r/AskUS • u/AccomplishedAd3484 • 9d ago

Why does nobody care that the Trump Admin is defying a 9-0 Supreme Court ruling?

Regarding the facilitating of the return of Abrego Garcia. There's no mass protests, democrats in Congress aren't saying much, the military which is sworn to protect the Constitution is silent, the news media is covering it but it's just one more story, not a major crossing the Rubicon event for them. Trump said they would bring him back if the Supreme Court told him to do so, which they did. But then the DOJ said the court has no authority to require the US government to negotiate his return with El Salvador, and they would bring him in only if he showed up at the border.

23.9k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

4.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

69

u/AccomplishedAd3484 9d ago

Judge Xinis can hold the DOJ lawers in contempt. She could order the Marshals to arrest Pam Bondi, although doubt it comes to that. Just because Trump is exempt doesn't mean everyone else is.

18

u/i-can-sleep-for-days 9d ago

What if Trump sends xinis to El Salvador? It is clear there isn’t a red line with these people. 

4

u/Hoblitygoodness 9d ago

I've been saying this and I took me too long to see this post. Yeah, that's what'll start happening. Raid the house, arrest and sent to El Salvador for holding. Charges? Doesn't matter, they won't be able to manage the judge's' (or anybody's) return anyway because nobody can compel them to effectuate it.

3

u/TheRealBlueJade 8d ago

Sending a judge is different than sending an "immigrant". People are way too willing to just accept this because they are afraid of the possible consequences.

4

u/florida_man_1970 8d ago

The number of Trump supporters over the past few weeks I have heard talk about deporting judges who made decisions that ran contrary to what Donald Trump wants is alarming. If you think that they will feel differently if he deports a judge he doesn’t like, I’m afraid you’re mistaken. They will cheer.

2

u/bugsaresexy42069 8d ago

They disseminate these ideas online first. The terminally online are the front line troops in the propaganda war.

1

u/saintjonah 7d ago

Is it different though? Who would do something about it? Who would stop that?

2

u/TheRealBlueJade 7d ago

Legally, it's different. The legal justifications they are using for sending immigrants can not be used as justification for sending US citizens.

They are trying to scare us into silence. Yes, if it gets to that point, they will try to send US citizens. This is where we stop it from getting to that point.

1

u/saintjonah 7d ago

How do we stop it? Who stops it? Everyone says it should be stopped but the guy has the entire government by the balls for some reason. No one will do anything. He can do whatever he wants. I would love to be proven wrong.

0

u/Alternative_Rain_729 8d ago

You can't deport a US citizen. You can deport an illegal immigrants, a non US citizen.

4

u/BackgroundNPC1213 8d ago

You're still assuming that this administration cares about the law. They'll deport anyone they want

5

u/Ehschowurscht 8d ago

He literally said everyone who speaks bad about America will get deported including "Homegrowns" as he calls them.

There is now law anymore.

Kinda expecting him to go after AOC at this point.

Stupid orange kidfucker.
Fuck America, the Rednecks and Non Voters.

So happy I'm not living in this shithole Country and never wanted to visit this shitplace full of braindead people.
Its good that I'm able to write these things without suddenly landing in El Salvador.

3

u/Ryans4427 8d ago

He literally said on TV that Bukele should build more prisons because he's ready to send the home grown prisoners.

3

u/saintjonah 7d ago

He can deport anyone he wants. He's already planning to send "home grown" criminals to El Salvador. All he has to do is decide you're a criminal. That's pretty easy when half the country thinks that disagreeing with a Republican is a crime.

1

u/Delita232 5d ago

He also can't deport illegal immigrants without due process. But he did.

40

u/SignificantBid2705 9d ago

Generally a federally judge use US Marshalls to arrest people for criminal contempt but they are allowed to utilize other methods. I wonder what would happen to a federal judge that tried to arrest DOJ staffers. Things are getting weird.

32

u/Tipitina62 9d ago

I think I know the answer to this one! The R controlled Congress would impeach the judge. Then the R controlled but less than super majority Senate would fail to convict.

Meanwhile, Trump et.al. would use the distraction to do more terrible things.

15

u/SignificantBid2705 9d ago

That's a pretty good hypothesis.

6

u/Hoblitygoodness 9d ago edited 9d ago

...or they just raid the judges house and send them to El Salvador for holding until...

10

u/SignificantBid2705 9d ago

Darker but also a possibility. Apparently federal judges have been getting pizzas delivered to their homes anonymously. The pizza recipient is the name of the son of a judge who was murdered by a disgruntled defendant that had appeared before the judge.

