331
Trump: "I'm gonna do it anyway."
Supremes: "Okay daddy"
This is literally the opposite of what they just ruled. They supported the injunction 7-2. The district court would be charging them with contempt, not SCOTUS.
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 actionless criticism.
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.
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 like the former.
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.
-
The administration is actively weaponizing withholding funding (which is congress' domain) to make organizations 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.
-
People who refuse to kiss the ring in various leadership positions are being ousted and replaced with loyalists.
Even if the Supreme Court, House, and Senate all grow spines and try to do something, Trump and co are going to ignore it. That's what happens when a "dictator on day one" is voted into office.
You seem to have the criticism down, but where is the proposed action? What do you suggest we do?
Doing what you're doing and protesting, calling Republican representatives, and voicing an opinion is the only civilized path forward if that's still even possible. Republican Party members have to turn on Trump, Vance, and The Heritage Foundation/Project 2025 if there's going to be any chance of a peaceful resolution to their path of destruction. As long as he's protected by the party line and insulated from impeachment, he's going nowhere.
I don't think asking the courts to do anything is the answer, however. Trump's government has proven that they don't give a single shit about what the judiciary has to say. They're happy to ignore orders and they receive zero consequences for doing so. The only court they might consider listening to, the Supreme Court, is filled with Republican judges and judges Trump personally put there. They're as good as useless, and they helped create the problem with their ruling giving sitting presidents immunity from any consequences of vaguely-defined "official acts".
I agree. That’s why I wrote that SCOTUS ruling to uphold the stay is reassuring.
I appreciate the optimism, but I really don't think they're going to listen to this one. SCOTUS rulings without clearly defined and severe consequences for both the administration and members of the administration are effectively toothless. Without those being up-front and the court prepared to act upon immediately, Trump's administration is free to ignore the ruling and carry out their plans while the court spends time fighting amongst itself internally about how to respond. By the time they come up with something and act on it, it's too late and likely too much of a slap on the wrist to be an effective deterrent.
I italicized the word "might" in my last comment for a reason, unfortunately. The Supreme Court can be a threat to the Trump administration, but they need to be organized, unified, ready to act, and unwilling to pull punches. If they're going to be effective, they have to be prepared and willing to respond to and immediately shut down the "shock and awe" tactic being used. No waiting, no delaying, no debating. That's what the administration is counting on to get away with their bullshit: the courts not being fast enough to stop them while also not being harsh enough to actually punish the individuals in its leadership with personal consequences.
On a darker note, if the SCOTUS ever does get their shit together and do that, it's probably going to lead to another January 6 the first time it happens. I can't see Trump accept being blocked by the court and punished without crying to his cult about "an attempted coup by the Supreme Court."
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
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?
EDIT: also fuck you for letting people die in foreign labour camps while your "wheels of justice turn". People will are being kidnapped now. They're gonna die too unless we do something NOW.
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.
our system has yet to fail.
It's already failed.
Cool, then you go ahead and storm the Capitol. I have faith in the courts.
And how many more people will be shipped off while the courts "work"?
To El Salvador? Zero, according to this final appeal attempt. They’re still deporting people to other nations.
Had people not abandoned Democrats at the polls in November, Congress could’ve already stopped this. Their action is much faster than the judiciary.
And how many shipped off to internally prisons.
This is why the rest of the western world is working to leave the US behind. Because ACTUAL harm is being done and your still going "we need more time".
You don't have more time. The rest of the world is screaming this at you, and you still don't get it.
No one outside of the US cares about who voted for who. We can't. We just fucking can't because at the end of the day your elected president is threating the sovereignty of all other Western aligned countries. We don't have that luxury anymore. Stop pretending you do.
load more comments
(9 replies)
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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?
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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?
They got SCOTUS working at 1am on a Saturday. This is reassuring news.
No it’s not. The judiciary doesn’t have an enforcement arm. It’s troubling
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.
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
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.
That’s not correct. Courts can appoint attorneys for enforcement, or issue a writ directly to law enforcement. In more extreme cases, they can deputize a citizen for enforcement. Boasberg has already preemptively stated that he would do so 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.
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
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.
load more comments
(4 replies)
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 19 Apr 2025
331 points (100.0% liked)
News
31294 readers
2300 users here now
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.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS