News

36647 readers

2414 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 biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.

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. Clickbait titles may be removed.

Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.

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, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.

7. No duplicate posts.

If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.

All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.

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

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

115

Supreme Court lifts order blocking deportations under 18th century wartime law (www.nbcnewyork.com)

submitted 11 months ago by gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Archived at https://archive.is/SPJxk

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 25 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Boasberg still needs to rule on this case

Unfortunately it really is absolutely horrible news, the whole sole reason in this bullshit unsigned 5-4 opinion is that the plaintiffs should have filed in Texas not D.C., so it's going to a different judge now and this probably voids the question of whether or not the administration ignored court orders at the outset of this because (per this bullshit opinion) those orders were given by a court that never should have been involved

Incidentally, I found a better article about this (archive)

By a vote of 5-4, the justices declined to address the challengers’ contention that they are not covered by the 18th-century law on which Trump relied in issuing the order. Instead, the challengers’ lawsuit must be brought in Texas, where they are being held, rather than in Washington, D.C., the court explained.

The unsigned four-page opinion emphasized that although courts have a limited role in reviewing claims under that law, the plaintiffs and others detained under the law are entitled to “notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned a 17-page dissent joined in full by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson and in part by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. She contended that her colleagues’ “decision to intervene in this litigation is as inexplicable as it is dangerous.”

Jackson wrote her own two-page dissent in which she lamented that the majority’s “fly-by-night approach to the work of the Supreme Court is not only misguided. It is also dangerous.”

So, just to recap, the supreme court is not going to let deportation flights to El Salvador be stopped yet, but they will stop an order to have someone returned from El Salvador, but they want people being flown to El Salvador to have “notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal.”

At the risk of asking a stupid question, what's the point in challenging your deportation if you've already been flown to El Salvador and nobody can bring you back?

[–] pivot_root@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

what's the point in challenging your deportation if you've already been flown to El Salvador and nobody can bring you back?

Plausible deniability and a performative show given by a supreme court that does not care about the constitution as much as it cares about appeasing the people who gave its members their positions.

Or more simply, for the person being disappeared... absolutely nothing, but now guaranteed by a court claiming "we said you deserved due process, so we're not corrupt."