Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Endus]

It's incredible the lengths to which you'll go to argue,

"Why yes, a simple request to track down someone the government took into custody is unreasonable and it shouldn't be easy for them to produce that information rapidly in response to a lawful request."

Astounding.

I still say, take every single person responsible for taking any individual into custody who's innocent of wrongdoing and had no legitimate and defensible warrant issued for their detainment and charge them with kidnapping and conspiracy.

The judge who issues the illegitimate warrant.
The officers who detain them.
Every single agent who handles them in any way after detainment, ongoing for the entire term of their incarceration.

It's kidnapping. That's what detaining someone without cause is, in legal terms. We can probably heap more on there, particularly for the gross incompetence of not being able to locate these people when required to, but everyone involved in this is violating human rights and needs to be prosecuted and imprisoned. If this ruins ICE because every ICE agent ends up in prison, good. That's what happens when entire agencies are this corrupt and unethical. Trying to prevent that outcome is just compliance with the criminality.

This rot will only set in deeper and spread to more of the government the longer it's allowed to continue. And if it ends up with the entire Trump cabinet behind bars when all's said and done, good. If you're opposing that for political reasons, you're a deeply unethical person, putting partisanship ahead of basic rule of law. No one should be above the law, especially anyone in the sitting government.

[Edge-]

I still say, take every single person responsible for taking any individual into custody who's innocent of wrongdoing and had no legitimate and defensible warrant issued for their detainment and charge them with kidnapping and conspiracy.

The judge who issues the illegitimate warrant.
The officers who detain them.
Every single agent who handles them in any way after detainment, ongoing for the entire term of their incarceration.

It's kidnapping. That's what detaining someone without cause is, in legal terms. We can probably heap more on there, particularly for the gross incompetence of not being able to locate these people when required to, but everyone involved in this is violating human rights and needs to be prosecuted and imprisoned. If this ruins ICE because every ICE agent ends up in prison, good. That's what happens when entire agencies are this corrupt and unethical. Trying to prevent that outcome is just compliance with the criminality.

This rot will only set in deeper and spread to more of the government the longer it's allowed to continue. And if it ends up with the entire Trump cabinet behind bars when all's said and done, good. If you're opposing that for political reasons, you're a deeply unethical person, putting partisanship ahead of basic rule of law. No one should be above the law, especially anyone in the sitting government.

That's my general take on it, personally. But I imagine we'll be called extremists whilst vague references are made to, "But it's lawful" or something.

Imagine being able to deport people with lawful protection orders and then say "oops we fucked up and deported them but there's nothing we can do about it."

How long until they say the same for native-born US citizens?

[Rasulis]

are we sure it's also not because everyone is terrified to fly with all the airplane crashes and the like with Donald's FAA?

Hard to tell. Those may factor into the equation also. I think it is mostly that people don't want to go to the US right now. WestJet and Flair cut seasonal flights between Canada and Palm Springs, CA. Booking was supposedly bad. I am sure a lot of Europeans and Chinese are cancelling their trips to the US also.

Booking from Canada to US down 70%. No hard numbers from other countries yet.

[Doomcookie]

Any comment on the subject matter? The interpretation of the SCOTUS ruling?

Any comments on their actual comment, instead of lying and deflecting for fascists?

[tehdang]

Companies are slapping “Trump tariff” surcharges on customers’ bills in a bid to signal where price hikes are coming from, a marketing gimmick that could help some niche brands cash in on the politically charged moment.

Such finger-pointing fees would inevitably alienate some customers, which is why the surcharges aren’t expected to be prominent features of post-tariff shopping. Still, some business owners say it’s better to tell shoppers directly why the cost of their goods are rising.

Trump administration will probably punish businesses that try to do that. We'll see.

It's already been done on CA gas taxes from some retailers here.

[Doomcookie]

The government's motion(s) had nothing to do with that, and you know it. You're venturing into saying that lower court judges may defy Supreme Court rulings. For now, you haven't actually articulated an understanding that such a conflict exists.

But I guess we're well past the judicial system as a system, and just into anointing district judges as kings and queens now.

You have yet to articulate why kidnapping innocent people and rapists are things you seem to love so much.

