The Third Worst Thing that Could happen to Democrats would be for a Judge to Force a Planeload of Deportees to Turn Back.

[Seymour Flops]

I think that most Democrats are smart enought to know that. If the Trump admin had complied with the judge's ruling and brought those TDA terrorists back, then the Democrats would have succeeded in placing American lives in danger in order to be protective of illegal alien terror gang members.

I guesstimate that would have knocked Dems out of five House seats and one Senate seat in 2026. No doubt elected Democrats who are cheering Judge Boasberg on are secretly relieved that Trump is ignoring him.



The legal expert above (that you never heard of) believes that Boasberg will demand that the government explain to him how they have vetted deportees, both those who are already gone and those about to be deported, to make sure they are actual gang members and not "just affiliated." That idea seems almost designed to infuriate typical Americans, as do so many actions by Democrats.

Second worst thing that could happen is for one of these deportees to be released.

That would very likely happen if the administration suddenly decided that 'oh, yeah. We do have to get approval from the judiciary to carry out executive functions, even to protect the American people in an emergency. Yes, any one of the more than seven hundred low-level federal judges can demand we justify our actions to her before we take them.'

If that happened then the next order would be to release those gang members or "affiliated people." Complying with that order would anger voters, but more at Democrats than the Trump administration. Especially if the judge threatened to lock up admin officials who did not comply.

Worst thing that could happen to Democrats is for one of those released gang members or affiliates to kill an American. Again, that is very likely if the administration complies with Boasberg's demands. That happens and the Democrats may only have seats during the 2027-2028 congress in states like California, Oregon, New York and the New York Juniors like RI and MA.

Trump is saving you from yourselves, Democrats.

 

[1srelluc]

Should have brought them back and cut them loose in Boston. See if Mayor Wu is up for a gang-bang.

 

[kyzr]

Democrats just don't get that they are on the wrong side of a 90-10 issue when it comes to deporting criminals.

Biden let 600,000 convicted criminals into the US and democrats want them all lawyered-up at taxpayer expense.

We don't need any more girls murdered by these animals so ambulance chasers can get rich.

Lawyers for man convicted of killing Laken Riley seek new trial

Ibarra’s attorneys say the verdict in Judge Patrick Haggard’s bench trial last fall is contrary to the evidence in the case.

www.wsbradio.com

 

[Lisa558]

Democrats bend over backwards to defend illegal alien criminals while throwing innocent American Jews at Columbia to the HAMAS-supporting mob,

 

[Rawley]

I think that most Democrats are smart enought to know that. If the Trump admin had complied with the judge's ruling and brought those TDA terrorists back, then the Democrats would have succeeded in placing American lives in danger in order to be protective of illegal alien terror gang members.

I guesstimate that would have knocked Dems out of five House seats and one Senate seat in 2026. No doubt elected Democrats who are cheering Judge Boasberg on are secretly relieved that Trump is ignoring him.



The legal expert above (that you never heard of) believes that Boasberg will demand that the government explain to him how they have vetted deportees, both those who are already gone and those about to be deported, to make sure they are actual gang members and not "just affiliated." That idea seems almost designed to infuriate typical Americans, as do so many actions by Democrats.

Second worst thing that could happen is for one of these deportees to be released.

That would very likely happen if the administration suddenly decided that 'oh, yeah. We do have to get approval from the judiciary to carry out executive functions, even to protect the American people in an emergency. Yes, any one of the more than seven hundred low-level federal judges can demand we justify our actions to her before we take them.'

If that happened then the next order would be to release those gang members or "affiliated people." Complying with that order would anger voters, but more at Democrats than the Trump administration. Especially if the judge threatened to lock up admin officials who did not comply.

Worst thing that could happen to Democrats is for one of those released gang members or affiliates to kill an American. Again, that is very likely if the administration complies with Boasberg's demands. That happens and the Democrats may only have seats during the 2027-2028 congress in states like California, Oregon, New York and the New York Juniors like RI and MA.

Trump is saving you from yourselves, Democrats.

Damage is done. The new faces of the Democrat party

 

[IM2]

Except it appears that none of these guys were terrorists. So once again Trump has lied and republicans fill social media full of bs.

