Philosophy Now Forum

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 7:03 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 6:49 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 5:50 pm

Are you serious?

Absolutely. What's your evidence that this has not been done?

the Sotomayor concurrence when the supreme court ruled 9 to 0 against the position you are arguing.... "That means the Government must comply with its obligation to provide Abrego Garcia with due process of law, including notice and an opportunity to be heard, in any future proceedings."

Let's suppose that A-G is a gimme. The White House says he's not, but let's not question it. What is your evidence that this is happening in more than one case?

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 7:07 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 6:53 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 6:01 pm
Impartial sources don't seek power or money for themselves. Cults do seek power or money for themselves.

Well, the Democrats aren't impartial, and do seek power and money. Are you calling them a cult?

Immanuel, insofar as

So..the Dems are a cult?

The power struggle within the US will go on. And I do not think that things will settle down (culturally, socially, emotionally).

Oh, they will, after the rides...and due process (mustn't forget the due process).

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 7:11 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 7:03 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 6:49 pm
Absolutely. What's your evidence that this has not been done?

the Sotomayor concurrence when the supreme court ruled 9 to 0 against the position you are arguing.... "That means the Government must comply with its obligation to provide Abrego Garcia with due process of law, including notice and an opportunity to be heard, in any future proceedings."

Let's suppose that A-G is a gimme. The White House says he's not, but let's not question it. What is your evidence that this is happening in more than one case?

But A-G is the case I was discussing with Walker when you butted in to tell me I was wrong. So that's the only case that needs to be covered before you can finally accept that I wasn't wrong.

The White House lost 9 - 0 at the Supreme Court, and the latter is the authority not the former, so the White House can suck it.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 7:26 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 7:11 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 7:03 pm
the Sotomayor concurrence when the supreme court ruled 9 to 0 against the position you are arguing.... "That means the Government must comply with its obligation to provide Abrego Garcia with due process of law, including notice and an opportunity to be heard, in any future proceedings."

Let's suppose that A-G is a gimme. The White House says he's not, but let's not question it. What is your evidence that this is happening in more than one case?

But A-G is the case I was discussing with Walker when you butted in to tell me I was wrong.

No, he's the one case you cited as if it proved that the Trump admit was not giving "due process" to illegals. And since he was a one-off, he's not even relevant to the situation.

The White House says that all that was missing from the A-G process was "one step of paperwork." Sounds about right. And here's the conclusion to the case: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4zoxvBPzGqU

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 7:29 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 7:26 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 7:11 pm
Let's suppose that A-G is a gimme. The White House says he's not, but let's not question it. What is your evidence that this is happening in more than one case?

But A-G is the case I was discussing with Walker when you butted in to tell me I was wrong.

No, he's the one case you cited as if it proved that the Trump admit was not giving "due process" to illegals.

Show me the quote where I am doing that.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 7:32 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 7:29 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 7:26 pm
But A-G is the case I was discussing with Walker when you butted in to tell me I was wrong.

No, he's the one case you cited as if it proved that the Trump admit was not giving "due process" to illegals.

Show me the quote where I am doing that.

Oh, very easily. You repeatedly said that the thing you're arguing for is "due process," not merely Abrego Garcia. You only wanted us to suppose that the A-G case was the same as every other case, obviously...otherwise, it doesn't relate to the "process" being applied to others...all you have, then, is a one-off mistake (presumably) that is not typical of any other cases.

Unless you have proof that it is. Do you?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 7:35 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 7:32 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 7:29 pm
No, he's the one case you cited as if it proved that the Trump admit was not giving "due process" to illegals.

Show me the quote where I am doing that.

Oh, very easily.

No insinuations, show me the quote where I am using that case to say that Trump denies due process to illegals.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 6:49 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 4:20 pm Due process was denied, the situation must be remedied.

"Due process" applies to citizens only. Those that are illegal immigrants already are not owed any particular "process" by the country they invaded. They aren't its citizens.

In case you have forgotten, this is where you butted into my conversation with Walker to tell me I was wrong. It has nothing to do with the bullshit you are spewing now.

That means the Government must comply with its obligation to provide Abrego Garcia with due process of law, including notice and an opportunity to be heard, in any future proceedings.

El Presidente Bukele sez he ain't cuttin' him loose. So, there probably won't be any future proceedings.

Guess it's time to impeach RED MAN DEFIANT...again.

Or empty the Office of El Presidente and install a more pliant person.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 7:42 pm

That means the Government must comply with its obligation to provide Abrego Garcia with due process of law, including notice and an opportunity to be heard, in any future proceedings.

El Presidente Bukele sez he ain't cuttin' him loose. So, there probably won't be any future proceedings.

Guess it's time to impeach RED MAN DEFIANT...again.

Or empty the Office of El Presidente and install a more pliant person.

Wow, why not just do your constitutional duty in accord with the oath sworn on a bible to obey and uphold the constitution?

Bukele is paid to keep this guy in a prison, there's a contract, Art Of The DEAL Guy didn't sign up to a contract where he can't recall any of the prisoners he's sent over there did he?

Art Of The DEAL Guy didn't sign up to a contract where he can't recall any of the prisoners he's sent over there did he?

Hell if I know.

Google it and find out.

why not just do your constitutional duty

No one does that. No one has for a very long time. No one will again.

Why are you lettin' them boondoggle you?

You're smarter than that, Flash.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 11:09 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 11:01 pm This is the case of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia.

I hate to tell you...one case does not signify whether or not the Federal Government has the power to deport. They do.

No one disputes that. It’s the way in which it’s being carried out.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 8:13 pm

why not just do your constitutional duty

No one does that. No one has for a very long time. No one will again.

Why are you lettin' them boondoggle you?

You're smarter than that, Flash.

Name two presidents that have lost in the SC and then simply refused to obey the order.

I'll help you out. When Nixon was ordered to hand over the tapes that contained the damning evidence which he knew would have him not only impeached but removed from office, he handed them over. He didn't put his press secretary on a podium say that the Supreme Court could gargle dirty balls.

There is something new to this wilful rejection of the authority of courts to overrule the executive.