Plain clothes is different from "undercover." Plain clothes officers wear a badge on their belt or pendant, and identify themselves when confronting a suspect or witness. Undercover officers try to blend in. Nobody wears bandido masks. These people have probably been told to be as intimidating and scary as possible and to treat people as harshly as possible.
Yep, it's bullshit jackboot tactics.
Label as you choose. Waiting to arrest someone who has violated the law is not "jackboot".
Your talent at making a bland truish statement that has no relevance to the issue is noted.
some small fraction of whom are going to go on to be Prime Ministers of countries who've now been turned into enemies of the United States, whether it is the way in which America [is] seen when it expels people whose dream it was to come to Harvard to study, this is madness.
First post:
administrative procedures.
A different judge gets added to the lengthy tally stomping PINO and Friendly Fire Barbie:
A federal judge in California has blocked the Trump administration’s move to revoke the legal statuses of thousands of international students across nationwide universities.
The injunction—which also stops the administration from arresting or detaining foreign-born students on the basis of immigration status—comes after the Trump administration revoked and then reinstated the legal status of 4,700 international students with little explanation beginning in March, NBC News reported.
District Judge Jeffrey White, nominated by President George W. Bush,
"nominated by President George W. Bush" - Imagine that.
blasted Trump officials for having “wreaked havoc” on students’ lives on Thursday. In his ruling, he wrote that the injunction should give the plaintiffs a “measure of stability and certainty that they will be able to continue their studies or their employment without the threat of re-termination hanging over their heads.”
... Judge White wrote that the Trump administration’s crusade “is a uniform policy that uniformly wreaked havoc not only on the lives of Plaintiffs here but on similarly situated F-1 nonimmigrants across the United States and continues do so.”
White called the administration’s policy changes a “game of whack-a-mole” for the court system.
“At each turn in this and similar litigation across the nation, Defendants have abruptly changed course to satisfy courts’ expressed concerns,” White said. “It is unclear how this game of whack-a-mole will end unless Defendants are enjoined from skirting their own mandatory regulations.”
Last edited by Vrede too on Sat May 24, 2025 7:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
Plain clothes is different from "undercover." Plain clothes officers wear a badge on their belt or pendant, and identify themselves when confronting a suspect or witness. Undercover officers try to blend in. Nobody wears bandido masks. These people have probably been told to be as intimidating and scary as possible and to treat people as harshly as possible.
Yep, it's bullshit jackboot tactics.
Label as you choose. Waiting to arrest someone who has violated the law is not "jackboot".
Your talent at making a bland truish statement that has no relevance to the issue is noted.
Sorry O Really cannot the dots between cubbie's post and my response.
Your talent at making a bland truish statement that has no relevance to the issue is noted.
Besides, as we all know by now but some MAGAts refuse to admit, many of those being swept up have NOT violated the law. Rather, they've had their LEGAL status revoked often without notice and without their due process rights to challenge the change in status. Of course, this is ILLEGAL, but MAGAts are only bothered when the "illegals" are Brown or Black people.
Last edited by Vrede too on Sat May 24, 2025 12:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Your talent at making a bland truish statement that has no relevance to the issue is noted.
Besides, as we all know by now but some MAGAts refuse to admit, many of those being swept up have NOT violated the law. Rather, they've had their LEGAL status revoked often without notice or and without their due process rights to challenge the change in status. Of course, this is ILLEGAL, but MAGAts are only bothered when the "illegals" are Brown or Black people.
Trumpers who used to scream "overreach" over arguable technicalities now seem to accept an "any means to an end" approach. Police practices that used to be acceptable in Jim Crow Louisiana but have been mostly eliminated even there have been adopted as standard protocol for the ICE people. These agents aren't all new guys who aren't trained in lawful procedure. They're mostly experienced agents who have now been instructed to be as brutish as possible. And all of them have ripped the "Protect and Serve" patches off their shirts and decals off their cars.
