>,
cyclintom  <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:

I have a Real ID in my pocket right now. All traveler outside of the
national boundaries has to show proof of citizenship (a passport) at
all times.

>
Indeed, you should carry it inside the national boundaries at all times,
as well, since some people apparently think you can be deported without
a hearing if anyone suspects you of being in the country illegally.
>

Look, I watched approximately 100 illegals vote for Obama at my local
voting place.

>
I'm really curious how you knew for a fact they were illegal. But that's
not really what I'm on about here.
>
What I'm on about is that without a hearing, any crooked cop could point
a finger at you and have you deported to prison for life for being an
illegal immigrant. It's all about the due process.
>

Do you REALLY think that anything close to a majority voted for Biden?

>
I wasn't sure, but after Trump lost 60+ court cases trying to prove
illegal voting activity, I'm pretty confident that things were on the
up-and-up overall. 60+ court cases is a LOT of vetting. Hats off to
Trump for being so thorough. :)
>

>
That remains an open question as every one of those was dismissed or decided on standing, latches or other process issues. There was no evidence or testimony entered into a court record.  We just don't know (our own beliefs notwithstanding) and likely never will.

>
I'm unable to believe that _IF_ there were so many consequential election irregularities, the highly motivated Republican losers could not have properly done their legal homework and proven their case in court.
>
As it was, they lost again and again, for whatever reasons. My guess is they didn't try really hard because they knew their legal protests were a sham.
>

>
Constitutionally this is the responsibility of the State legislatures who are generally weak of spirit, as recent Congresses.

Andrew, how many of those cases were lost? Wasn't it more than 50?
>
It's irrational fantasy to pretend there were massive problems that radically changed election results, yet NO court cases were able to prove that. It's beyond belief that _all_ Republican-hired lawyers were that incompetent.
>
>

>
Lost?  Not the same as filing not accepted or case dismissed ...

>
Would you prefer "not won"? Same [lack of] effect, same evaluation.
>
>
>

 There is a difference in this context in that the arguments remain unaddressed in the court record.

Again: Competent teams of lawyers would have anticipated technicalities like legal standing, jurisdiction or whatever else might have hampered their legal claims that the election was invalid. Their strategies and procedures should have been built to deal with those things. And once a case was rejected, they could probably have taken legal steps to correct that rejection.
They did not do that in any of those well over 50 cases. ISTM that could not be because of mere incompetence. It could only be because they knew they had no chance of actually winning.
The entire effort was something between grasping at straws and a deliberate sham to delude and mollify their faithful.
--
- Frank Krygowski