Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
31 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

 

Um, didn't this end with several thousand people massacred, a huge loss of recently gained reforms, and much tighter government control of pretty much everything?

I'm actually afraid we might see something very much like this here eventually.

I'm reasonably certain we'll see something very like this during Trump's "Birthday at the Kremlin" parade.

  • Like 1
Posted
6 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

None of that will work.

Just buy this, you're going to need it:

51655155674.jpg

Good luck with that when they roll up in this fella

Heavy metal: new US tanks made to blast China, Russia - Asia ...

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
13 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Sunday's status report was, uh, insufficient. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69777799/64/abrego-garcia-v-noem/

Government's response to Abrego Garcia's motion for further relief.  Pretty ludicrous.  https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69777799/65/abrego-garcia-v-noem/

Some notable bullshit.  Claims "facilitate" has a special meaning in immigration law with no citation.  Claims that the agreement between ES and US is subject to attorney-client privilege or state secrets privilege.  Which is going to be hard to do because the agreement was ostensibly reviewed, agreed to and executed by a foreign party.

It does note, however, that Bukele is meeting with Trump today.

It does a lot of saber rattling and jawboning, but falls short of explicitly stating it can't or won't return Abrego Garcia.

Seems like it may be shaping up for Trump to return him but say it was some act of personal graciousness, not something the courts required or could require.

 

 

I’m not going to consider this judge serious until they order Bondi to appear before the court. And if she refuses sends the Marshals to get her

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
3 hours ago, TexArcher said:

So, today we went from "this was an administrative error" to "this guy was judged to be a member of MS-13, so he's in the right place."

Judged by whom?  Using what evidence?

If you're not livid about this and afraid of your government right now, you're an idiot.

 

When he was taken into custody, HE WAS AT AN IKEA WITH HIS SON! If that doesn't scream MS-13 terrorist, maybe you need to remove your demoncrat blinders! -MAGA, probably

Posted
5 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

The Constitutional Crisis is here.

The civil war will be when the Regime starts disappearing citizens.  And that is as it was always going to be.  For the millionth time, it's why opting out of the Rule of Law is very, very bad, and shouldn't be done.

 

the majority of germans didn't give a shit about rounding up jews and shipping them off

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
3 hours ago, TexArcher said:

So, today we went from "this was an administrative error" to "this guy was judged to be a member of MS-13, so he's in the right place."

Judged by whom?  Using what evidence?

If you're not livid about this and afraid of your government right now, you're an idiot.

 

 

typical trump - ever changing story. next week it'll be a different story 

that's how you know the guy is innocent, the story is changing 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, tx 3 putt said:

 

the majority of germans didn't give a shit about rounding up jews and shipping them off

Yea but Jews in Germany proper were something like 1% of the German population. Hispanics (among others) in the United States...that's a whole different ball game.

Posted

So… what’s the kill switch option for the board here @immamac? If there’s a list of “homegrown” offenders, and there will be a list, includes some of us less… eh… “administration-friendly” types around here could be slightly concerned.

Posted

Also, prisoners sent to the Gulag had a sentence and had been found guilty of something.  Nearly all of the political prisoners were convicted by troikas or other non-standard means on fake charges, and it was understood that a ten year sentence was basically death. But, the Soviets maintained the forms of convictions and sentencing and laws.  
 

No one is pretending to do that with CECOT. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
9 minutes ago, Chult86 said:

So… what’s the kill switch option for the board here @immamac? If there’s a list of “homegrown” offenders, and there will be a list, includes some of us less… eh… “administration-friendly” types around here could be slightly concerned.

 

i already turned in half of yall !!!

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Ana has definitely reported all of us.

I think "denounced" is the word you're looking for.

Always de rigeur in repressive regimes.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
32 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

The Nazis put their most abhorrent facilities outside of Germany, in the occupied General Government. 

What do you think Oklahoma is for?

Posted
So… what’s the kill switch option for the board here [mention=397]immamac[/mention]? If there’s a list of “homegrown” offenders, and there will be a list, includes some of us less… eh… “administration-friendly” types around here could be slightly concerned.