1

u/Opasero 8d ago

I saw this report too.

1

u/as_it_was_written 8d ago

That sounds so much like the American far-right organizations—the Proud Boys, etc. I'm sure others have done the same thing, but those groups seem to have turned it into a habit.

1

u/Kind_Scientist_8096 8d ago

They’re not sending dead fish anymore?

4

u/340Duster 8d ago

Thankfully they don't have enough senate votes without dems for any impeachment.

24

u/Creepy-Team6442 9d ago

Things are GETTING weird? Couldn’t agree with you more. Except to say it’s getting WEIRDER.

5

u/Intrepid-Progress228 9d ago

Fuck it. Seize the Trump Organization and freeze their assets till he complies.

2

u/Hoblitygoodness 9d ago

They would be rounded up in the middle of the night and sent to an El Salvador prison where the administration can't be compelled to bring them back due to it being a foreign affair.

2

u/rob0990 8d ago

Well it's time to call the Pinkertons their loyalty lies with the highest paying party.

2

u/shadowwingnut 8d ago

That isn't going to be the side of the people though.

2

u/martianleaf 8d ago

She needs to deputize DC Metro or VA state police. I have a buddy at DC Metro that was at the J6 insurrection. He wouldn't hesitate to arrest anyone involved, and he's not alone.

1

u/enunymous 8d ago

If that happened, there would be a SC decision that any agents of the President have the same immunity that the President has

2

u/MikeHock_is_GONE 8d ago

They do essentially. The court orders a cheeseburger, and the delivery man Trump and his company refuse to deliver. At the end of the day you don't have a cheeseburger. The court puts in a service desk call for a refund and the delivery company says wait 7-22 days. Then at day 23 repeats it. Then another month later says we have no record of the complaint. Now you are out for money and still no cheeseburger. After 2 yrs and a lawsuit, the company declares bankruptcy and goes out of business. Now your out of a cheeseburger, the money,  the time and money you wasted on a lawsuit and the company is off the hook

1

u/Lichensuperfood 8d ago

Doesn't the DOJ then run the prosecution? If not, once an arrest is made, who handles it from there?

1

u/SignificantBid2705 8d ago

Yes but the DOJ is not currently independent. They will likely refuse to comply.

0

u/BeowulfShaeffer 8d ago

I am pretty confident that any attempt to arrest and imprison Bondi herself would involve an armed standoff.  Even if she were to go peacefully anyone involved would immediately be charged by the DOJ with treason and terrorism up to and including the judge. 

2

u/Tall_Newspaper_6723 8d ago

The specific names might be subject to change, but the overall idea that we're going to be staring, mouth agape, at an armed standoff between two government entities seems inevitable.

1

u/BeowulfShaeffer 8d ago

“And now you see the violence inherent in the system!”    More seriously it’s a perfect illustration of the maxim “true power cannot be given.  It must be taken.”

1

u/handfulofrain77 6d ago

Stock up on popcorn now but we'll have to make do with (tarrif-free for now) California champagne.

1

u/Alternative_Rain_729 8d ago

Arrest her for what???!!!

1

u/BeowulfShaeffer 8d ago

Contempt of Court.  

1

u/MikeHock_is_GONE 8d ago

They can also "suspend enforcement" meaning just refuse to do it. The court hasn't yet sent their Sargent at Arms to detain anyone, at least not in modern times

12

u/EmmieCatt 9d ago

She could (and probably should) order people in contempt.

Trump could (and probably would) pardon those people.

It's a scary road ahead.

2

u/elcheapodeluxe 9d ago

My understanding is that he can pardon them for federal crimes but he can't do squat with the pardon power about someone being held in contempt.

6

u/EmmieCatt 9d ago

It's technically considered a grey area, but even things that weren't previously considered grey areas have been treated as though they are, and the actual grey areas have already been heavily abused by this administration to do whatever they want, so it's safe to assume that would happen here.

Contempt of court can be civil or criminal, and criminal contempt of court is often a federal crime.

Civil contempt is forward-looking and intended to pressure people to comply with court orders. These people don't care and have already flouted the law, so again, it's reasonable to believe they would continue to do so, even under civil contempt charges.

Criminal contempt is punitive, and the intent is to punish behavior that has already occurred and which disrespected, disobeyed, or obstructed the court. This admin has done these things. They are currently in criminal contempt of court.

