The justices said no action should be taken to pursue the deportations of any alleged Venezuelan gang members in Texas under the rarely used wartime law.
Nothing will meaningfully improve until the rich fear for their lives
Incredible, the judges siding with potential criminals? Who would have seen this coming?
One would think they would side with the country’s own citizenship instead of trying to protect illegal inmigrants 🤣
But yeah, it’s a weird collectivist pattern of behavior, seeing a criminal an defending then while leaving the citizens and workers defenseless at the mercy of the aforementioned.
And then you guys asks yourselves why you lost the easiest election ever.
Gonna label you as “Dumb Cunt”, thanks.
The judge is siding with the Constitution of the United States, and upholding a previous ruling by a US federal court.
Aren’t you supposed to be the party of law and order? Kinda turning into more of a lynch mob these days, wouldn’t you say?
Trump: “I’m gonna do it anyway.”
Supremes: “Okay daddy”
This is literally the opposite of whet you just wrote. They supported Boasberg’s injunction 7-2. He is the one that will be charging them with contempt, not SCOTUS.
Orangeboi and the ruling regime have already directly violated orders from the Supreme Court. Why do you think this particular decision is going to give him pause?
That’s still missing the point of he’s gonna do it anyways…
Then the parties involved will be charged with contempt of court. Courts are slow. There are many steps to this process. If you want this done quickly, convince the loyalist Republicans in Congress to vote against his executive order. Defeatism is useless criticism.
Guess what department handles justice and creating charges…?
The SCOTUS only has the ability on paper to interpret the law …not enforce
Courts ARE slow! And that’s the loop hole people with shit loads of money use to make sure they are never punished.
They just Lawyer up with the most expensive ones they can find, then ask them every way they can contest the court. Then they pay to contest it.
Often waiting years for sentencing. Where in that time they get the laws changed and make favors so when you are sentenced, it’s a get out of jail free card.
Sometimes the Epstein way. Who ran a child porn and trafficking empire for decades and never served justice, nor will any of his clients.
Courts will remain slow as long as those who are paid most are great at slowing things down for their clients.
Like a President with 34 felonies and no sentencing. Or the same president committing the largest single national security breach in all of American history and will never see trial.
I want to believe in our court system. Because it was nice to feel like Justice was neutral and fair.
But over the last 2 decades I’ve seen dumptrucks of crime dissolve American society, and little to no punishment from a court too slow to fight all the money evil people now have.
In 2008, there was a financial crisis that the media says was handled well. Except the system that was to be put in place to monitor fruad, the CAT system, has had its implementation delayed until 2024. When it started to finally, finally be used to monitor tlfinancial errors. And there were billions.
Then the Trump admin delayed it’s necessity until 2027.
19 years later. A fix for the problem in Wallstreet from 2008. In that time, they just got better at hiding what they’re doing. And now it’s another house of cards that Trumps too much of an idiot to keep standing.
That’s not justice. That’s a joke.
You still don’t get it. These ruling DO NOT MATTER if they are not enforced, and they will not be.
Do you honestly think a high US court is going to deputize some random people to go and arrest members of the Trump administration?
What exactly do you think is going to happen from this point?
Defeatism may be useless criticism but we’re living in a world where misplaced optimism may be deadly. What are you advocating for here? The person you’re responding to is almost certainly correct in their assessment of what will happen next, and that seems worth discussing.
I find your response confusing.
I’m advocating realism through comprehension of the situation. SCOTUS has twice now upheld the federal court orders regarding these deportations. The concern about the judiciary not having their own enforcement arm is negotiable through a court appointed attorney, a writ to law enforcement, or by deputizing in the most extreme case.
This doesn’t mean he can’t pardon those involved, but that would be an outright admission of guilt, and most certainly prompt the revolution that everyone seems to be so hungry for.
They had 4 fucking years to do something.
Look where that got us…
I’m not American, but as a Canadian even I have my pitchfork and cocktail ready.
Clearly. You don’t understand the urgency behind active checks and balances to maintain a government’s function and a criminal prosecution case of a former president.
This can’t be swept under the rug or pushed out on a calendar.
There is no such thing as active checks and balances anymore. That whole system is, as we speak, being actively proven to be completely meaningless.
Have you been reading the news at all? Active checks and balances are in shambles and the constitution is being used as toilet paper.
-
Judges that try to hold the administration accountable for anything are being ignored and labeled “activist judges”
-
The House let the “No Rogue Rulings” act pass onto the senate. If they pass it, it legitimatizes administration’s decision to ignore lower court orders.
-
Republicans are scared of speaking out or acting against Trump.
-
The administration is trying to weaponize the IRS against educational institutions that don’t fall into line.
-
Musk is dismantling social services while lining his own pockets and feeding government data and PII into his company’s LLM.
-
People are being kidnapped out of their cars and homes by ICE and sent to a concentration camp with zero oversight.
-
ICE is going to schools and trying to take people’s kids to lure out their parents.
-
Citizens are being “accidentally” kidnapped by ICE.
You seem to have the criticism down, but where is the proposed action? What do you suggest we do?
-
Clearly you don’t understand that violence is needed here.
I’m not saying it should be swept under the rug. I’m saying it’s time to take to the streets and SHOW what you want.
The only language they’ll listen to now is violonce.
Trump has already said he’s not returning the wrongly deported person. Why would he suddenly start listening to the courts?
Be my guest. I’m non-violent, and our system has yet to fail. That doesn’t mean it can’t, but I’m not accepting defeat until then.
He said that, and now his administration is facing a contempt of court hearing on the 23rd. The presiding judge preemptively stated that he will appoint an attorney to enforce his order if the DoJ refuses to do so.