- - - Updated - - -

It's nowhere in what the government filed after the Supreme Court ruled and remanded. The government argues that the district judge is not complying with the SCOTUS decision, which necessarily is different from earlier times where there was no decision to reference.

It should go without saying that when SCOTUS says "due regard for the deferenced owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs" does not mean "fuck them, brief me on all your steps by 9:30 scratch that 11:30 am." You're just missing or ignoring when judges beclown themselves.

And in a follow-up, judge is starting to listen to reason by moving for next week. That's going in the right direction for compliance with SCOTUS.

When do you think Trump will stop kidnapping people based on the color of their skin?

- - - Updated - - -

It's already been done on CA gas taxes from some retailers here.

So, why do you support Trump pushing so many tax increases?

[Rasulis]

Trump threatens Mexico the only way he knows how.

In the ongoing effort to show how fucking stupid National Security Because Fentanyl is, Trump is now threatening Mexico with tariffs for not sharing water as promised during a 1944 treaty specifically to share water.

When questioned on the topic, the water said "I don't exist. It's a drought."

Mexico isn't sharing the water because the water isn't there.

Trump has also halted the US side of the agreement, which again, is in addition to tariffs due to National Security Lol.

Why Mexico is not sending water to the US. Because they can't give what they don't have. Granted, drought wise, Texas is in a bad shape also. The State desperately needs that water.



It is not like they are not trying to fulfil their obligation. Mexico scrambles to boost US water deliveries ahead of next year’s USMCA treaty review

[Endus]

That's my general take on it, personally. But I imagine we'll be called extremists whilst vague references are made to, "But it's lawful" or something.

Imagine being able to deport people with lawful protection orders and then say "oops we fucked up and deported them but there's nothing we can do about it."

How long until they say the same for native-born US citizens?

The reality is that it's not an "oops". It's a "stop looking behind the curtain, meatbags". Normalizing it against non-citizens is the first step to doing it to citizens. The USA's still on the Nazi program; this is exactly how they built up from deportations to needing camps to concentrate the to-be-deported for processing to "let's make the detainees work as slaves to mitigate costs" to oh now we're just taking in too many and it's costing too much so let's start reducing those numbers in the most effective way we can find to oh, no, we're already at the death camps and are in full Holocaust mode.

You're already building the camps. You're technically already making them profitable, just by means of using for-profit detention facilities to hold them rather than making detainees work (but making prisoners do slave labor is fully legal in the USA, already). It's only a couple steps further until you're hitting "New Holocaust" stuff. And the Trump regime is already building their list of "undesirables" and explicitly promoting Nazi-era style identifiers for people in such groups; https://ca.news.yahoo.com/people-can...l?guccounter=1

This shit isn't hypothetical. You're already most of the way down the path; hypothesizing that it's likely you'll continue to take the next few steps down that same path isn't radical.

[SAY HER NAME]

It's nowhere in what the government filed after the Supreme Court ruled and remanded. The government argues that the district judge is not complying with the SCOTUS decision, which necessarily is different from earlier times where there was no decision to reference.

It should go without saying that when SCOTUS says "due regard for the deferenced owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs" does not mean "fuck them, brief me on all your steps by 9:30 scratch that 11:30 am." You're just missing or ignoring when judges beclown themselves.

And in a follow-up, judge is starting to listen to reason by moving for next week. That's going in the right direction for compliance with SCOTUS.

That wasnt the request lol. The judge asked the government the very simple question on where is he and how is he? Even without a Supreme Court ruling I don't think its an abuse of judicial power to require the government to know where the person is or how is he? Unless the plan was to abandon this person in El Salvador and leave them forgotten without any care if he is even alive.

Surely the Trump admin wouldn't be so cruel to device a plan like that

[DarkTZeratul]

I never understood why the US is so stupid with its relations with Mexico. Its a 100 million people talent pool that could help the region compete with literally everyone.

Because racism.

[Rasulis]

Scratch that, Mexico can literally open their ports to Chinese products and let that flow into the US via contraband and make major bank.

I never understood why the US is so stupid with its relations with Mexico. Its a 100 million people talent pool that could help the region compete with literally everyone.