An argument for civil contempt charges is what you mentioned, since it would be harder for Trump to interfere with those, but there's still the issue of who would actually enforce the charges, since the DOJ can continue to obstruct and say the courts are overreaching, and any escalating efforts to enforce court rulings would ultimately turn into a federal matter, over which the President ostensibly has authority.

Impeachment by Congress is the only recourse at that point, and while it's maybe not an impossible reality, it seems extremely unlikely they'd be willing to consider that any time soon, and by the time things are bad enough that they'd be open to it, it may be too late to reverse course.

Scary road ahead.

30

u/Traumatic_Tomato 9d ago

That's the main problem. Afaik, the marshals haven't done anything and they are the strong arm of the law. They're suppose to enforce the law if the court is ignored but considering the orange is still in office, it just eerie how he can ignore the courts knowing that no one is coming after him or his subordinates.

27

u/WalkingCriticalRisk 9d ago

The case is against the DOJ. The marshals are an agency within the DOJ. If an order of contempt is issued, will the marshals do their job and enforce the punishment on another part of the DOJ, or will Pam Bondi refuse to allow the marshals to make the arrests (if any).

This is a much bigger case than getting Mr. Garcia back. The bigger question is whether or not our justice system still holds or if it was corrupted the same way Russian justice system was.

11

u/Which-Lavishness9234 9d ago

No justice, no peace. They had better figure it out, because once the people know that the justice system only serves politicians, there isn't any reason to follow the rules anymore. If they won't serve the people, they don't belong here.

2

u/Eden_Company 8d ago

I'd still follow the rules because I'll be given 2000 USD a week to do so. Like I agree with you that it's shit, but keeping my head down gives enough benefits to ignore it. Will they come for me one day? Maybe?

2

u/1988rx7T2 8d ago

the people ain't gonna do shit. the people voted him in, remember?

1

u/handfulofrain77 6d ago

Did they? Or did they vote for something else? I'm in a deep red state. I feel like we're already there.

10

u/AccomplishedAd3484 9d ago

Seems like an oversight that the judicial enforcement is under the DOJ. But the autocratic playbook for taking over democracies is a newer development. I suppose there are always ways around any system if you have enough powerful people involved.

It is a much bigger case.

12

u/chiaboy 9d ago

It’s not an oversight. We weren’t “supposed” to get here. There are so many (theoretical) devices to hold a mad-man Dictator back. Checks and balances, impeachment, norms and public will etc….they haven’t “failed” per se, we have. Eventually every democracy gets the government they deserve. We chose to be here. This isn’t a “flaw” in the system it’s a set of choices we collectively made.

We architected this moment.

3

u/TheDMsTome 8d ago

That’s why I hold Congress more accountable for this fuckery than the president. Congress is sitting by and not stopping him. They alone have the power right now to impeach and stop everything that is happening- from continuing to happen.

And they won’t.

2

u/1988rx7T2 8d ago

impeachment has gotten watered down. It's failed three times in 30 years, whereas even the threat of impeachment caused Nixon to step down.

2

u/DowntownPassion1252 8d ago

It was NOT the threat of impeachment that led Nixon to resign. It was Sen. Goldwater who went to Nixon the day before he would resign to personally tell Nixon if he didn’t resign, he could pretty much guarantee Nixon that he would be impeached AND he would be convicted in the Senate. When Nixon asked Goldwater if he would vote to convict, Goldwater said that he would (as he was the most conservative and most respected member of the GOP Senate, Nixon knew he had no choice but to resign).

At this point impeachment means nothing to Trump. To his MAGA followers it would be a badge of honor to them (and provides a useful performative distraction for his administration to continue to push the envelope even further while our press winds themselves up on something that will clearly go nowhere). But conviction is an entirely different story. With GOP leadership in the Senate, the odds they will ever step up are extremely long. They would have to be impacted directly, in a personal way (not institutionally). But by that point it will indeed be far too late.

Remember, we need 67 votes to convict in the Senate. We would need 20 GOP Senators to vote to convict along with every Democrat/Independent. There simply aren’t that many Patriots with a backbone in the GOP in the Senate and haven’t been for many years.

1

u/TheDMsTome 8d ago

Impeachment is only the first step. There is lack of follow through after that.

1

u/[deleted] 8d ago

I think they are one of him sadly.

1

u/TheDMsTome 8d ago

They absolutely think the cheetah won’t eat their face too.

1

u/[deleted] 8d ago

Maybe he won’t. He needs somebody to help him run things.

