Summary

Shortly after midnight early Saturday morning, the Supreme Court handed down a brief order forbidding the Trump administration from removing a group of Venezuelan immigrants from the United States without due process.

The ACLU claims “dozens or hundreds” were allegedly given an English-language document, despite the fact that many of them only speak Spanish.

The Supreme Court ruled the government must give any immigrant “notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal.”

The Court’s one-paragraph order states that “the Government is directed not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order.”

Though it is just one order, Saturday’s post-midnight order suggests that the Court may no longer tolerate procedural shenanigans intended to evade meaningful judicial review.

  • Almacca@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    18 hours ago

    I got sick of all these ‘might’ and ‘may’ headlines in 2021. Why are we still doing it?

      • Magnus@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        22 hours ago

        As much as I’d like to see elderly man, one in a diaper, fighting it out on the lawn at 3am, I think they’re might a better way.

        🍿

      • muusemuuse@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 day ago

        I wish Ginsburg were still around. She was old and weak but I don’t think she would turn down the opportunity to shank this fucker. And the mental image of it brings me perverse pleasure.

        • Ferrous@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          Stop elevating that woman. In her 27 years, she only hired a single black clerk. Her refusal to step down in ailing health ensured the republicans got a SCOTUS pick. A stubborn, racist geriatric clinging onto the power of the democratic party - only to lose it all and shit on your entire legacy: where have I heard this one before?

          Never trust an official of the United States of Amerikkka.

  • m-p{3}@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    185
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    They forfeited their power by making the President basically immune to prosecution, then they get all offended that he will ignore their orders.

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    • AZX3RIC@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      87
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      This is what drives me crazy.

      Ok, the president is immune, the people that execute his orders are not.

      If the courts started holding people under the president accountable for their actions there would be a change in the wind.

      Yes, for the defeatists, holding those people accountable is complex and the president would just pardon them but, it would start a real process of the branches of government holding each other accountable.

      • Almacca@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        18 hours ago

        We’re now going to spend the next decade plus arguing over what exactly entails ‘official acts’.

      • Sanctus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        46
        ·
        2 days ago

        Hes not even immune, they get to decide what an official act is. It depends on how complicit they or how much the current situation plays into their own goals and each justice is an individual. It’s a fight, every where. Nothing is black and white, but most importantly, nothing is final.

        • alanjaow@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 day ago

          Since it’s the court that decides what’s official, I feel that disobeying their order would be considered unofficial, since it’s not following the rules, right?

      • jballs@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 day ago

        The president also has unchecked pardon power. He’s already shown he’s willing to use it to pardon people who tried to overthrow the government for him.

    • Inaminate_Carbon_Rod@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Buys a house next to an airport, complains about aircraft noise.

      Buys a house next to a night club, complains about loud music at night.

      Gives the President full immunity because it’s the [R]ight thing to do, complains when he stops listening to them.

      It’s all the same attitude from shitty people.

      • Jona (they/them)@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Irrelevant to this discussion but

        Buys a house next to an airport, complains about aircraft noise.

        Buys a house next to a night club, complains about loud music at night.

        With the housing crisis in some countries people just have to accept all the housing they can get or live on the streets. Doesn’t mean they cant complain about noise.

    • ExtantHuman@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      2 days ago

      Technically they made themselves the arbiters of what constituents official duties of the president.

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Actually prosecuting a sitting president was always nearly impossible. The immunity thing has to do with what happens after the president is no longer in office, doesn’t it? Also, he only has absolute immunity for official acts. So then the question is what constitutes an official act.

      And realistically the Supreme Court will eventually reverse itself, assuming that the democracy somewhat survives another decade, which is a good question. Because their ruling about absolute immunity just made no sense. But even if you think it did make sense, there are so many cases that have to go to court to be resolved. If the courts rule against a specific action and the president reads the court order and then does the bad action anyway, does it count as official? I think we can argue that it doesn’t, because the courts specifically clarified that it’s not allowed. But the president’s attorneys would argue the opposite. So then it has to go back to the Supreme Court.

      Assuming Trump stays in good health long enough to leave the White House, I think it’s unavoidable that the above situation will occur.

  • FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    89
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    “I swear if you blatantly disregard like 12 or 13 more rulings and we’re totally gonna get super duper serious!”

    -SCOTUS I guess?

    • blacklisted@lemmy.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      They bark all they want but they can’t bite. They need the executive to enforce their decisions. Ain’t happening. Thanks Citizens United. Oh, wait, they decided that.

      • MushuChupacabra@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        2 days ago

        I’m profoundly disinterested in what cannot be done.

        I am intensely interested in the collective American response to their President being an existential threat, specifically by doing what cannot be done, with absolutely no evidence that it was difficult to do in the first place.

  • foggy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    2 days ago

    So fucking sick of the doomer bullshit on Lemmy. Way beyond sus at this point.

    Hugely republican GOP, working on a Saturday night at 1 am to vehemently fight against him.

    Fuck anyone downplaying this. That’s literally Russia propaganda at the current moment.

    • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      It’s more cynical realism.

      What actual consequences has Trump ever faced?

      How has he reacted to every judicial order telling him he can;t do something?

      I’ll be thrilled to see something actually stick to him, but I’m losing faith that anyone can actually make that happen.

    • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      but… this is basically the first time

      we can applaud their movement to rationality and still look back at all the horrible things they did to pave the way here

    • chipacabras@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      Do you have a reference for the Saturday night thing? Or are you referring to the Supreme Court’s order? I couldn’t find anything about Congress unless I misunderstood

      • khannie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        The article says:

        Shortly after midnight early Saturday morning

        So it’s probably what most of us would call “Friday night” but it’s still after midnight in fairness which is quite late.

        • chipacabras@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          Ah thanks. It was paywalled for me.

          I think it will take both congress and judicial actually doing something to put me even a little bit at ease.

          The court’s order wasn’t even unanimous.

      • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        Do you have a reference for the Saturday night thing?

        They’re looking for excuses to dismiss things they don’t want to hear.

    • Jhex@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      are you fucking high??

      trump literally reneged on sending this dude to a concentration camp by mistake and then bragged about it

  • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    I’m so tired of speculation in articles like this.

    When the courts decide to shit or (far more likely) get off the pot, then tell us. Don’t waste our time with this “Look! Here’s how we could totally get him if anyone responsible for doing so actually bothered to give a shit!” garbage.

  • Boddhisatva@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    SCOTUS: You will abide by the lower court’s decision and facilitate the return of the man you admit was sent to a torture prison in El Salvador in error.

    Trump’s White House: Yeah, no. He’s never coming back.

    SCOTUS: …or else…?

    • Rhaedas@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      Anything is better than nothing, but when I get a pizza party instead of a raise, it still feels like it could be better. I guess give them yet another chance to show something? How many has it been now?

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    Call again once they have him in court, wearing a nice orange jump suit and heavy duty handcuffs.