Well I, for one, welcome our new Dotardian overlords.
Posted
Huh, now threatening citizens. Didn't see that one coming. 
Watching Jon Stewart make the funny. Catharsis is nice, but worthless. 
I honestly wonder if most Americans can find a soul and care about other people? thats really what this is about. 
Just an shithole country that can't slow down long enough to care about teh plight of the innocent and marginalized. Just abhorrent. Nowhere to go but down. fucking infuriating. 
 

Stewart was good tonight for sure. Hell, he’s always good.
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
4 hours ago, C-Man said:


Stewart was good tonight for sure. Hell, he’s always good.

no doubt, but I feel a kind of desperation in it lately. Not a surrender, but rather a flailing of sorts. It makes sense, I mean stating the obvious as it turns just so blatant is really not leaving much room for comedy. Tonight's bit had multiple cringe moments that seemed a bit difficult to make it through. 

Stewart is a great American. Somehow guys like him aren't in office. Thats unfortunate. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
8 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Ana has definitely reported all of us.

I was audited by the IRS during the first Trump administration.  Of course, I have no evidence that it has anything to do with my online political views but that’s the way it usually works. 

Posted
11 hours ago, TexArcher said:

 

Um, didn't this end with several thousand people massacred, a huge loss of recently gained reforms, and much tighter government control of pretty much everything?

And iPhones!

Posted
12 hours ago, TexArcher said:

 

Um, didn't this end with several thousand people massacred, a huge loss of recently gained reforms, and much tighter government control of pretty much everything?

I'm actually afraid we might see something very much like this here eventually.

They're deporting protesters at this point. Students have been getting arrested by DHS while waiting for their fucking citizenship appointments.

It's gonna fuckin happen. He fired rubber bullets at peaceful protesters last time without warning. They're gonna be JHP's next time.

  • Rage+1 2
Posted
13 hours ago, TexArcher said:

Um, didn't this end with several thousand people massacred, a huge loss of recently gained reforms, and much tighter government control of pretty much everything?

Ask TikTok. See if you get an answer. 

Posted
4 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

Please please please someone ask him about sending convicted felons there. When he replies with "of course!", ask him about the ones with dozens of felony convictions. Like 34. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

The reply that sums it up:

Stop overthinking it.  The Regime has TOLD US THIS IS WHAT THEY INTEND TO DO.  EVERY ONE OF THOSE STEPS.

Once you remove due process -- that is the foundation of the Rule of Law -- then it's all over, and it all happens.  

"Why did you send those citizens to a Salvadoran concentration camp?

"Because they were criminals."

"How do we know they were criminals, as they were not tried and convicted of any crimes?"

"You know they're criminals because I sent them to a Salvadoran concentration camp.  They wouldn't be in that camp if they weren't criminals."

And that's it.  It's over by tautology.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
So… what’s the kill switch option for the board here [mention=397]immamac[/mention]? If there’s a list of “homegrown” offenders, and there will be a list, includes some of us less… eh… “administration-friendly” types around here could be slightly concerned.

Once the Trump administration ships enough good folks down to El Salvador, we’ll be able to start a new movement and Make El Salvador Great Again. It won’t matter what happens to America because all the dissenters will be part of MESGA.
Posted
2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

So....I presume that Officer Mendez's appointment to a senior position at ICE is incoming?

Hell, he could be a Cabinet Secretary soon. 

Posted (edited)

Vladeck's latest on the Abrego Garcia case:

Spoiler

143. The State of Play in the Abrego Garcia Case

The Trump administration isn't defying the letter of Thursday's Supreme Court ruling. But it's daring the federal courts to take much more aggressive steps to block its immigration policies.

