News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
SCOTUS gave him total freedom from judicial authority.
They didn't really, though. They gave him immunity from being prosecuted for what he does as president...but that doesn't mean everything he does is legal. His orders can still be struck down in court (or at least they should be).
The problem right now, is the fact that he is just ignoring the court's orders. That is still illegal, even if he may not necessarily be prosecuted for it later. We'll see what happens though. At some point the law needs to either hold up against him, or it means nothing, and the Constitution itself is no longer valid.
His orders can be struck down? You mean like the two times they defied court orders just today, and one of them was a unanimous SCOTUS ruling, with this Court?
That's the freedom from judicial authority he was given.
Except, that's NOT the freedom he was given. That's what he's doing...but that was not what the Supreme Court ruled.
If they're doing it, then they have the freedom to do it, until something actually stops them.
No, that's noncompliance - and by completely misrepresenting the supreme court's order, they're playing chicken
The judiciary moves slowly. They have powers they're hesitant to use - they can order Marshalls to act and see who they obey, or they could deputize a bunch of retired special forces to enforce their decisions outside of the executive branch's control
It's not over... Not just yet, anyways. But it's very, very close - if the judiciary backs down, it's over. If the administration holds their ground until there's an armed skirmish, it's going to get very messy. If both sides keep up this back and forth without forcing a standoff, it could drag on for a while
But it's not over yet, it's just not looking good
US Marshals are under DoJ. The only thing that the courts can do is request that Marshals take action. I'm sure Bondi would get right on that.
There's a hearing today on Abrego Garcia, in the wake of SCOTUS' unanimous but "maddeningly vague" order to "facilitate" his return, and the administration's clear failure to do so.
It does, and they're taking every advantage of that to log jam that process even more, and do whatever they want in the meantime. There needs to be rapid and effective action now, and there's only one more box of liberty to get it from.
Yes, the Marshalls are. But hey could find Marshalls who take their oath seriously, or they could deputize whoever they like to enforce the court's ruling
That's wrong. The request from the court doesn't just go to the US Marshals. It goes to DoJ.
Also wrong. The US Marshals Service can deputize Marshals. The courts cannot.
Source
They can do this, there's a strong legal argument for it that goes far beyond just this... And where we are now that's enough she could act
It wouldn't make that person a marshall, they'd be a deputy. They're limited in the scope of what they can do, I'm not sure if they could be paid or how, it might break a whole bunch of norms - but it can be done
Fair enough - can. Won't, but can.
The SCOTUS ruling you’re referring to, while still a terrible precedent as a matter of policy, did not give him a blanket legal right to disregard court orders. He’s just doing it anyway.
If he is immune from criminal prosecution for "official acts", it is fully legal for him to defy court orders about "official acts". That ruling gave him unchecked power. That ruling was our Enabling Act.
Maybe not technically, but it effectively did. There’s no material difference.
You’re falling prey to the idea that in theory, theory and practice are identical, but in practice, theory and practice can often diverge sharply.