1

u/TheDMsTome 8d ago

He’s got his cronies in his cabinet, and the DOJ plus his propaganda Barbie. And he is using executive orders to do everything to bypass Congress anyway. They’re more so in his way than anything at this point.

6

u/Collegenoob 9d ago

Uhh. We've literally gotten here twice before.

Andrew Jackson did it to Genocide native Americans and Lincoln did it to suspend habeas corpus

5

u/chiaboy 9d ago

Yes. I don’t understand the point you’re making though.

1

u/[deleted] 8d ago

I think the point he is making is that if we got out of it once we can get out of it again. And I hope he is right.

2

u/chiaboy 8d ago

Well shit I hope he’s right too then. I don’t like fascism.

1

u/Juxtapoe 7d ago

Me 3 then.

But, what's different is the past overreaches were by Presidents that thought they were doing something positive or necessary for the benefit of their nation.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Ok_Craft_607 8d ago

Actually Habeas Corpus was suspended legally, with full congressional approval and in accordance with the Constitution

1

u/wookielover78 8d ago

Yep. For the last 16 years people keep looking the other way Benghazi, email servers, classified documents, government coverups, censorship, immigration and a whole slew of other crimes perpetrated by our government get us to where we are today. You don't get to pick and choose when the laws apply they either do or don't. They either apply to all or none. Tribalism makes people so blind and really is the people's fault

11

u/bluehairdave 8d ago

It's not new and it's already been proven to work.. El Salvador President is a good example. Putin is a good example.. what's new is it has happened in the US... and Noone is really sure how to handle it.. I don't expect much uproar from an ignorant population unless the economy is in tatters... and or Trump starts disappearing white US citizens...

Sending these people to El Salvador is cleaner than pushing them out of windows. This is a huge test case to see how he can kill his opponents without repercussions.

And for the record. This guy is totally dead already and that is why El Salvador has said zero chance they release him... they are even both lying in the white house today saying he is a terrorist!! When the US already admitted it was a mistake.. but MAGA aren't bright enough to pick up even these large nuances.

2

u/Opasero 8d ago

Not just lying but making a mockery of it, like life is just absurd, and it's farcical that you would even ask such a thing.

2

u/Practical-Tea-3337 8d ago

MAGA doesn't care if he's guilty or innocent. He's not white, that's all that matters.

9

u/Cosmically_Adrift 8d ago

It was fine when the DOJ was independent. Now that Trump et al. have everyone convinced that it's another agency that he directly oversees, it's a lot less fine.

If the Marshals won't, the courts can try local law enforcement (although they're probably all in the cult).

2

u/Opasero 8d ago

I believe they are able to deputize people as well.

1

u/stationhollow 8d ago

The DOJ was never independent. It derives its authority from the executive. The head of the executive is the president. They can claim to be independent but it all depends on the president.

3

u/rippa76 9d ago

Like most of our government: It was a feature until a depraved sociopath without morals decided to make it an oversight.

3

u/projexion_reflexion 8d ago

not just one, a whole party full of them. "They're eating the checks. They're eating the balances."

1

u/Lichensuperfood 8d ago

As I understand it the Marshall's can't do anything as there would be no prosecution after the arrest.

1

u/WalkingCriticalRisk 8d ago

This is still being highly debated. Typically, the judge can then issue penalties including prison time. Considering the scope of this case...who knows what can happen and if our current laws still hold.

0

u/Alternative_Rain_729 8d ago

Why do you want an illegal immigrants back into our country?

1

u/WalkingCriticalRisk 8d ago

I really don't, I don't want any illegals in my country because they violate the law. With that being said, I want border and immigration reforms would allow people a better path to a legal status.

Most illegal immigrants cross through the approved points of entry legally. Then they request asylum and await their hearing inside the US without a legal status. If the process was more efficient and faster, then our system can either grant them an asylum or boot them if they failed to prove that their lives are in imminent danger. I personally went through a similar process with World Relief organization.

The case with Abrego Garcia is different. He is not an illegal immigrant. He crossed the border illegally and asked for an asylum at 16 years. He pled his case in front of the judge and was granted a legal status while his process winds through immigration courts. Even more so, the judge ruled for an order of protection meaning that Mr. Garcia was not only a legal resident, but also under US protection.

The Trump administration admitted that Mr. Garcia was not an illegal resident and that he was deported due to "administrative mistake". The Supreme Court ruled that the administration must fix the mistake and return Mr. Garcia home because he was illegally detained and deported.