Trump bluffs. He’s a bullshitter. Harvard called him on it and now he’s saying the letter was sent in error. He can’t talk his way out of this.
There are major questions about whether the government has the authority to apply the Alien Enemies Act to gang members outside of a war situation and whether adjudications about gang membership are accurate.
Come on NBC, this is bullshit. They have no authority because there is no declared war. This is not a question. The law in question states, “in time of war”. This is a fact. Congress has not declared war, therefore this is not wartime. The only question is why the courts and congress are not doing their jobs and putting an end to it.
More embarrassing for NBC, is the use of the word adjudications in this passage. What adjudications about gang membership? There have been no adjudications stating that any of these people are gang members because they have not been afforded due process and the courts have made no such rulings at all.
He admitted in 2019 to having been in a gang as a 16-year-old that would result in persecution if he were returned to El Salvador, hence the judge’s ruling on blocked deportation. He testified that he came here to leave that life behind.
“Having been in a gang” does not equal is “in a gang.” The courts at the time said he was formerly in a gang and was in danger for having left the gang. He qualified for protection from deportation because he was no longer in a gang. Therefore, it has not been adjudicated that he is in any gang.
The courts at the time said he was formerly in a gang
I don’t think even that’s right, I think ICE claimed he was a member of MS-13 (based off of one bullshit statement from a cop whose not allowed to testify anymore for the state prosecutors because he got caught lying about so much other stuff (arc)), but I don’t think the immigration court ever really addressed that and just left it at “If you wanted asylum you should have asked within one year after getting into the country but you’ve been here 7 years, and that’s reason enough to rule against you”
Besides that, Garcia never said he was a member of a gang. He said his family was threatened by a completely different gang and that they were going to hurt him if he didn’t join them, but he left instead of joining them (arc).
Like, his only real connection to a gang is being a victim of it, but the Laken Riley Act supporting assholes of our world will never give a shit about brown people being victimized by criminal gangs because they’re racist hypocritical douchebags (and maybe they understand on some level they’ve got the same kind of symbiotic relationship with MS-13 that George W had with Al Quaeda and Netanyahu has with Hamas).
I agree. You asked why they wrote adjudicated gang member. Technically, he would be an adjudicated former gang member.
None of these people would do anything unless they had run it by their advisors.
It’s going to be an interesting time coming up.
They got SCOTUS working at 1am on a Saturday. Even Alito and Thomas were on board. This is reassuring news.
I think you read that wrong, they (Alito/Thomas) specifically dissented.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/041925zr_c18e.pdf
I read it at 5am. My mistake. Edited for accuracy. Thanks for the correction.
No they weren’t. These emergency decisions are unsigned, so normally we don’t really know who advocated for what, all we know is that a majority of the Court was in favor. Since the press is now reporting that Alito and Thomas dissented, though, they must have made some separate statement to that effect later.
But we don’t really know whether there are 7 justices in favor, we just know there are at least 5.
It’s in the article and the ruling. They are explicitly listed as dissenting.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/041925zr_c18e.pdf
I read it at 5am. My mistake. Edited for accuracy. Thanks for the correction.
Interesting. Is it normal, for dissenting opinions to be made explicit on an unsigned order like this?
If not, for me it’s immediately a red flag. Why is it so important for these two to publicize that they dissented on an otherwise unsigned order? Is there another RV shipment coming soon? I guess we’ll find out soon enough because the order says Alito will publish a written dissent later…
Two conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, disagreed with the decision, the order noted.
Were they though??
I read it at 5am. My mistake. Edited for accuracy. Thanks for the correction.
No it’s not. The judiciary doesn’t have an enforcement arm. It’s troublesome
Why do I keep hearing this?
Three branches all have enforment. In contempt of Congress or contempt of Court, the branches can deputize as many people as necessary to make arrears.
Because it’s not an arm of enforcement and has rarely been attempted
That’s not correct. Courts can appoint attorneys for enforcement. Boasberg has already preemptively stated that he would if the DoJ refuses to enforce a court order.
According to the link you posted, it is correct. The usual enforcement arm for the courts is the US Marshalls under the DOJ. However, they have other options that have never been tried.
So what’s stopping the President from ordering the FBI/Marshalls/etc from actively preventing the arrest of the person in contempt?
It’s in that same article. A judge may deputize someone to enforce a court order. That’s assuming the DoJ refuses, then the judge issues a writ that is ignored.
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.”
The US Marshalls of the DOJ is usually the enforcement arm for the judiciary.
Deputizing someone is an enforcement mechanism and not the enforcement arm.
Fair enough. You are technically correct. That’s not a roadblock, it’s just an additional step.
It’s not just about having armed men to throw people in jail, that’s not how things work. It’s about legitimacy.
Yes - the rules at the top of the federal government are different. No, that’s not new. Representatives and the president aren’t generally held personally responsible for things they do as part of their job (voting on laws for example). It would be too easy to abuse such a system. Many decisions made, no matter how small or well intentioned, will cause harm in some way. So they are insulated from that.
But when the scotus rules that a branch has violated law then things change. A president who ignores the court will lose legitimacy. Legislators should act to correct that (yes yes, I know) and the voters have a clear indication that they should also correct itn as well. Civil servants are also at risk personally if they violate a court order (yes, it’s unfair) which makes it harder for the executive to continue to do so.
It’s interesting that the one judge who was going to conduct his own contempt hearings also claimed the right to appoint a prosecutor if the Justice Department chooses not to. That process is on hold while the appeals court considers it. (Which is not surprising, it’s quite a big step and deserves some review). But if the appeals court allows it to go forward with an Independant prosecutor, then we might be getting somewhere.
