this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2025

374 points (99.7% liked)

politics

22813 readers

3304 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

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:

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.
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.
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.
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.
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

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

374

Supreme Court says Trump administration must facilitate return of deported Maryland man (apnews.com)

submitted 2 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

27 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The Supreme Court on Thursday said the Trump administration must facilitate the return of a Maryland man who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador, rejecting the administration’s emergency appeal.

top 27 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 114 points 2 days ago (1 children)

This is the one to watch. All of the cases are important, of course, but this one has come to a head. The top layer of the judicial branch has issued an order at odds with the wishes of the Trump administration, and it's the executive branch's constitutional responsibility to see that the order is carried out.

This is where we find out if our fascist leader has any guardrails left to protect our democracy or if we truly live in a fascist state where people can be disappeared with complete public awareness at the whim and pleasure of ICE.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 2 days ago (1 children)

No, el Salvador will save trump by losing the prisoner

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

That's not a win for Trump that's a loss.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It's a win if he says it's a win. Even if he doesn't, his remaining supporters will find a way to spin it as a win

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

Crazy assholes gunna crazy asshole, luckily in this case we didn't need to give a shit about their perception.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Would you consider that result to be an administration that has deferred to the rule of law? Would that make you feel safer?

Unless it is demonstrated that our legal system still has the power to correct wrongs being done by the administration it doesn't much matter. "You might be unlawfully abducted and lost before the judiciary can return you" is not a message that resolves this as a demonstration of where the regime's limits are. They want to strike fear, and "a judge said to bring them back but that didn't happen" does that just fine.

[–] [email protected] 71 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm betting they don't even get a corpse back.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm a betting man too. Has Las Vegas posted the odds yet?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

Maybe polymarket will.

[–] [email protected] 44 points 2 days ago (2 children)

From the New York Times article:

The order properly requires the government to ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador,” the Supreme Court’s ruling said

It's weird how they put "facilitate" in quotes...

[–] [email protected] 22 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

What exactly it means to facilitate is part of what the court is considering. From the Vox article:

The Supreme Court concludes that the lower court’s order “properly requires the Government to ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador...

But it adds that the “intended scope of the term ‘effectuate’ in the District Court’s order” — to “facilitate and effectuate his return — “is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority.” The word “facilitate” suggests that the government must take what steps it can to make something happen, while the word “effectuate” suggests that it needs to actually make it happen.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Thank you very kindly

Then we need to at least empower that district court to decide what constitutes a successful facilitation? For instance, if we don’t threaten tariffs unless we get the man back, apparently we didn’t even try.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I think that would be beyond the authority of the court, although exactly where the court's authority ends is unclear. It doesn't get to dictate foreign policy, so I expect that it can order the executive branch to do things consistent with the current foreign policy towards El Salvador (like asking for him back) but it cannot order the executive branch to dramatically change that foreign policy (by imposing tariffs).

The problem I foresee is that Trump can make an official request but also say that he would be happier if the request was not granted. (Something along the lines of "Please return this horrible criminal, who I never want to have in America again, because the court is ordering me to ask you against my will, and keep in mind that if you say no then I won't force you to do anything and in fact I'll like you better," which I don't think is much of an exaggeration given Trump's lack of subtlety.) If El Salvador then does not grant the request, I'm not sure what the court could do.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

"Please return this horrible criminal, who I never want to have in America again, because the court is ordering me to ask you against my will, and keep in mind that if you say no then I won't force you to do anything and in fact I'll like you better,"

💯000

Yeah it wouldn’t need to be said at all really, the AP headline (ok, article) on the court decision would be sufficient, but

lack of subtlety

Cheers for the double dose of insight

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

We called but nobody spoke English. What more do you want from us? /s

[–] [email protected] 32 points 2 days ago (1 children)

This administration is busy working on finding ways to deport US citizens. I'm sure they'll get right on that.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Everybody needs to arm themselves and learn how to shoot. Now. While it's still possible to. If they're not gonna follow the Constitution, then you're no longer guaranteed your day in court to seek justice, so there's no longer any reason to "come quietly". If your sentence is to be death anyway, then violent resistance may be the only route to deter cops from continuing to violate their oath and kidnapping/murdering other innocents. Do it for them.

Most cops are like black bears. They'll rush you and try to intimidate you into doing what they want, but if you make it clear that they're gonna get hurt or killed if they try, they'll tuck tail and run. They're cowards cosplaying as tough guys. Make them ask themselves whether this is worth maybe not getting home to their families over. Give them nightmares. Terrorism is attacking them where they peacefully are; I'm just saying to terrorize from within your own home to scare them off. They might come back with SWAT, but make them burn those resources all the same. They don't have infinite equipment and enforcers, and they'll ration it all well before getting low. They'll have riots to quell, so they can't put too many resources into every little kidnapping.

As John Lewis said, “Get in good trouble, necessary trouble, and redeem the soul of America.”

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago

Birth-2024: fuck guns (outside a skeet shoot range)

2025: fuck how much sense you’re making

I hate it. Zero desire to be the owner of something that can get me sent to jail so easily. Ridiculous how calculuses are changing.

It’s not that I can imagine using a weapon against any living being but I can imagine headlines that may scare me even more without access to something defensive

Off to not buy anything, wish me luck

Damnit

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Nah man. Guns ain’t it. What we NEED to be doing right now is building community. Find your neighbors who you can trust. Know which ones have tools, which ones have skills, who’s got the space for gardens, who knows about limited resource survival.

In times of crisis and uncertainty, strengthening the fabric of community is what will truly endure. The only thing guns are effective at is further divide and seclusion. They keep you in a state of fear. They give you false security because you can “just kill the guy you don’t trust”; it encourages the exact opposite of trust building.

The power of numbers will get you a lot further than the power of firearms (the ones most folks can get their hands on, anyway).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

Do both. An armed community can defend itself. Protect your neighbors. Fascists will be less likely to use their guns on you if your community has guns to fire back with. Build your community and then be able to defend it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

They all have guns, they WILL use them against you as soon as Trump gives them the ok to do so.
It's instantly to think you can defend yourself from armed Nazis with community outreach and peaceful protests.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

If they all have guns then what is the point of arming individually? 1 person with a gun verses several gov agents with guns, the 1 still doesn't have a chance and shooting 1 or 2 of the people coming for you is t gonna change that. It's not like the government is gonna back off "Oh shit the liberals got guns now, better stop pushing them."

[–] [email protected] 27 points 2 days ago (2 children)

“The order properly requires the Government to ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador,” the court said in an unsigned order with no noted dissents.

So, still not a "regular court order" in the normal sense we think of it...

SCROTUS is still wary of Mafia Don Mangolini...

Scared that he might just actually willingly defy a "regular court order" setting up a true and very real "constitutional crisis" in the worst possible definition of that phrase...

Cowardly traitors all. On all sides. All 3 branches of so-called government.

Democracy in the US is under siege and barely hanging on...

🙄 🤡 🤦‍♀️ 🖕 🖕

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

cant wait til he goes after non-loyalist republicans.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

Google Chris Krebs.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

There hasn’t been a democracy in the US for a while. You all confused it with oligarchy. That’s when the rich hold all the power. Yes, even if they let you choose the person who’s going to care for the interest of the rich.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

A Justice Department lawyer conceded in a court hearing that Abrego Garcia should not have been deported. Attorney General Pam Bondi later removed the lawyer, Erez Reuveni, from the case and placed him on leave.

I.e., Bondi's DOJ will be suppressing any evidence going forward that the administration deports people who have a lawful right to be here.