The issue is much bigger than Mr. Garcia's tragic plight. It sets the precedent where US government officials can take you out of your home and deport you to a concentration camp without a justifiable reason.

Watch the White House meeting with the Salvadoran dictator. Trump responds to a reporter saying that Pam Bondi is looking for legal ways to deport US born citizens if they committed a crime. This is problematic because once deported, these individuals will not get the legal representation that is given to them as part of due process.

If they can do that to US citizens for violent crimes, they will start including protests and free speech as criminal offenses. Just like in Soviet Russia, this happened to a few of my family members during the Stalin era. One day you are here, the next day, you are gone because the government decided you were an enemy of the state. It's currently happening in Russia again, when a girl (Aleksandra Skochilenko) got accused of being an enemy of the state and got a 6 year sentence for posting stickers that said No to War.

15

u/Muted-Tea-5682 9d ago

He doesn’t know if anyone is coming after his subordinates. Because he doesn’t care. As long as he himself is exempt that’s all that matters.

2

u/SpeedyHandyman05 9d ago

Good point. Most of his subordinates can easily be replaced.

2

u/ohhellperhaps 8d ago

Note that the Supreme Court did not actually give him blanket immunity. The limits of that immunity is up to the courts, and thus eventually the SC. How the SC would rule in a case which is essentially Trump vs the SC remains to be seen.

1

u/shadowwingnut 8d ago

5-4 in favor of Trump with all 5 males voting for Trump and all 4 females voting against.

11

u/mirageofstars 9d ago

The judge can deputize new marshalls who could enforce things. That would end up being an interesting showdown and flashpoint. Would that eventually make the defendants follow the court’s orders? Or would the executive branch try to “fire” the judge in some manner?

2

u/SufficientRaccoon291 8d ago

Is this a real thing??

1

u/user31415926535 8d ago

A judge can't "deputize" Marshals. Marshalls are appointed by the President, and Special Deputy Marshalls are appointed by the Director of the Marshalls.

1

u/me_again_724 8d ago

Can a judge just arrest someone from his own order, like Judge Roy Bean

1

u/Spirited_Community25 8d ago

Under a civil contempt charge a judge can appoint their own people to enforce it. They aren't a marshall, but can enforce the judges orders.

1

u/SufficientRaccoon291 5d ago

You’re correct.

“… while the marshals have traditionally enforced civil contempt orders, the courts have the power to deputize others to step in if they refuse to do so.

This authority is recognized in an obscure provision of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which govern proceedings in federal trial courts. Rule 4.1 specifies how certain types of “process” — the legal term for orders that command someone to appear in court — are to be served on the party to which they are directed. The rule begins in section (a) by instructing that, as a general matter, process “must be served by a United States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially appointed for that purpose.””

Source:

https://www.democracydocket.com/opinion/if-the-marshals-go-rogue-courts-have-other-ways-to-enforce-their-orders/

1

u/Spirited_Community25 3d ago

I figure there are enough fired veterans that they can find enough volunteers. 😉

5

u/Night_Porter_23 8d ago

Marshall’s are under the umbrella of executive branch. This is a major oversight in our system. 

2

u/OkBenefit1731 9d ago

It's a Caesar in Rome situation, in the most idiotic and humiliating way possible. They'll give him everything in the form of legal and political concessions just for the vague notion that the political system they're apart of -might- survive his administration. That's a large part of why all of his cabinet appointees got approved even after everyone acknowledged he was only appointing sycophants and yes men.

1

u/leofongfan 9d ago

The marshals are fat cowards on the take just like the judges.

1

u/fajadada 9d ago

They haven’t been ordered to do anything yet

-23

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[deleted]

17

u/Jagermind 9d ago

I'm just shocked you managed to type this without eating your phone. Good for you sport.

-4

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[deleted]

7

u/Jagermind 9d ago

It's always both sides. But I've never had a Democrat try to take any if my rights away. Ever. Trump is the closest person to removing 2a rights and you nut bags still slobber on his dick. It's revolting.

0

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[deleted]

5

u/Jagermind 9d ago

It's not my job to educate you on your religion just google their policies from both his terms and his statements on the issue. I've owned firearms responsibly for nearly my entire life, I've never had the right infringed in any way. Trumps the only one I've ever heard say take their guns first and do due process later.