Monday brought a ton of headlines, many of them misleading, respecting the various statements made by President Trump and Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele about the fate of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia—the Salvadoran national who the Trump administration wrongfully removed from the United States in March and who, according to the Justice Department, remains imprisoned in the CECOT mega-jail in El Salvador. Given last Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling, many of the headlines suggested that Trump is openly, if not gleefully, defying the Court. Other stories seemed to accept, without any real challenge, the government’s suggestion that it’s powerless to do anything about Abrego Garcia’s fate—and that the federal courts therefore are, as well.

I’ve written before about both the background of the case and Thursday night’s (unanimous) ruling by the justices, and won’t rehash those analyses here. Rather, I wanted to ask and try to answer three questions about what is happening, and what is likely to happen next—that is, about what Trump is (or, really, isn’t) doing; what Judge Xinis might do next in Abrego Garcia’s case, specifically; and what the federal courts might (and, indeed, should) do in immigration cases more generally if the government keeps up its (mockingly) lawless behavior.

1: Is the Trump administration defying the Supreme Court?

In spirit, yes; directly, no.

As I explained last Friday, the central problem with the Supreme Court’s ruling on Thursday night, in which the justices unanimously affirmed the power of federal courts to review Abrego Garcia’s detention and to order the government to at least attempt to return Abrego Garcia to the United States, is that it left a little bit of wiggle room—by (1) not mandating Abrego Garcia’s return; (2) not setting any deadline for any next steps; and (3) using malleable language (“facilitate”) to describe the government’s underlying obligation. Critically, the Court “affirmed” the heart of Judge Xinis’s order that the government has such an obligation. But it also was deliberately vague about the scope of that obligation—especially as balanced against “the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.”

To be clear, the Trump administration, and especially Stephen Miller, keeps mis-describing what the Supreme Court actually ruled last Thursday. Miller, for instance, has publicly claimed that the Court unanimously rejected the power of federal courts to intervene in this case—which is laughably and demonstrably false. (From the Court’s opinion: “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.”).

And the Justice Department’s foot-dragging before Judge Paula Xinis (the Maryland district judge presiding over the case on remand) has been unquestionably inconsistent with the spirit of the Court’s ruling. But at least some of this mess is the Supreme Court’s fault. If the government had actually attempted to do everything within its power to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return, and it simply was unable to do so, then that would be entirely consistent with the Supreme Court’s mandate. The problem is that, thanks at least in part to the government’s own public behavior both before Thursday’s ruling and since, no one actually believes that the government is making even modest efforts—let along exhaustive ones—to comply.

2: Can a federal court order the government to invade El Salvador?

Of course not, but that’s not the point.

In a Tuesday morning tweet, Vice President Vance rhetorically asked a critic whether they were “proposing that we invade El Salvador to retrieve a gang member with no legal right to be in our country?” Leaving aside that there actually is a statute on the books that requires the use of military force against a foreign government in an analogous circumstance, this is a ridiculous strawman. If a federal court orders a defendant to take all lawfully available steps to remedy an ongoing legal violation, the defendant has an obligation to do so—even if those lawful steps turn out to be insufficient. So, for instance, a federal court could order the government to request Abrego Garcia’s return. A federal court could order the government to stop paying El Salvador to detain Abrego Garcia. A federal court could order the government to pursue any and all diplomatic means to “effectuate” Abrego Garcia’s return. And it could require a senior government official with direct knowledge of the facts to testify as to what efforts the government has (and has not) made in this case—and, to illustrate the distinction, what efforts the government has made in other, prior cases where it has been able to get folks back who were wrongfully removed, extradited, or otherwise transferred.

Finally, even if a federal court can’t order the government to invade El Salvador, it can at least attempt to impose consequences on the government for failing to take all possible steps to procure Abrego Garcia’s release. Thus, a court could consider monetary sanctions (against Secretary Noem, for example) if, by a specific date, the United States hasn’t, in the judge’s view, done everything lawfully possible in this case. The sanctions thus become the incentive for more aggressive efforts at “facilitating” Abrego Garcia’s return. A court could refer lawyers who refuse to follow its instructions or otherwise fail to live up to their obligations of candor to the tribunal to their state bars. And so on. In other words, there’s a wide swath of daylight—and of judicially available relief—between invading El Salvador and just taking the government at its (facially preposterous) claim that it’s totally powerless. (Indeed, if the United States really is totally powerless in this case, what does that say about the Trump administration??)

