If the govt position is that they can’t get Garcia back because once he’s in El Salvador they can’t get him back, does that not elevate the risk of “irreparable harm” in every single other case to prevent removal?
If anyone ever asks why we publish the names of people arrested before they are charged with a crime, THIS IS WHY. It is protection against being disappeared by government snatch squads.
Want to bet there is an executive order banning practice this soon?
Was chatting to a KC over here about this a few nights back, they said trying to litigate the difference between effectuate and facilitate is exactly the sort of behaviour that gets lawyers a bad name and is utterly reprehensible behaviour, 'it's clear what the court meant'
The civil system in the US is built on the presumption of good faith and my limited experience with it says it’s incapable of dealing effectively with bad faith actors.
Yeah, thankfully that's not a problem we suffer with over here, you may get away with it once, but certainly not twice because you'd never be trusted again
If Ensign had tried pulling that stunt here he'd likely have been put in a cell below the court and only let out when his client had given him appropriate instructions. In extremis the judge would have issued a bench warrant for the arrest of the Home Secretary if she didn't show up within the hour
This is a real problem, not just semantics. Any judge looking to rule against Trump should meticulously edit their TROs and injunctions to use short words with no possibility of confusion. Extra points for words whose meaning has not changed since 1787.
Impossible. You can quibble (in bad faith) about the meaning of each word in your post, or in mine.
"When you say 'This', what exactly does it refer to? There is no antecedant here. And a former President has clearly pointed out that it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is.....".
That could work. Trouble is, judges are too used to thinking (and therefore writing) in inexact phrases like “stop the car” that usually work because everyone agrees on their meaning. That system fails when one side adopts the logic of sociopaths or teenagers (“I stopped, just not completely“).
Current SCOTUS thinks, "Is there a conceivable circumstance in which the principle of this decision could possibly not apply?" In that, the Court has missed the circumstances it is actually faced with. When Trump's admin is on the docket, they decide abstract ideas, not relevant questions.
It's not that there are no circumstances in which the government would be unable to reverse a wrong. But the Court acts like, just because the US government could in theory abandon a ward in a Russian gulag, it must be allowed to abandon someone in a rented prison in El Salvador.
The government is now engaging in 12-year old boy lawyering. I remember trying to get out of trouble by parsing word meanings until my parents simply held me in contempt.
IANAL: As the federal government ‘floods the zone’ with these atrocious EOs, without foundation or consistency, the people (me) are understandably terrified with the latitude seemingly given to the administration, and especially with DOJ deafness and lack of compliance. WTF?, respectfully.
Why is the emoluments clause of the constitution viewed as an old archaic relic that no longer has relevance, but the Alien Enemies Act is viewed as the law of the land in the 21st century?
Absolutely not. I know John Roberts is a shameless coward. I just think questions like these need to constantly be asked by people in much higher places than me.
I mean, do they? Asking questions you know the answer to and you know they're going to lie about just gives them the opportunity to further feign good faith and recycle rhetoric. We aren't gotcha-ing anybody.
So people should just remain silent about everything they know the answer to? It’s just that Democrats are terrible at messaging even when they are in the right.
Now the Dems are harping about Congress trading stocks with insider information. It’s bad, but that is an issue most Americans don’t care about. Most wish they could get in on the action.
The problem is both are enforced by the executive branch, but the real answer is because the alien enemies act relies on claims abt natl security, and courts always defer to the president on that particular issue (almost always for bad reasons)
The Legislative branch could enforce the emoluments clause in the form of impeachment. This Congress surely would if a Democrat had done one fourth of what Trump has done.
Comments
You cannot order a government to effectuate, to order them to effectuate is to order them to give themselves an enema.
Apologies to D.S.
Want to bet there is an executive order banning practice this soon?
That would be trivially easy for the government to accomplish.
"When you say 'This', what exactly does it refer to? There is no antecedant here. And a former President has clearly pointed out that it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is.....".
Get in to word fights with legal scholars.