US/Canada/Mexico was once considered the most successful economic block in the whole world. Key word "once".

[Poopymonster]

I never understood why the US is so stupid with its relations with Mexico. Its a 100 million people talent pool that could help the region compete with literally everyone.

Because not getting your shit exploded in WW2 lead to the myth of American Exceptionalism which Boomers turned into White Makes Right.

[tehdang]

Even without a Supreme Court ruling ...

The point is that there's now a supreme court ruling. The government just says ... hey judge ... how about you comply with the supreme court ruling.

Which is kind of a simple ask, really.

The government appealed the case all the way up to SCOTUS, since this implicates the line between Article II and Article III powers. That made it into the actual decision, if you read the previous post. I don't get why you want me to ignore a ruling by the Supreme Court. Maybe you should've briefed them instead, and relied on telling the justices that it was "very simple question" and "this doesn't implicate Article II and Article III distinct powers?"

So I don't think a "simple question" formulation can be used to discard a Supreme Court ruling, nor does it change the text of such a ruling.

[Edge-]

The point is that there's now a supreme court ruling. The government just says ... hey judge ... how about you comply with the supreme court ruling.

Which is kind of a simple ask, really.

The government appealed the case all the way up to SCOTUS, since this implicates the line between Article II and Article III powers. That made it into the actual decision, if you read the previous post. I don't get why you want me to ignore a ruling by the Supreme Court. Maybe you should've briefed them instead, and relied on telling the justices that it was "very simple question" and "this doesn't implicate Article II and Article III distinct powers?"

So I don't think a "simple question" formulation can be used to discard a Supreme Court ruling, nor does it change the text of such a ruling.

"Where is the location of the man you admit you improperly arrested and deported?"

is not exactly the tricky, novel question you seem to want to make it out to be. It is actually a remarkably simple question that shouldn't take hours upon hours, much less days, to track down and provide to the judge in response to their lawful court order.

[gondrin]

The point is that there's now a supreme court ruling. The government just says ... hey judge ... how about you comply with the supreme court ruling.

Which is kind of a simple ask, really.

The government appealed the case all the way up to SCOTUS, since this implicates the line between Article II and Article III powers. That made it into the actual decision, if you read the previous post. I don't get why you want me to ignore a ruling by the Supreme Court. Maybe you should've briefed them instead, and relied on telling the justices that it was "very simple question" and "this doesn't implicate Article II and Article III distinct powers?"

So I don't think a "simple question" formulation can be used to discard a Supreme Court ruling, nor does it change the text of such a ruling.

The SCOTUS decision(if people want to call it that) stated that the Administration(Government) has to bring back said person. It also said that it would be up to the lower court to decide how that is going to be done with respect to Article 2 powers.

So no, asking updates on where the person is, to show he is in fact being brought back, is not going against SCOTUS and in fact showing that it is upholding their ruling.

The man wasn't afforded due process. None of these people were afforded due process that have been deported. That is why it is playing out in courts. If they were afforded due process in the first place, meaning they get to see an immigration judge before final deportation orders are sent, very little of this would be playing out as it is. But the government, via Marco Rubio with Trump's blessing, is doing it unilaterally. Which, the last time I checked, goes against basic human rights such as Habeas Corpus and the ability to challenge a decision rendered by a governing body(appealing) until it is adjudicated in a court of law.

If you want to gaslight something, please do it in the White House where the amount of gas being lit would make Exxon blush.

EDIT: Let me change one thing. None of the ones that made the news like Gracia, Khalil, Ozturk and others like that were afforded due process. They had their visas/green cards unilaterally revoked without any hearing in front a judge WHICH IS REQUIRED TO DO SO to prevent someone that is here legally from getting deported for false pretenses.

[Poopymonster]

"Where is the location of the man you admit you improperly arrested and deported?"

They should have an answer faster than you can say "Shallow Grave".

[Doomcookie]

The point is that there's now a supreme court ruling. The government just says ... hey judge ... how about you comply with the supreme court ruling.

Which is kind of a simple ask, really.