It wouldn’t surprise me if this is where things go in court—with Judge Xinis ratcheting up the pressure on the government, and contemplating, if not imposing, escalating sanctions for every day in which it does nothing to even try to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return, at least to her satisfaction. (The next hearing before Judge Xinis is set for 4 p.m. today.) That might get this case back to the Supreme Court quickly—where the justices will have to decide what to do now that President Trump has so publicly called their bluff. My suspicion is that even justices who are more sympathetic to the need for deference to the President when it comes to foreign affairs will not take kindly to the conduct we’ve seen since Thursday.

3: Can federal courts prevent other cases like this one?

Yes—and this is perhaps the most important way the courts can impose consequences for the Trump administration’s openly (indeed, mockingly) lawless behavior. For if the Trump administration is going to so publicly take the position that anyone removed from the United States is no longer its responsibility, and that courts are powerless to compel it to take any steps to bring back even those who were removed in error, then it seems like there’s an obvious response from the federal courts: No more removals of anyone until and unless the entire judicial process has run its full course.

That means no more use of the Alien Enemy Act until the Supreme Court (and not just a district court) has specifically ruled on both whether it applies to Tren de Aragua in the first place, and, even if it does, how much process the government must provide to prove that specific individuals are members of TdA (and, thus, removable under the Act). That means no more ordinary removals under the Immigration and Nationality Act (the normal process) until and unless individuals the government claims are subject to removal (like Mahmoud Kahlil) have had a full opportunity to challenge the factual and legal basis for their removal—not just before an executive branch immigration judge, but in an independent federal court. The obvious antidote to post-removal lawlessness and non-compliance is to ramp up pre-removal judicial review. That ought to ensure that there won’t be future cases like Abrego Garcia’s—and it might even provide incentives for the government to behave in his case, too.

***

I’ve thought, from its inception, that Abrego Garcia’s case is as big a test case for the rule of law during the Trump administration as anything else we’ve seen. Part of that is because, if the government can wrongfully remove someone like Abrego Garcia to a Salvadoran prison without any consequence, it can do that to any of us—alleged gang member or not; Salvadoran or not; citizen or not.

But part of it is because Abrego Garcia is also a case about what, historically, has been a gray area when it comes to the relationship between the federal courts and the executive branch. Federal courts can’t tell the executive branch what to do, but they can tell it what it can’t do, and they can provide increasingly powerful incentives for the executive branch to choose to take specific steps on its own. Maybe those incentives can’t come in Abrego Garcia’s case, specifically. But the government simply can’t afford to alienate the entire federal judiciary. And a world in which the federal courts become reflexively skeptical of any effort to remove anyone from the United States is one in which the Trump administration’s deceptive and deceitful conduct in this one case will prevent it from accomplishing many of its broader immigration policy goals. Of course, Trump and his advisers might think that’s a price worth paying. But like so much of their behavior in this case to this point, that, too, would be revealing.

 

Edited by Ojo Rojo
  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
6 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

Vladeck's latest on the Abrego Garcia case:

  Hide contents

3: Can federal courts prevent other cases like this one?

No more removals of anyone until and unless the entire judicial process has run its full course.

That means no more use of the Alien Enemy Act until the Supreme Court (and not just a district court) has specifically ruled on both whether it applies to Tren de Aragua in the first place, and, even if it does, how much process the government must provide to prove that specific individuals are members of TdA (and, thus, removable under the Act). That means no more ordinary removals under the Immigration and Nationality Act (the normal process) until and unless individuals the government claims are subject to removal (like Mahmoud Kahlil) have had a full opportunity to challenge the factual and legal basis for their removal—not just before an executive branch immigration judge, but in an independent federal court. The obvious antidote to post-removal lawlessness and non-compliance is to ramp up pre-removal judicial review. That ought to ensure that there won’t be future cases like Abrego Garcia’s—and it might even provide incentives for the government to behave in his case, too.