 

[Darkwind]

In truth, the Congress needs to stop this nonsense about impeaching these judges. They just don't have the votes.

However, they do have the votes to LIMIT the jurisdiction of these courts and take them out of the equation when it comes to Executive and Legislative interference.

*******

Congress has historically exercised its power to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts in several notable instances:

1. Judiciary Act of 1789: This foundational act established the federal court system with limited jurisdiction for district and circuit courts, and restricted the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction to cases from federal circuit courts and state courts where federal claims were rejected15.
2. Repeal of the Judiciary Act of 1801: In 1802, Congress abolished the circuit courts created by the 1801 Act, effectively limiting the jurisdiction of those courts. The Supreme Court upheld this action in Stuart v. Laird (1803)2.
3. Evarts Act of 1891: This act created separate appellate circuit courts, removing the circuit court duties from Supreme Court justices. It also limited the jurisdiction of the existing circuit courts3.
4. Abolition of the Commerce Court: In 1913, Congress eliminated the short-lived Commerce Court, redistributing its judges to other federal appeals courts2.
5. Court reorganization in 1982: Congress abolished the Article III Court of Claims and U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, replacing them with the Article I Court of Federal Claims and the Article III U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit2.
6. Emergency Price Control Act of 1942: This act revealed Congress's power to restrict jurisdiction during wartime4.
7. Diversity jurisdiction limitations: Congress has periodically adjusted the monetary threshold for diversity cases in federal courts, effectively limiting jurisdiction. For example, in the early 20th century, there was debate over raising the limit from $2,000 to $5,0003.
8. Patent Act of 1793: This act granted patent holders the right to bring infringement suits in U.S. circuit courts, an early example of Congress defining specific areas of federal court jurisdiction8.

These examples demonstrate that Congress has consistently used its authority to shape and limit federal court jurisdiction throughout U.S. history, often in response to political, economic, or administrative concerns.

In addition to that, no need for a supermajority vote. A simple majority is all that is required.

*******

Congress can limit federal court jurisdiction through ordinary legislative processes, requiring only a simple majority vote in both chambers followed by presidential approval (or congressional override of a veto with two-thirds majority). This authority stems from Article III's dual grant of power:

1. Jurisdiction regulation basis
   • Article III authorizes Congress to establish inferior courts and make "exceptions" to Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction147
   • This includes jurisdiction-stripping measures like removing entire categories of cases from federal court review39
2. No supermajority requirement
   • Constitutional text contains no supermajority threshold for jurisdictional changes35
   • Historical precedents like Ex parte McCardle (1869) show jurisdiction stripped through regular legislation7
   • Proposed supermajority requirements (e.g., 70% votes for invalidating laws) represent policy choices in bills like Rep. Casten's 2023 proposal, not constitutional mandates28
3. Constitutional constraints
   • Congress cannot alter Supreme Court original jurisdiction over cases:
     • Between states
     • Affecting ambassadors
     • Where states are parties17
   • Separation of powers prohibits:
     • Reopening final judgments47
     • Directing case outcomes49

Recent legislative efforts (2023-2024) continue testing these boundaries through proposals to restructure appellate pathways and create specialized panels28, but none require constitutional amendments. The primary check remains political - presidential vetoes and electoral accountability rather than formal supermajority rules56.

Sources:

National Archives
archives.gov/milestone-docu…
Federal Judiciary Act (1789) | National Archives
EnlargeDownload Link Engrossed Judiciary Act, September 24, 1789; First Congress; Enrolled Acts and Resolutions; General Records of the United States Government; Record Group 11; National Archives. View All Pages in the National Archives Catalog View Transcript One of the first acts of the new Congress was to establish a Federal court system through the Judiciary Act signed by President Washington on September 24, 1789. The founders of the new nation believed that the establishment of a national judiciary was one of their most important tasks.
2


Congressional Power to Abolish Federal Courts | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov
constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/a…
ArtIII.S1.8.5 Congressional Power to Abolish Federal Courts
An annotation about Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States.
3

Landmark Legislation: Abolition of U.S. Circuit Courts
fjc.gov/history/legisl…
Landmark Legislation: Abolition of U.S. Circuit Courts
The broad reconsideration of judicial statutes encouraged some members of Congress to use the proposed code as a means to enact a substantial reorganization of the courts or to win approval for major legislation indirectly related to the judicial function. Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives offered amendments to restrict the issuance of injunctions in labor disputes, and House members revived the debate over the monetary value required for diversity cases (those involving...
4