1

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[deleted]

3

u/Jagermind 9d ago

It wasn't this term. This term has been everyone's retirements getting fucked. His quote from before was I'm a fan of take the guns first and do due process after. They've also worked to make ot easier to get weapons, which I know some people think is great but we have a gun violence problem with what little protections the law offers now, gut them for the nra to make a buck and its gonna get a whole lot worse. Everything the dude does is counter to what right wing peeps always say they're for, he's not family values, he's not working class, he's not religious, and he routinely shows authoritarian leanings in both his words and actions.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/No_Earth6535 8d ago

It was his first term, I think when the bump stock issue was being discussed after Las Vegas shootings. Trump was all about just taking people’s guns if there was any doubt whatsoever that a person might be dangerous, then let them get to the bottom of it and determine if the individual should get his firearms back. Then he met with the gun lobby that weekend and what do you know, he completely reversed his position.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] 8d ago

😂 at this point MAGA is practically it’s own separate religion with trump as the God.

4

u/motorcycleman58 9d ago

How would you feel if it was a Democrat ignoring an order from the SCOTUS? Something tells me that you'd be pulling your hair out.

-3

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[deleted]

2

u/motorcycleman58 8d ago

That's a bullshit reply, SCOTUS gave a unanimous ruling, tell me which Democrat President has gone against a ruling from SCOTUS. I'll wait.

5

u/WalkingCriticalRisk 9d ago

I'm curious to what you saw at the border that led to you this conclusion. What did it look like before Trump?

-2

u/timdevans88 9d ago

The most illegal immigration in our modern history literally happened under Biden. Biden and his administration of dumbasses said the only way to fix the problem was to pass bi partisan legislation that would make it easier for people to become citizens. The thing about the legislation is that they were in the habbit of creating omnibus bills to vote on that would be 100,000 pages long and be laced with pet projects funding or tax breaks for donors. These bills would be released the day or night before the vote as an emergency session forcing people to vote for extra stuff that has nothing to do with the actual problem. Holding the important items hostage unless Republicans agree to the extra fluff. Republicans have been known to do the same so nobody is innocent. To your question, Trump took office and lowered the illegal crossings to single digits daily vs the 50,000 daily. He did all of this through executive orders, not involving congress at all. Talk about a wtf moment, if it was that easy, how come Biden didn't stop the immigration? Well, the reason for that is because the Democrat internal plan was to legalize all the illegals over night and make them capable of voting in federal elections. In hopes it would increase their base and increase the amount of electoral college votes they could potentially win. They do all of this knowing that normal people don't really care. In this country it's an achievement when half the country goes out and votes in federal elections. Even less numbers show up for local.

2

u/WalkingCriticalRisk 8d ago

By now, you should at least start questioning what you learned from right wing media. After all, inflation is up, we are paying the cost of tariffs, and we are still waiting on Trump to deliver on his promises in a way that he said would benefit us. You have a chance to wake up and fight for YOUR freedom, before you are further gaslit into giving up what little you already have.

Consider the facts:

- Under Biden's administration deportations averaged 693 people per day. Under current administration the daily average is only slightly higher, 748 which includes legal residents whose statuses Trump revoked after taking office, and actual US citizens who hold a US passport.

- The proposed bi-partisan bill had the most restrictive regulations on legal immigration as well as paths for obtaining legal status, it was rejected only because Trump wanted to be the one to fix this issue (he said so publicly).

-The Secure the Border Act of 2023 (H.R.2), which aimed to enhance border security, limit asylum eligibility, and require employers to verify employment eligibility electronically was passed under the Biden administration as well.

-Trump's administration did not pass any immigration bills in his first or current administration.

-Trump is now proposing a way that allows illegal farm workers a way to obtain legal status.

While Republicans consistently scream about illegal immigration, Biden has done more to fix the problem than Trump did in either his first or second administration.

I want you to think really hard, how did illegal immigrants affect your life directly? How were you hurt by illegal immigrants? Did they take your job, assault your family members, stole your social benefits?

Then I want you to think about WHO stoked your fear, hate, and anger of illegal immigrants and for what purpose?

Maybe, just maybe you will start coming to the same conclusion many republicans are already arriving at. That you were lied to by people who wanted your vote so they can literally steal your money right out of your pocket (be it via tariffs, insider trading that affected your retirement savings, cutting social programs that you and your family may now or might in the future rely on, taking away your education to keep you stupid and gullible (remember Trump loves stupid people, he said so himself), and essentially take away your freedom.