The government appealed the case all the way up to SCOTUS, since this implicates the line between Article II and Article III powers. That made it into the actual decision, if you read the previous post. I don't get why you want me to ignore a ruling by the Supreme Court. Maybe you should've briefed them instead, and relied on telling the justices that it was "very simple question" and "this doesn't implicate Article II and Article III distinct powers?"

So I don't think a "simple question" formulation can be used to discard a Supreme Court ruling, nor does it change the text of such a ruling.

More projection?

Weird.

[Edge-]

https://www.wired.com/story/social-s...e-elon-musk-x/

The Social Security Administration will no longer be communicating with the media and the public through press releases and “dear colleague” letters, as it shifts its public communication exclusively to X, sources tell WIRED. The news comes amid major staffing cuts at the agency.

Ah yes, because everyone knows retirees are all on Twitter and will look there first for official communications.

This will be challenged in court and the administration will lose.

The administration continues to waste an enormous amount of time accomplishing their objective of doing everything possible to dismantle this country and enrich the uber-wealthy.

[SAY HER NAME]

The point is that there's now a supreme court ruling. The government just says ... hey judge ... how about you comply with the supreme court ruling.

Which is kind of a simple ask, really.

The government appealed the case all the way up to SCOTUS, since this implicates the line between Article II and Article III powers. That made it into the actual decision, if you read the previous post. I don't get why you want me to ignore a ruling by the Supreme Court. Maybe you should've briefed them instead, and relied on telling the justices that it was "very simple question" and "this doesn't implicate Article II and Article III distinct powers?"

So I don't think a "simple question" formulation can be used to discard a Supreme Court ruling, nor does it change the text of such a ruling.

How is the judge not complying with the supreme court ruling? The judge amended the use of words and is now using facilitate. The request the judge asked wasn't you need to do these specific things. The questions where:

- Are you doing anything to facilitate his release? This could be something really simple like asking for his return. Mind you Trump and Bukele are meeting this Monday.

- Where is he? How is he doing? The government should know this. Its using tax payer money to contract the Salvadoran government in keeping the people it kidnapped

They are simple questions. The government has had since last week to formulate a plan on how to bring this father back as was established in the court ruling. We are now finding out that they never intended to bring him back despite acknowledging the mistake, not only that but they dont even know where he is or if he is even alive. Questions that the judge asked. These are simple questions

- - - Updated - - -

The SCOTUS decision(if people want to call it that) stated that the Administration(Government) has to bring back said person. It also said that it would be up to the lower court to decide how that is going to be done with respect to Article 2 powers.

So no, asking updates on where the person is, to show he is in fact being brought back, is not going against SCOTUS and in fact showing that it is upholding their ruling.

The man wasn't afforded due process. None of these people were afforded due process that have been deported. That is why it is playing out in courts. If they were afforded due process in the first place, meaning they get to see an immigration judge before final deportation orders are sent, very little of this would be playing out as it is. But the government, via Marco Rubio with Trump's blessing, is doing it unilaterally. Which, the last time I checked, goes against basic human rights such as Habeas Corpus and the ability to challenge a decision rendered by a governing body(appealing) until it is adjudicated in a court of law.

If you want to gaslight something, please do it in the White House where the amount of gas being lit would make Exxon blush.

EDIT: Let me change one thing. None of the ones that made the news like Gracia, Khalil, Ozturk and others like that were afforded due process. They had their visas/green cards unilaterally revoked without any hearing in front a judge WHICH IS REQUIRED TO DO SO to prevent someone that is here legally from getting deported for false pretenses.

Its worth pointing out that in this particular case, not only has the government not afforded him due process but in direct contradiction of a court ruling in 2019 he was deported to El Salvador. His deportation to El Salvador is illegal which is why the gov insists it was a mistake.

[Bwgmon]

Ah yes, because everyone knows retirees are all on Twitter and will look there first for official communications.

This will be challenged in court and the administration will lose.

The administration continues to waste an enormous amount of time accomplishing their objective of doing everything possible to dismantle this country and enrich the uber-wealthy.

Isn't this like, the 3rd or 4th time they've tried to make some government function twittler-exclusive and had the courts beat their ass for it?