Summary

Shortly after midnight early Saturday morning, the Supreme Court handed down a brief order forbidding the Trump administration from removing a group of Venezuelan immigrants from the United States without due process.

The ACLU claims “dozens or hundreds” were allegedly given an English-language document, despite the fact that many of them only speak Spanish.

The Supreme Court ruled the government must give any immigrant “notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal.”

The Court’s one-paragraph order states that “the Government is directed not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order.”

Though it is just one order, Saturday’s post-midnight order suggests that the Court may no longer tolerate procedural shenanigans intended to evade meaningful judicial review.

183 points
*

They forfeited their power by making the President basically immune to prosecution, then they get all offended that he will ignore their orders.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

permalink
report
reply
85 points

This is what drives me crazy.

Ok, the president is immune, the people that execute his orders are not.

If the courts started holding people under the president accountable for their actions there would be a change in the wind.

Yes, for the defeatists, holding those people accountable is complex and the president would just pardon them but, it would start a real process of the branches of government holding each other accountable.

permalink
report
parent
reply
46 points

Hes not even immune, they get to decide what an official act is. It depends on how complicit they or how much the current situation plays into their own goals and each justice is an individual. It’s a fight, every where. Nothing is black and white, but most importantly, nothing is final.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Since it’s the court that decides what’s official, I feel that disobeying their order would be considered unofficial, since it’s not following the rules, right?

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

The president also has unchecked pardon power. He’s already shown he’s willing to use it to pardon people who tried to overthrow the government for him.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

We’re now going to spend the next decade plus arguing over what exactly entails ‘official acts’.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

Technically they made themselves the arbiters of what constituents official duties of the president.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

This is a very relevant point

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Buys a house next to an airport, complains about aircraft noise.

Buys a house next to a night club, complains about loud music at night.

Gives the President full immunity because it’s the [R]ight thing to do, complains when he stops listening to them.

It’s all the same attitude from shitty people.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Irrelevant to this discussion but

Buys a house next to an airport, complains about aircraft noise.

Buys a house next to a night club, complains about loud music at night.

With the housing crisis in some countries people just have to accept all the housing they can get or live on the streets. Doesn’t mean they cant complain about noise.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Actually prosecuting a sitting president was always nearly impossible. The immunity thing has to do with what happens after the president is no longer in office, doesn’t it? Also, he only has absolute immunity for official acts. So then the question is what constitutes an official act.

And realistically the Supreme Court will eventually reverse itself, assuming that the democracy somewhat survives another decade, which is a good question. Because their ruling about absolute immunity just made no sense. But even if you think it did make sense, there are so many cases that have to go to court to be resolved. If the courts rule against a specific action and the president reads the court order and then does the bad action anyway, does it count as official? I think we can argue that it doesn’t, because the courts specifically clarified that it’s not allowed. But the president’s attorneys would argue the opposite. So then it has to go back to the Supreme Court.

Assuming Trump stays in good health long enough to leave the White House, I think it’s unavoidable that the above situation will occur.

permalink
report
parent
reply
86 points

“I swear if you blatantly disregard like 12 or 13 more rulings and we’re totally gonna get super duper serious!”

-SCOTUS I guess?

permalink
report
reply
76 points

“Signals”, “might”.

Next up is the wagging finger, furrowed brow, and tersely worded letter.

permalink
report
reply
13 points

Dont forget the interpretive dance!

permalink
report
parent
reply
67 points

I’ll believe it when he suffers literally any consequences.

permalink
report
reply
4 points

One of the Supreme Court judges will go to Trump’s house and beat the crap out of him

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

I wish Ginsburg were still around. She was old and weak but I don’t think she would turn down the opportunity to shank this fucker. And the mental image of it brings me perverse pleasure.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Stop elevating that woman. In her 27 years, she only hired a single black clerk. Her refusal to step down in ailing health ensured the republicans got a SCOTUS pick. A stubborn, racist geriatric clinging onto the power of the democratic party - only to lose it all and shit on your entire legacy: where have I heard this one before?

Never trust an official of the United States of Amerikkka.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
60 points

“Keep this up, and I swear we’re gonna leave a very harsh voice-mail on your phone!”

permalink
report
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 17K

    Posts

  • 316K

    Comments