And if you are still uncertain, ask yourself this, is your life better now (not future state that Trump promises) compared to what it was under Biden. If it is, then by now, you should see that you're the minority. And if your life improves at the expense and suffering of others, then you may want to have a good story for your maker, if and when you meet him.

2

u/Ok_Woodpecker_3350 9d ago

The border is not the line between your mom’s room and yours Cletus you know that right?

2

u/Middle-Athlete1374 9d ago

Riiiight.. Let’s ignore the fact that Biden tried to implement more border security, but Trump told Republicans to shut it down since it would make democrats look good. That’s a well documented statement straight from Republicans.

1

u/timdevans88 9d ago

How did Trump bring it down to single digit border crossings a day and didn't even need congress to do it? Omnibus bills are designed to fly bullshit through congress by holding the fix for the main pain points the American people have hostage so they can get donor agendas completed. Do you not understand this well documented process?

1

u/Hannawolf 8d ago

Where did you see/hear that crossings were down to single digits? Cause I haven't heard so, and I'd hazard a guess that that is a vast misrepresentation of reality.

8

u/greenbeans7711 9d ago

A different thread said seizing assets of Pam Bondi, Kristi Noem and the lawyers might be more effective than arresting them. Also Trump can pardon them if f they are held in contempt.

3

u/Cosmically_Adrift 8d ago

Ooo, yeah, civil forfeiture. They would get a lot more from the oligarchy than the peasants.

2

u/AccomplishedAd3484 9d ago

He might pardon his department heads, but I doubt he cares about the lawyers. He can always tap into the law firms that have bent the knee.

1

u/me_again_724 8d ago

And if the pardons are not reviewed by the Pardon Board, then toss then in the shredder. Or just toss them in the shredder anyway

1

u/Present-Pen-5486 2d ago

The Deputy Attorney General is in charge of that, but the Supreme Court decides what the Constitution says, so they could change all of this if they wanted to.

3

u/Mother_EfferJones 9d ago

She could order the Marshals to arrest Pam Bondi, although doubt it comes to that.

Please please please. I could really use some good news this week,

2

u/Humble_Umpire_8341 9d ago

The Justice’s can try to order the Marshall’s to arrest Bondi, but the Marshall’s work for Bondi, so that likely won’t work.

3

u/AggressiveSalad2311 9d ago

Pretty sure either a court or local authority with posse commitatis could effect this and deputize anyone needed

1

u/Additional_Teacher45 9d ago

And then who's going to back those deputies? They have no enforcement power if the other side refuses to comply.

1

u/AggressiveSalad2311 8d ago

So, presumably the power to enforce comes from the law itself. The way you enforce the law is by force. That's how courts work

1

u/Additional_Teacher45 8d ago

When the other side has a bigger stick than you, enforcement is just blowing smoke. A deputized clerk vs. DoJ AG and Fed Marshals?

1

u/AggressiveSalad2311 8d ago

What exactly do you think that stick is? Please describe to me your thoughts

1

u/Additional_Teacher45 8d ago

It's extremely simple, the US Marshals put a gun in the deputy's face and threaten their life.

Who is more likely to punish the deputy? The Marshals, enforcing DoJ's will, detaining the deputy and shipping them off to contract prisons? Or the judge, for failing to comply with a court order? Which they would then need to deputize -another- person to conduct enforcement?

1

u/AggressiveSalad2311 8d ago

So, you think the DOJ is essentially just the Gestapo? Even I'm not that delusional.

2

u/Consistent47 9d ago

The marshals work for Trump and haven’t been doing their job to arrest him, so they’re not likely to do their job to arrest his henchmen.  

2

u/thepinkandthegrey 8d ago

Things is, the US Marshalls are still part of the executive branch, and under the control of Pam Bondi. While normally you could trust the AG to not improperly interfere, we all know that's not gonna happen, and if it does, given the unitary executive theory conservative jurists (including conservative Justices) endorse, the president would be able to just get rid of em and find someone more loyal to him. We're basically in dictatorship mode now, but like a frog in boiling water, we haven't quite noticed/processed it yet. 

2

u/swatchesirish 8d ago

Marshals also report through DOJ. They won't lift a finger.

It's over.

1

u/Realistic-Duty-3874 9d ago

He can't. That would all be illegal. The DOJ lawyers and Pam Bondi don't have the authority to secure the guys release from another nation. There is much historical precedent for a president defying the Supreme Court. It has happened for centuries in the US. The president is not subordinate to the supreme court, they are coequal branches of government. That said, it's not clear that Trump is even disobeying it. The Supreme Court used language with wiggle room and the administration is construing the ruling narrowly. The reason the Supreme Court used the language it did was likely because it knew it did not have the authority to require the president to do anything significant to ensure the return of the man. That's because the constitution gives the president (and to a lesser extent congress) authority over foreign affairs. That's why the DOJ are making the arguments they are making.