Vladek's proposal in #3 makes a ton of sense.  An alternative would be to say that any outsourced confinement (like at CECOT) must be reflected in a written agreement that formally requires them the return deportees at the request of the U.S.  The Executive (especially this Executive) can't be given the opportunity to disappear folks and then just throw up their hands and say "Oops, but nothing we can do."

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
33 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

I’ve thought, from its inception, that Abrego Garcia’s case is as big a test case for the rule of law during the Trump administration as anything else we’ve seen. Part of that is because, if the government can wrongfully remove someone like Abrego Garcia to a Salvadoran prison without any consequence, it can do that to any of us—alleged gang member or not; Salvadoran or not; citizen or not.

Vladek, as usual, with the fucking bullseye.  This is it.  This is the question.  All the fucking marbles.  The problem is, it's already been fucking answered - The Regime can do whatever it wants.

The Rule of Law is over.

Rule of the Gun is all that remains.

Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, Gap03 said:

Vladek's proposal in #3 makes a ton of sense.  An alternative would be to say that any outsourced confinement (like at CECOT) must be reflected in a written agreement that formally requires them the return deportees at the request of the U.S.  The Executive (especially this Executive) can't be given the opportunity to disappear folks and then just throw up their hands and say "Oops, but nothing we can do."

I think how it might be couched is that, technicalities aside, Trump has violated the 5th and 14th amendments by denying due process.

The courts assumed that they could provide a remedy for that that would include return of Abrego Garcia pending due process.

Now that the executive has frustrated efforts to provide a remedy, compounding the constitutional violation, the courts will set aside technicalities like jurisdiction and whether APA or habeas corpus provides the remedy and simply enjoin further deportations.

Vladeck articulated it much better than I could, but that, punishing the administration for its bad faith, is what I was driving at, along with some sanctions/contempt for individual actors.

And, as Vladeck notes, as much as some of the Justices may sympathize with Trump, executive power, and deportations of dirty browns, endorsing executive contempt for rulings of the courts is a fast track to irrelevance for the Supreme Court.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think how it might be couched is that, technicalities aside, Trump has violated the 5th and 14th amendments by denying due process.

The courts assumed that they could provide a remedy for that that would include return of Abrego Garcia pending due process.

Now that the executive has frustrated efforts to provide a remedy, compounding the constitutional violation, the courts will set aside technicalities like jurisdiction and whether APA or habeas corpus provides the remedy and simply enjoin further deportations.

Vladeck articulated it much better than I could, but that, punishing the administration for its bad faith, is what I was driving at, along with some sanctions/contempt for individual actors.

Oh.  You think a court system with this SCOTUS at the top will actually preserve the Constitution and the Rule of Law.  You are fucking adorable.

Posted
4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Oh.  You think a court system with this SCOTUS at the top will actually preserve the Constitution and the Rule of Law.  You are fucking adorable.

I think they might try to preserve a scrap of their own power.

Posted
1 minute ago, hobbes2702 said:

So when does any of this actually get Garcia back home? 

No.

This case will be mooted in a matter of days when the Trump admin updates the court with "nevermind, dismiss the case - he's dead."  Now, the REASON he'll be dead is because The Regime will have requested El Salvador's dictator to have him killed/allow him to to be killed.  But, what's a little state conspiracy to murder among friends?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Here's the latest status report. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69777799/77/abrego-garcia-v-noem/

It says they'll deport him again anyway, apparently without due process.  Getting closer to the outright "fuck you."

Look at this cunt that is the general counsel of DHS. https://www.dhs.gov/person/joseph-n-mazzara

Joseph N. Mazzara is a married father of six, a Marine combat veteran, and an experienced litigator. He graduated from Christendom College and Scalia Law, and clerked for Judges Edith Jones, Brantley Starr, and Stephen Vaden. Most recently he was Special Counsel to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

Oh, and he seems to be an 8th year lawyer.

  • Rage+1 1


×
×
  • Create New...