So far in this banana republic administration*, 328 lawsuits have been filed, resulting so far in 200 rulings (some multiples in the same case) against Trump and minions, 140 new and pending and only 46 in favour of Trump's action. Those decisions come from all areas of the country, from judicial appointees from Bush, Obama, Biden, and Trump, and upheld on appeal about 90% of the time. In his first administration*, Trump lost 93% of the cases brought against his actions. So far, he's even lost more from "his" Supreme Court than he's won.
Of course, litigation usually moves slowly, and he can do a lot of damage while the cases move through, but at least there is a little silver lining behind that yuuge black cloud.
So far in this banana republic administration*, 328 lawsuits have been filed, resulting so far in 200 rulings (some multiples in the same case) against Trump and minions, 140 new and pending and only 46 in favour of Trump's action. Those decisions come from all areas of the country, from judicial appointees from Bush, Obama, Biden, and Trump, and upheld on appeal about 90% of the time. In his first administration*, Trump lost 93% of the cases brought against his actions. So far, he's even lost more from "his" Supreme Court than he's won.
Of course, litigation usually moves slowly, and he can do a lot of damage while the cases move through, but at least there is a little silver lining behind that yuuge black cloud.
Assuming they obey the courts.
Eamus Catuli~AC 000000000101010202020303010304 020405....Ahhhh, forget it, it's gonna be a while.
So far in this banana republic administration*, 328 lawsuits have been filed, resulting so far in 200 rulings (some multiples in the same case) against Trump and minions, 140 new and pending and only 46 in favour of Trump's action. Those decisions come from all areas of the country, from judicial appointees from Bush, Obama, Biden, and Trump, and upheld on appeal about 90% of the time. In his first administration*, Trump lost 93% of the cases brought against his actions. So far, he's even lost more from "his" Supreme Court than he's won.
Of course, litigation usually moves slowly, and he can do a lot of damage while the cases move through, but at least there is a little silver lining behind that yuuge black cloud.
Assuming they obey the courts.
I think ehy've already got that covered.....their big beautiful bull has a provision in it that prevents justice department officers from enforcing contempt rulings against trump administration officials who may refuse obeying court orders. And if it becomes law they will whine that they are just "following the law."
I think they've already got that covered.....their big beautiful bull has a provision in it that prevents justice department officers from enforcing contempt rulings against trump administration officials who may refuse obeying court orders. And if it becomes law they will whine that they are just "following the law."
I think they've already got that covered.....their big beautiful bull has a provision in it that prevents justice department officers from enforcing contempt rulings against trump administration officials who may refuse obeying court orders. And if it becomes law they will whine that they are just "following the law."
Opps! After I posted, I saw that this had been mentioned in another thread. The whole idea seems nutty and destined to be ruled unconstitutional.....it's like preemptively negating the only actual "power" the courts have. The power to enforce their rulings. These people only know one type of LAW. Lying and whining.
I think they've already got that covered.....their big beautiful bull has a provision in it that prevents justice department officers from enforcing contempt rulings against trump administration officials who may refuse obeying court orders. And if it becomes law they will whine that they are just "following the law."
Opps! After I posted, I saw that this had been mentioned in another thread. The whole idea seems nutty and destined to be ruled unconstitutional.....it's like preemptively negating the only actual "power" the courts have. The power to enforce their rulings. These people only know one type of LAW. Lying and whining.
Worth mentioning twice it's so bad. Maybe it won't survive the Senate now that people are talking about it having been sneaked into the BBB.
I think they've already got that covered.....their big beautiful bull has a provision in it that prevents justice department officers from enforcing contempt rulings against trump administration officials who may refuse obeying court orders. And if it becomes law they will whine that they are just "following the law."
Opps! After I posted, I saw that this had been mentioned in another thread. The whole idea seems nutty and destined to be ruled unconstitutional.....it's like preemptively negating the only actual "power" the courts have. The power to enforce their rulings. These people only know one type of LAW. Lying and whining.
Worth mentioning twice it's so bad. Maybe it won't survive the Senate now that people are talking about it having been sneaked into the BBB.