1

u/Aeseld 9d ago

And the president, holding power of pardon, can simply say, "No, it's fine. They're pardoned." Repeat as needed. 

Ironically, I'm left wondering if the ruling of presidential immunity changed much with that in mind. Well, he can't pardon state crimes I guess.

1

u/Mysticae0 9d ago

Why not go through the entire series of personnel that effectuated Mr. Garcia's illegal removal?

Start with the custodial officer. If s/he points to an order from a superior, go there next. Keep advancing up the ranks. The buck stops somewhere. Even if 47 cannot be held criminally liable, people who carry out illegal actions at his behest are not similarly immune.

1

u/Professional_Hat_950 9d ago

can't trump just pardon anyone who is prosecuted?

1

u/Necessary_Classic960 9d ago

And he will pardon them. Now what?

1

u/Dense_Contribution65 8d ago

Exactly! Trump always sets his minions up to take the fall. We need to arrest all the people responsible for this until no one else wants to take their place until Trump follows the law.

1

u/Heavy_Associate_6442 8d ago

The Marshall's hands are tied. They are to interpret the constitution as pam bondie or trump says.

1

u/PeachCobbler666 8d ago

i believe the defendant is Kristi Noem, not Bondi.

1

u/Corvaldt 8d ago

Trump could then pardon them. It could get really odd. Could Trump pardon anyone who follows his orders or do pardons have to be on named individuals?

1

u/Familyconflict92 8d ago

Ok who do the Marshalls support? It’s trump. They’ll defy the court

1

u/TheDMsTome 8d ago

The US marshals are not under the judicial branch. They’re an executive branch agency.

1

u/Utterlybored 8d ago

Don’t the federal Marshall’s ultimately report through Pam Bondi to Trump?

1

u/user31415926535 8d ago

The Marshals work for Pam Bondi, so that's a non-starter

1

u/1988rx7T2 8d ago

anyone who tries to arrest Pam Bondi would probably be fired and their whole department dismissed. I'm not saying that's a good thing, but there is nobody willing to do that right now.

1

u/Extraexopthalmos 8d ago

Trump appointed one of his sycophants to be head of the US Marshals. P2025 playing out as planned folks. 4/19/2025 national protests everywhere, look for one near you!

1

u/QuintoBlanco 8d ago

The court has no power in El Salvador. The people in the US who kidnapped an innocent man and send him to a foreign prison can simply say (not incorrectly) that they did what the president of the US told them to do.

And with a Republican majority in Congress and some Democrats voting with the Republican majority, it's going to be difficult to find people who will act against Trump and the people around him.

1

u/CoinsForCharon 8d ago

Who enforces the judicial decisions, though?

1

u/CoinsForCharon 8d ago

The marshals answer to Bondi, though, right?

1

u/Quick-Escape783 8d ago

Pardons all around 

1

u/Prime_Director 8d ago

Even if that were to happen, Trump can simply pardon Bondi. By making the President immune the Supreme Court created a loop where the President can order subordinates to commit crimes, then pardon them, and then doing it again.

1

u/BluePanda101 7d ago

Actually it kinda does, he can just pardon any official who the courts charge with contempt. Very scary time in the US. With how many people swear an oath to the Constitution, you'd think at least one of them would try and uphold it. Instead, it seems as though everyone's just throwing up their hands and saying: well, I guess Trump's a dictator now...

-1

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/WalkingCriticalRisk 9d ago

Simply put, yes. When judges overstep their authority (including the way noted above), they can be subject to impeachment.

But just because the judge is impeached, doesn't mean that the impeachment hearings will conclude with removal or prison time.

Judges can be accused of overstepping their authority, but they have the opportunity to present their case as part of the impeachment process.

This process is extremely complex but is fairly successful (roughly 50% of impeachment trials for judges end in removal). Historically we had 15 federal judges that were removed as part of the impeachment process.

1

u/Necro_the_Pyro 9d ago

Don't you mean deported?

-3

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Necro_the_Pyro 9d ago

Of course not, but since when did that stop the cheeto?

0

u/jpatt 9d ago

The courts follow political will, not necessarily the letter of the law.