politics
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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
That's why I'm in these threads saying it's worth it to fight this out in every avenue. In the courts, in the legislatures, in the media, on social media, in the streets.
Trump claimed to be able to deport people without courts being able to review. The Supreme Court rejected that view, and now the Trump administration has to spend the effort defending its actions in court.
Under tough questioning by a judge in a case aggressively litigated by Kilmar's family, Trump's lawyers then acknowledged an administrative error was made and that Kilmar shouldn't have been deported. They fired the first lawyer to concede it, but the Solicitor General conceded it, too, and the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that Trump has to help get him back.
Sen. Van Hollen went to El Salvador to meet with him. Many comments online, especially here on Lemmy, openly commented that it was futile and that Kilmar was dead. But Sen Van Hollen doesn't give up that easily, showed up in country and was turned away. Then he stayed and fought for access, and was able to meet with him and ensure that he was healthy and safe.
Meanwhile, the Reagan appointee on the appellate court, Judge Wilkinson, has published a scathing ruling that the Trump administration owes the courts and Kilmar Abrego Garcia much more. Note that his concurring opinion last time around essentially became adopted as the 9-0 Supreme Court opinion.
There's cynicism all around, but most of what has already happened is the type of stuff that the cynical pessimists would've never expected to happen in this case.
The brazen lawlessness of the Trump administration is currently backfiring, and now things are escalating into full blown discovery into the ICE/DHS deportation decisions,
The message is that this fight is still worth fighting. Every little step matters.
And when we force these issues into the court for plainclothes arrests, arbitrary revocation of student visas or other authorizations to be in the country, we force the Trump administration to actually say what they're doing, to be scrutinized and analyzed.
The lawsuits are bringing transparency and may still bring results, so quit with the doomerism. Even if we don't win every fight, the struggle continues, and we force the other side to expend their resources and effort in a way that makes it harder for them to accomplish their agenda.
Donate to the nonprofits fighting for this stuff. Volunteer your time. This fight is worth fighting.
This 100%
We should all apply this sentiment from Churchill to the current situation. Every little act of resistance adds up.
I don't know why, but this made me really sad. Remember when we, the "New World, with all its power and might" fought for "rescue and liberation"? Really makes you want to stand up and fight for who we were and can still be again.
I had the same thoughts!
It's good to remember that Trump's entire MO is to never concede. MAGA politicians have adopted this strategy because it works so well against politicians who adhere to decorum and good faith politics.
It's essentially a game of chicken, the first one to give in losses.
It's also true that there are internal factions fighting for power and influence, that often results in incoherent flip flopping. Constant external pressure on the administration intensifies the internet discord, and is also worth doing for that reason.
This comment is light in a dark dark tunnel. Please post a link that shows how you know this, as it will inspire more people if it's backed up.
Ok, where to begin. I'm a lawyer with decades of experience, including with the occasional case that involves the government. I know how to read a case and follow the news from an informed perspective, and I recognize the individual traits/characteristics/background of the judges involved. There's not one place to read it, but let's try.
Here's a litigation tracker that updates on all the big lawsuits trying to rein in Trump's lawlessness:
https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal-challenges-trump-administration/
CTRL+F "Abrego Garcia" for the rundown of Kilmar's case. "Update 5" describes the appellate court's decision not to stay the district court's order to "facilitate and effectuate," and contains a link to the opinion, which includes Judge Wilkinson's concurrence that "facilitate" is a legal order but "effectuate" might exceed the court's power to order the government to do specific things in foreign policy matters. The Supreme Court agreed that "facilitate" was a lawful order, but told the district court to make sure it doesn't overstep by ordering "effectuation" in a way that infringes on the President's constitutional powers.
Judge Wilkinson is a Reagan appointee who is widely regarded as a superstar in the Republican party, in Federalist Society circles. He was an influential thinker and jurist on conservative causes, and clerking for him as a first job out of law school is a marker of an up and coming conservative lawyer superstar. Many of those clerks went on to clerk for Scalia, Roberts, etc. Clerking for him remains a fairly prominent part of the pipeline for future Republican judges and politicians.
Yesterday, he wrote the majority opinion for the Fourth Circuit that makes very clear that the government's position is "shocking" and a threat to "the foundation of our constitutional order."
The work continues. This is just one case. All the other cases will have different results, but Trump isn't going to win all of them, and each Trump loss draws blood, while his lack of focus means that he'll continue to make unforced errors while opening new fronts to fight on: Gulf of Mexico, Greenland, Tariffs, picking a fight with the chair of the Federal Reserve, flip flopping on which federal programs or contracts to cut, all the different mistakes in administration, etc.
I'm not on board with doomerism or even accelerationism. I think there's still a fight to be had in the legal arena, and I still think our side can win there. Watching how the cases are playing out confirms that the other side believes it, too. Otherwise, why would they be fighting this hard?
You're the MVP, thanks dude
You’re right. I still thought he was long dead, and am surprised he isn’t.