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.
Judges also ruled that he couldn't black-bag legal residents and citizens and send them to prison camps in El Salvador. He ignored the judges and did it anyway. Judges then said he had to return the people he kidnapped. He ignored them again.
A law is only a law if it is enforced. Until I see that fat orange fuck being perp walked through the Rose Garden in handcuffs, laws don't mean shit.
Trump: deports them anyway.
Autocrat gonna autocrat. He’s pretty much established he doesn’t care what the courts say, and his ICE Stasi don’t care either.
That should solve the problem. International crisis averted.
It is disgusting that the Orange Turd gets to decide what happens to these people. He should be in jail instead of in the white house.
Watch him do it anyway.
The courts are irrelevant. I guess they might as well keep doing their thing, but they'll just be ignored.
They made themselves irrelevant and this will be their legacy.
They're just keeping America on life support and avoiding admitting America is dead
The pressure point needs to be congress. Those GOP fuckers need to be afraid of losing their jobs sooner than 2 years from now. Citizens need a way to remove their congressman who is not doing what they want them to do.
They will only be concerned once "jobs" become "lives"
There is a way to remove congress people ahead of their term.
The problem is a lot of Americans want this, they're cheering.
But can the court stop his Gestapo from kidnapping these people anyway and trafficking them for torture, slavery, imprisonment and possibly execution? Because they're just doing it regardless of what the courts rule.
Tomorrow's headline: Trump revokes legal status of migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela
... and that one judge.
Oh there would be more than one. Wouldn't surprise me before this is all said and done.
Yah, he doesn't care. He doesn't care about the law or anyone that gives a fuck about it. What is anyone going to do to stop him?
If Trump and his people ignore the courts, the only way to stop them is physically.
Oh, is that the sound of a mob assembling an iconic French life-discontinuing apparatus on Pennsylvania Avenue I hear?
Sadly no. That's the French protesting increasing the retirement age.
Americans witnessing the loss of democracy and due process? "I sleep".
White House: "wyd?"
Who's going to stop him? At this point, it seems pretty obvious he can just do whatever he wants. The Constitution is dead, right along with the Judiciary's authority to challenge him.
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.
The judiciary moves slowly.
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
But [t]hey could find Marshalls who take their oath seriously, ...
That's wrong. The request from the court doesn't just go to the US Marshals. It goes to DoJ.
... or they could deputize whoever they like to enforce the court's ruling.
Also wrong. The US Marshals Service can deputize Marshals. The courts cannot.
This authority is recognized in an obscure provision of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which govern proceedings in federal trial courts. Rule 4.1 specifies how certain types of “process” — the legal term for orders that command someone to appear in court — are to be served on the party to which they are directed. The rule begins in section (a) by instructing that, as a general matter, process “must be served by a United States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially appointed for that purpose.”
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.
So?
He’ll deport them and get a slap on the wrist and a strongly worded letter from a judge that he’ll ignore.
And no one will do anything about it.
He won't ignore the letter, he'll frame it and put it above his toilet.
I think it's cute that judges pretend the US still has a Judiciary
Well, we do, but it's for everyone else.
Much of the population as well...
Soon to be overruled by the Supreme Court with no need to even file!!
I think the SCOTUS are starting to push back but now realising they can't enforce shit. And they gave this dude immunity last year.
Yep they have zero power or authority now. I'm sure the DoJ would help enforce any rulings that they agree with. They'll just ignore any they don't.
He can definitely ignore it, though.
What a judge says is apparently not relevant for the Drumpfster or this regime in general.
At this point, any negative ruling against the regime means the same as vibes.
"Can't."