Justia Law
law.justia.com/constitution/u…
Power of Congress to Control The Federal Courts - Justia Law
, of the US Constitution: Analysis and Interpretation
5

U.S. Marshals Service
usmarshals.gov/who-we-are/his…
The Judiciary Act of 1789: Charter for U.S. Marshals and Deputies
Senate Bill Number One of the First Session of the First Congress became, after lengthy and heated debate, the Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789. The Act


6


connections.ca6.uscourts.gov
connections.ca6.uscourts.gov/important-cour…
Important Court History | CONNECTIONS
Article III of the Constitution left for the Congress to determine the distribution of federal jurisdiction within a system of federal courts and between the federal and state courts. The Judiciary Act of 1789 provided for cases to enter a federal court through an original filing, through removal of a case originally filed in state court, and through an appeal from the highest court of a state to the Supreme Court of the United States. Over the past two centuries, Congress has passed numerous...
7


congress
congress.gov/crs-product/R4…
Jurisdiction Stripping and the Rule of Klein | Congress.gov

8

fjc
fjc.gov/history/timeli…
The Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts - Federal Judicial Center |


Information via Perplexity.ai

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Except it appears that none of these guys were terrorists. So once again Trump has lied and republicans fill social media full of bs.

Except it appears that none of these guys were terrorists.

Why do you feel that?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Except it appears that none of these guys were terrorists. So once again Trump has lied and republicans fill social media full of bs.

How does "it" give that appearance?

 

[Seymour Flops]

I have to wonder if Trump's plan is to bring about the third worst (the administration being forced to bring back illegals by a rogue judge), without allowing it to get as far as the second and worst, (returned illegals released by a rogue judge and Americans being killed by one of the illegals returned and released by rogue judges).

It would be to his advantage for at least the third worst to happen. It would give him a veto proof majority in the Senate, and an overwhelming majority willing to impeach rogue judges in the House.

Why else would he invoke the Enemy Alien Act, when he has unquestioned power to simply deport those people?

 

[IM2]

How does "it" give that appearance?

It's pretty simple. The people who have been taken are not in gangs.

 

[Seymour Flops]

It's pretty simple. The people who have been taken are not in gangs.

Whatever you say . . .

 

[berg80]

The Third Worst Thing that Could happen to Democrats would be for a Judge to Force a Planeload of Deportees to Turn Back.​

So you're saying it's a bad thing to force the admin to comply with the law? Actually, that makes sense since trumples support lawlessness and voted for a felon.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The Third Worst Thing that Could happen to Democrats would be for a Judge to Force a Planeload of Deportees to Turn Back.​

So you're saying it's a bad thing to force the admin to comply with the law? Actually, that makes sense since trumples support lawlessness and voted for a felon.

Congress passed a law that says that if the president deports gang members, he has to fly them back?

 

[berg80]

The Third Worst Thing that Could happen to Democrats would be for a Judge to Force a Planeload of Deportees to Turn Back.​

So you're saying it's a bad thing to force the admin to comply with the law? Actually, that makes sense since trumples support lawlessness and voted for a felon.

Venezuelan migrant deported from U.S. to El Salvador has no criminal record, documents show​

Venezuelan migrant deported from U.S. to El Salvador has no criminal record, documents show

In February, at a routine ICE check-in in Texas, Franco José Caraballo Tiapa was unexpectedly detained, and on Saturday, his wife lost contact with him.

www.cbsnews.com

A document from the Department of Homeland Security shows Caraballo is accused of being a member of the criminal gang Tren de Aragua but also specifies that he has no criminal history in the U.S. Venezuelan officials said he has no record there either.

"He was not given due process," attorney Martin Rosenow said. "He was not able to defend this allegation."

 

[Crepitus]

I think that most Democrats are smart enought to know that. If the Trump admin had complied with the judge's ruling and brought those TDA terrorists back, then the Democrats would have succeeded in placing American lives in danger in order to be protective of illegal alien terror gang members.

