Conservatives are criticizing liberals for voting to prevent the deporting of Tren De Aragua gang members as well as the Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil. This is why those criticisms are misguided at least and disingenuous perhaps.
It is the methods employed in making these deportations happen that are objectionable. The conservatives now in power are conflating the awfulness of this notorious gang and the anti-American sentiment of Khalil with the righteousness of deporting them.
Resurrecting and applying a seldom used statute from the 1790’s and conveniently missing, (or ignoring) a federal judges order points us in a dangerous procedural direction. By doing so, we forfeit whatever claim we may have had in historically taking the high-road and respecting the rule of law.
The legality of these actions needs to be considered separately from the visceral reaction one may have for the individuals involved. Adherence to the law shouldn’t be applied on a sliding-scale of questionable interpretation based on the collective approval or disapproval of those being adjudicated.
We will be and should be judged as a society, by the way in which we treat those we abhor the most. Equal justice and application of the law should be independent of our sentiments, opinions and feelings about those ensnared in our legal system.
No one wants Tren De Aragua gang members roaming around our country and most American’s wince at foreign nationals with a big mouth deriding our nation. None of that justifies bending the law or pretending we just missed that judges order just so we can get what we want.
We can’t stand against the things that insult our values by holding our nose and doing just that in order to obtain an outcome we cannot achieve any other way.
I’m a strong conservative however, the rule of law is sacrosanct and using subterfuge as justification exposes a position and willingness to undertake that which is anything but conservative.
Perspectives from the INTJ angle 
Agree completely.. I am also Libertarian/Conservative, hate what those people stand for… BUT stand by the quote “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it…”. I had the very same reaction to these actions.
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
LikeLike
Level set from a constitutional attorney. That judge has NO power over the executive branch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KR3_7IGQL1E
LikeLike
The U.S. judiciary exercises significant power over the executive branch through a system of checks and balances established by the Constitution. Here’s a breakdown of the judiciary’s authority in this context:
Judicial Review: The judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, has the power to review actions, orders, and policies of the executive branch to determine their constitutionality. This principle was established in Marbury v. Madison (1803), where the Court asserted its authority to strike down executive actions that violate the Constitution. For example, if an executive order exceeds the president’s authority or infringes on constitutional rights, federal courts can invalidate it.
Adjudicating Disputes: Federal courts can hear cases involving the executive branch, such as challenges to regulations issued by executive agencies (e.g., the Environmental Protection Agency or Department of Justice). Citizens, organizations, or states can sue the executive branch, and judges can issue rulings that limit or overturn executive decisions.
Injunctions and Restraining Orders: Courts can issue injunctions or temporary restraining orders to halt executive actions pending further review. This has been seen in cases like challenges to immigration policies (e.g., the travel ban cases during the Trump administration), where federal judges blocked enforcement until legal questions were resolved.
Enforcement of Laws: While the executive branch enforces laws, the judiciary interprets them. If the executive misinterprets or fails to comply with a law, courts can compel action or declare the executive’s interpretation invalid. For instance, courts have intervened when executive agencies refuse to follow congressional mandates.
Oversight of Executive Privilege: The judiciary can limit the executive’s use of privilege (e.g., withholding documents or testimony). In United States v. Nixon (1974), the Supreme Court ruled that President Nixon had to turn over Watergate tapes, establishing that executive privilege is not absolute and can be overruled in the interest of justice.
Appointments and Impeachment: While not a direct power over daily executive functions, the judiciary indirectly influences the executive through judicial appointments (made by the president but confirmed by the Senate) and by presiding over impeachment trials in the Senate, where the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court acts as the judge (e.g., during presidential impeachment proceedings).
In practice, this power dynamic often leads to tension. For example, executive branch officials might resist court rulings, but they are legally bound to comply unless they appeal to a higher court. The judiciary’s authority is not absolute—it relies on the executive to enforce its decisions—but it serves as a critical check on executive overreach, ensuring adherence to the rule of law and constitutional limits.
LikeLike
The writer here makes his point in the usual eloquent fashion. The President of the USA has the sole authority and responsibility to remove illegal aliens from the country, many of which are rapists and killers. The fact that POTUS is using a law adopted way back in the 1700’s, doesn’t render that law invalid, nor should it. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were also adopted centuries ago, so does that make them any less valid now than when they were adopted? Now let’s talk about the so-called impartial federal judge that apparently thought his authority trumped that of the President. It does not. In addition, it was reported in the media that the judge’s family has donated thousands of dollars to Democrats and the judge’s daughter works to provide services for illegal aliens. If true, the judge is obviously compromised and should have recused himself from the matter. The writer’s point is well taken, especially so if we were living in normal times and the Illegal Enemies Act of 1798 didn’t exist. So many of the federal judiciary have abdicated their oath and have become activists for the left. Federal judges across the country have tried to shut down the President and Elon’s efforts to stop the widespread waste, theft and corruption that so plagues D.C. If the Democrats don’t like something the President is doing, especially something that will expose their years of corruption, they judge shop in a heavily Democrat region of the country and get a judge assigned that will rule in their favor. These judges that have been bought and paid for by the Democrats render decisions based on their political iealology and not on the rule of law. We are witnessing what amounts to the last chance to save this Nation. Maybe we need to dust off a few more old laws to get the job done.
LikeLike
I appreciate the “faint praise” of my eloquence, thank you for that and now onto an expansion of my original position. While accurate to point out that the age of a statute does not necessarily diminish it’s authority or lessen it’s legitimacy, the fact that it is used so infrequently may suggest a kind of “hail-Mary” hope on which on might hang their legal-status hat. As for the criticism of the judges themselves, this gets a bit more dangerous in my view. The donation history of the judges family, who his daughter works for, this is pretty thin on persuasion. I’m not ready to accuse judges of decision making devoid of jurisprudential underpinnings by assailing them personally, that is unprovable. The proper approach, (as the WSJ editorial this morning suggests) is the appeals process, not character assassination. Noting which Presidents appointed which judges assumes, (I think incorrectly and unfairly) their characters and fealty to the Constitution and the rule of law. Again, the process is appeals not impeachment, which has happens very few times in our history and rightfully so. Saying that, “These judges that have been bought and paid for by the Democrats render decisions based on their political ideology and not on the rule of law.” is a really strong statement that I think undermines the argument by such a damning and wide accusation. Over time, if judges are proven, over and over again, to be over-ruled by higher courts, then their authority will be undermined and rightfully so, but simply declaring judges “corrupt” and “compromised” is accusatory and inflammatory language that is really irresponsible unless you can prove it. I understand the frustration of allowing gang-members to stay and not deporting big-mouth foreign nationals for their hateful rhetoric, but we are a nation of laws and processes, however slow and frustrating that might be, we don’t jump the gun and plow ahead just because we think we’re right, damn the torpedoes!
LikeLike