597
'This is the crisis moment': Political scientist says Trump crossed a crucial red line
(www.rawstory.com)
this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2025
597 points (98.2% liked)
News
36233 readers
2382 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No, this is probably the first one.
The previous one where they disobeyed a court order (turning around planes to El Salvador, stopping new planes from taking off) they successfully appealed that court order to where the Supreme Court declared that order void.
This one (facilitate the return of a wrongfully deported man) is the first one where they've just outright refused, and are pretending they can't comply.
This is a big deal, and it's unprecedented, even for Trump. This is the red line, and we're going to see a full blown constitutional crisis this week if it doesn't get resolved.
I agree in the sense that the way things played out the narrative can be he was right the whole time, so someone inclined to avoid conflict can excuse it, but even if you're right, you're still obligated to follow court orders until you successfully get it stayed or appealed. They got a lawful order from a court to turn around flights and just didn't. The order doesn't need to be at the end of an appeal to the Supreme Court before it has effect.
I know. That was on a collision course for a constitutional crisis then, and then the Supreme Court bailed out Trump by saying the order was invalid, right before the judge was going to hold contempt hearings.
Now we're gonna see possible contempt hearings on disobeying an order that was affirmed by the Supreme Court.