Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
I clicked on a headline about the Supreme Court declining to reverse the order requiring Trump to facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia, fully expecting a tight 5-4 decision.
Nope. 9-0. Which gave me a glimmer of hope. Maybe “the President can’t just kidnap people and fly them off to an El Salvadoran prison” is something we can all agree on. 

We can’t all agree on that at all.
I’m sure this court, at best, would conclude “he didn’t disappear someone the right way - here’s how he should do it.”
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
58 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


We can’t all agree on that at all.
I’m sure this court, at best, would conclude “he didn’t disappear someone the right way - here’s how he should do it.”

QFMFT.  I fully expect a Thomas dissent, explaining that "while this might have been wrong, I would have been cool with it if they had just done x, y and z [wink, wink]" .... 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:


We can’t all agree on that at all.
I’m sure this court, at best, would conclude “he didn’t disappear someone the right way - here’s how he should do it.”

The decision was a 9-0, this isn't happening. No one thinks this is legal and now we find out if trump can do whatever the fuck he wants or if the courts still matter. 

If the courts don't matter then everyone should just do whatever they want. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 3
Posted

Roberts won't say that people don't actually have rights. He'll just allow Trump several months/years of procedural delays, until Abrego Garcia is killed by prison guards and Roberts moots the case. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 3
Posted
13 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Roberts won't say that people don't actually have rights. He'll just allow Trump several months/years of procedural delays, until Abrego Garcia is killed by prison guards and Roberts moots the case. 

 

Yup this is my concern, my dudes and dudettes.  

Also that Garcia is already dead.

 

Posted

Summary of SCOTUS take:
1) humans have rights under the Constitution.
2) this guy’s rights were violated.
3) but there is no remedy for that, the Regime can violate anyone’s rights with zero repercussions, answering to no one.
So you can frame the “people have rights” part of that decision and put it on the wall, it’s a pretty decoration and that’s it. What matters is the remedy - can you get one? No? Then nothing fucking matters.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Captainant said:

 

It would appear that Nicholas Grossman's tweets were pretty prescient ... 

saturday-night-live-no-way.gif

Edited by Gap03
Posted
2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Summary of SCOTUS take:
1) humans have rights under the Constitution.
2) this guy’s rights were violated.
3) but there is no remedy for that, the Regime can violate anyone’s rights with zero repercussions, answering to no one.
So you can frame the “people have rights” part of that decision and put it on the wall, it’s a pretty decoration and that’s it. What matters is the remedy - can you get one? No? Then nothing fucking matters.

Yep. Nothing matters.

Quote

The Supreme Court held that the government must “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and return to the United States. But at the same time, the Supreme Court said that the government cannot be ordered to “effectuate” Abrego Garcia’s return, out of respect for some hazy presidential powers over foreign affairs. So the court drew this blurry line where, I guess, the government can’t be forced to send him back, but it can be forced to try. That raises the question, though: What happens if the government claims it tried and failed? Can the district court not do anything more at all?

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/04/supreme-court-anlysis-trump-gulag-justices-chumps.html

Posted
1 hour ago, Satchel said:

Facilitate and effectuate  in context mean all deliberate speed, which means nothing 

Nothing but feculence from SCOTUS lately...

  • Like 1


×
×
  • Create New...