I guesstimate that would have knocked Dems out of five House seats and one Senate seat in 2026. No doubt elected Democrats who are cheering Judge Boasberg on are secretly relieved that Trump is ignoring him.



The legal expert above (that you never heard of) believes that Boasberg will demand that the government explain to him how they have vetted deportees, both those who are already gone and those about to be deported, to make sure they are actual gang members and not "just affiliated." That idea seems almost designed to infuriate typical Americans, as do so many actions by Democrats.

Second worst thing that could happen is for one of these deportees to be released.

That would very likely happen if the administration suddenly decided that 'oh, yeah. We do have to get approval from the judiciary to carry out executive functions, even to protect the American people in an emergency. Yes, any one of the more than seven hundred low-level federal judges can demand we justify our actions to her before we take them.'

If that happened then the next order would be to release those gang members or "affiliated people." Complying with that order would anger voters, but more at Democrats than the Trump administration. Especially if the judge threatened to lock up admin officials who did not comply.

Worst thing that could happen to Democrats is for one of those released gang members or affiliates to kill an American. Again, that is very likely if the administration complies with Boasberg's demands. That happens and the Democrats may only have seats during the 2027-2028 congress in states like California, Oregon, New York and the New York Juniors like RI and MA.

Trump is saving you from yourselves, Democrats.

The law applies to all. If the judge orders, it must be done.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Except it appears that none of these guys were terrorists. So once again Trump has lied and republicans fill social media full of bs.

They belong in a big blue gun free city

 

[Seymour Flops]

Venezuelan migrant deported from U.S. to El Salvador has no criminal record, documents show​

Venezuelan migrant deported from U.S. to El Salvador has no criminal record, documents show

In February, at a routine ICE check-in in Texas, Franco José Caraballo Tiapa was unexpectedly detained, and on Saturday, his wife lost contact with him.

www.cbsnews.com

A document from the Department of Homeland Security shows Caraballo is accused of being a member of the criminal gang Tren de Aragua but also specifies that he has no criminal history in the U.S. Venezuelan officials said he has no record there either.

"He was not given due process," attorney Martin Rosenow said. "He was not able to defend this allegation

So?

Is it your claim that we are not allowed to deport terrorist gang members unless they have been convicted of a crime?

Is he a licensed barber? Or is he an "undocumented barber," along with being an "undocumented American?"

If he's in the country illegally, he is subject to deportation. Tom Homan has said that hundreds of times. He should have self-deported, as the Trump administration recommends to all illegal aliens. If he had done that, he would be eligible to apply for entry, like any law-abiding foreigner. If he has tattoos linking him to TDA, it would be incredibly foolish to let him in.

Whistleblowers complained several times during the Biden administration that gang tattoos were being ignored, so Trump has to clean up that mess.

The murderer of Laken Riley and his brother both had gang tattoos.

Laken Riley murder suspect linked to Tren de Aragua gang, reports say

The murder suspect in the Laken Riley killing is affiliated with the vicious Venezuelan prison gang, reports say.

newschannel9.com

ATHENS, Ga. (TNND) — The suspect in the Laken Riley murder trial is affiliated with the vicious Venezuelan prison gang, reports say.

Jose Ibarra is standing trial in a Georgia courtroom for the murder of a 22-year-old nursing student.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security sources confirmed to NewsNation that the defendant, a Venezuelan citizen, is a member of the Tren de Aragua gang.

Sgt. Joshua Epps was asked about Diego's facial tattoo as bodycam video showing the investigation was shown in court. "He has a teardrop tattoo on his right eye, off to the side there. We identified it as a potential gang affiliation tattoo," Epps testified as more photos of other tattoos on Diego were shown to the court. He testified that the Diego had no obvious recent injuries.

So would it be okay to deport these dudes, or should they still be privileged in your opinion?

 

[Seymour Flops]

The law applies to all. If the judge orders, it must be done.

You literally believe that a judge makes law by speaking?

So judges are both super executives and super legislators?

 

[BluesLegend]

Damage is done. The new faces of the Democrat party
View attachment 1092380

We need to keep shoving this in the Democrats faces, force them to OWN the horrors they welcomed into the U.S. In a just world all these enabling Democrats would be LOCKED UP in prison for bringing these animals into the U.S. to RAPE and MURDER Americans.