The Supreme Court has just ruled that the worst murderers, drug dealers, gang members, and even those who are mentally insane, who came into our Country illegally
Nope. The Supreme Court ruling impacts only that those you have alleged to be "members of Tren de Aragua (TdA)" who are "similarly situated detainees in the Northern District of Texas, . . . currently being held in U. S. detention facilities." Not to drug dealers, not to murderers, not to mentally insane. This ruling only applies to those alleged to be members of a specific gang you have declared to be a designated foreign terrorist group.
are not allowed to be forced out
Nope. You are free to "remove the named plaintiffs or putative class members under other lawful authorities."
without going through a long, protracted, and expensive Legal Process, one that will take, possibly, many years for each person, and one that will allow these people to commit many crimes before they even see the inside of a Courthouse,"
Again, nope.
Due process is not synonymous with a long, protracted, and expensive Legal Process (sic). It is a sliding scale proposition. It requires notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to deprivation of life, liberty, or property. Sometimes significant advance notice is required - other times virtually none. Sometimes the opportunity to be heard is in a trial-like process; other times it can be an opportunity to present written arguments at any time prior to the final disposition. Sometimes it includes a right to appeal - sometimes not. It all depends on how important the right or property interest is. For example - asset forfeiture simply requires notice - often 60 days
after the asset is seized but before the asset is finally disposed of to a third party. Due process before depriving someone of liberty requires far more - advance notice of the charges, a trial, and a right to appeal the outcome of the trial.
The Supreme Court did not order a "long, protracted, and expensive Legal Process." It determined ONLY that notice on April 18, for a removal on April 19 did not qualify as "notice that is “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties” and that “afford[s] a reasonable time . . . to make [an] appearance.”" It remanded the matter to the circuit court for that initial determination, with the expectation that once they evaluate the matter it will return for final evaluation by the Supreme Court.
So tired of all the hyperbole.
I am glad to see the Supreme Court (or at least most of the justices) almost blatantly calling out the Trump administration for lying. They justified their jurisdiction, in part, on the administration's insistence that it lost all jurisdiction after immigrants left our country (Abrego Garcia) - and on its assertion that the administration assured it would not deport individuals the next day - while simultaneously preparing to depart them the next day. The bulk of the dissent (as to jurisdiction) was based on taking the assertions of the administration to the lower court at face value - there really was no danger because they promised . . .
= new reply since forum marked as read