From my understanding, if they attempt to pass the bill with reconciliation (only needs a simple majority to pass), the Byrd rule applies which states that a budget bill must only pertain to budgetary items. Policy heavy items cannot proceed. The part about the courts would fall outside of budgetary concerns. The Senate parliamentarian would likely order it to be stricken from the bill.
... A point of order under the Byrd Rule is a motion to delete the specified provision before consideration is resumed. As the presiding officer of the Senate, the Vice President rules on Byrd Rule points of order. The Senate Parliamentarian advises the Vice President on Byrd Rule points of order.
Great, we get a Just Deranged decider Good find, GoCubsGo.
... A point of order under the Byrd Rule is a motion to delete the specified provision before consideration is resumed. As the presiding officer of the Senate, the Vice President rules on Byrd Rule points of order. The Senate Parliamentarian advises the Vice President on Byrd Rule points of order.
Great, we get a Just Deranged decider Good find, GoCubsGo.
It sounds like the Byrd rule has never been overruled before, but yeah, from reading the stuff from GoCubsGo, it sounds like it's absolutely possible for the provisions concerning the courts to be pushed through. Imo that makes this bill even more heinous if it passes given it's a budget reconciliation bill that's not supposed to contain anything extraneaous to that concern.
There's still the possibility of some Senate Republicans deciding to heed the parlimentarians advice and not vote on the bill unless it adheres to the Byrd rule. But who knows with them. They have no principles.
It sounds like the Byrd rule has never been overruled before, but yeah, from reading the stuff from GoCubsGo, it sounds like it's absolutely possible for the provisions concerning the courts to be pushed through. Imo that makes this bill even more heinous if it passes given it's a budget reconciliation bill that's not supposed to contain anything extraneaous to that concern.
There's still the possibility of some Senate Republicans deciding to heed the parlimentarians advice and not vote on the bill unless it adheres to the Byrd rule. But who knows with them. They have no principles.
We can rule out any Rs that are up for reelection in 2026.
It sounds like the Byrd rule has never been overruled before, but yeah, from reading the stuff from GoCubsGo, it sounds like it's absolutely possible for the provisions concerning the courts to be pushed through. Imo that makes this bill even more heinous if it passes given it's a budget reconciliation bill that's not supposed to contain anything extraneaous to that concern.
There's still the possibility of some Senate Republicans deciding to heed the parlimentarians advice and not vote on the bill unless it adheres to the Byrd rule. But who knows with them. They have no principles.
We can rule out any Rs that are up for reelection in 2026.
Bunch of cowards. The American way is to roll over and submit. All that tough talk about liberty and freedom Americans like to spout out was emptiness and pretending all along and nothing more. Instead they lie down in the mud and shit and grovel at the feet of their perceived betters.
Well, even if this bullshit is thrown out of the big beautiful bull, I suppose the GQP could still achieve the same goal just by eliminating funding for the Marshall Service.
... A point of order under the Byrd Rule is a motion to delete the specified provision before consideration is resumed. As the presiding officer of the Senate, the Vice President rules on Byrd Rule points of order. The Senate Parliamentarian advises the Vice President on Byrd Rule points of order.
Great, we get a Just Deranged decider Good find, GoCubsGo.
It sounds like the Byrd rule has never been overruled before, but yeah, from reading the stuff from GoCubsGo, it sounds like it's absolutely possible for the provisions concerning the courts to be pushed through. Imo that makes this bill even more heinous if it passes given it's a budget reconciliation bill that's not supposed to contain anything extraneous to that concern.
There's still the possibility of some Senate Republicans deciding to heed the parliamentarian's advice and not vote on the bill unless it adheres to the Byrd rule. But who knows with them. They have no principles.
This article elaborates on the Byrd Rule and the parliamentarian's role. It doesn't mention that she's ultimately advising Just Deranged.
Elizabeth MacDonough is a Democrat, but she's had the job since 2012 and was senior assistant parliamentarian for 10 years before that. So, she's probably professional and fair. She's been in that office for 26 years in total. Good on her, but I can't imagine, especially with the devolution of the GQP.
Good find, GoCubsGo.
