Trump Openly Defying the Courts
It's good to be king.
As Steven Taylor noted yesterday, the Trump administration is pretending that it is powerless to comply with a Supreme Court order to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. They are also defying a lower court order to allow the Associated Press to attend White House press briefings. Yesterday, they overlapped.
AP (“Despite a court order, White House bars AP from Oval Office event“):
Despite a court order, a reporter and photographer from The Associated Press were barred from an Oval Office news conference on Monday with President Donald Trump and his counterpart from El Salvador, Nayib Bukele.
Last week’s federal court decision forbidding the Trump administration from punishing the AP for refusing to rename the Gulf of Mexico was to take effect Monday. The administration is appealing the decision and arguing with the news outlet over whether it needs to change anything until those appeals are exhausted.
Needless to say, if the executive branch can pick and choose which judicial rulings to obey, our system of checks and balances is all but meaningless. Especially when they’re simultaneously routinely ignoring acts of Congress, including appropriations bills.
The Atlantic‘s Adam Server concludes, “The Constitutional Crisis Is Here.”
Since last week’s Supreme Court directive, Trump officials have harped on a line stating that the lower court should clarify its “directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.” Officials including Miller and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have interpreted that to mean that they do not have to follow the order at all. During the Oval Office meeting, Rubio chimed in to say that “no court in the United States has a right to conduct the foreign policy of the United States.”
In other words, the administration is following the Supreme Court’s ruling by ignoring it completely.
This rhetorical game the administration is playing, where it pretends it lacks the power to ask for Abrego Garcia to be returned while Bukele pretends he doesn’t have the power to return him, is an expression of obvious contempt for the Supreme Court—and for the rule of law. The administration is maintaining that it has the power to send armed agents of the state to grab someone off the street and then, without a shred of due process, deport them to a Gulag in a foreign country and leave them there forever. The crucial point here is that the administration’s logic means that it could do the same to American citizens—after all, if deporting someone under a protective order to a Gulag without so much as a hearing is a “foreign policy” matter with which no court may interfere, then the citizenship of the condemned person doesn’t matter.
Trump is already contemplating the possibility of deporting citizens. Aside from numerous public statements to that effect, Trump told Bukele, in an exchange posted on Bukele’s X feed, “Homegrowns are next. The homegrowns. You gotta build about five more places.” Loud laughter filled the Oval Office.
As Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a statement joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson accompanying the Supreme Court’s order last week, which was issued with no public dissents, “The Government’s argument, moreover, implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including U.S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene.” More broadly, this matter is no longer just about deportations or undocumented immigrants. The Trump administration’s defiance of a Supreme Court order is a new step into presidential lawlessness, in that it suggests that the administration will not abide by any court orders it does not feel like complying with.
In “Trump Dares the Supreme Court to Do Something,” Serwer’s colleague, David A. Graham, adds:
American citizens might like to reassure themselves that Abrego Garcia’s case is an outlier involving a Salvadoran citizen; surely they are insulated from such misfortune. But this would be a failure of imagination. First, as I have written, a government that can ignore court rulings in one sphere can ignore them in others, so no one is safe from a lawless government.
Moreover, an American citizen could find themselves in precisely the same vise as Abrego Garcia. During today’s remarks, Trump was asked whether he would be willing to deport American citizens convicted of violent crime to El Salvador. “I’m all for it,” he said. But convictions are overturned all the time. What would happen if an American citizen was found guilty, sent to CECOT, and then had their conviction overturned? We can guess: The White House would insist that they were in Salvadoran custody, beyond the government’s reach. Bukele would shrug and say he had no power to release them.
[…]
If Abrego Garcia stays in El Salvador—Bondi’s claim that the matter is in Bukele’s hands makes it effectively impossible for the Justice Department to comply—the case will surely end up back before the Supreme Court. In their brief, unsigned order about Abrego Garcia last week, the Supreme Court justices seemed to be trying to say as little as possible, and today’s press conference showed how happy the White House has been to take advantage of their brevity and ambiguity. If the Court is unwilling to be more direct, it will surrender any power to act as a check on the other branches of government, thereby allowing authoritarianism.
In an 1832 standoff with the Supreme Court, President Andrew Jackson—a hero of Trump’s—is apocryphally supposed to have said that Chief Justice John Marshall “has made his decision; now let him enforce it!” The quote is famous but fictional; less well known is the fact that Jackson did, ultimately, comply with the Court. So have all of his successors. Trump is on the brink of breaking that precedent. If he succeeds, he will have broken the bonds of the Constitution as well.
Lawfare’s Ben Wittes, famous for his understatement and reticence to declare crisis,
It’s like a game of three-card monte. Trump says it’s all up to Bukele. Bukele says it’s all up to Trump. And under card number three, a federal judge has to somehow protect all of our rights not to be disappeared into a foreign gulag.
So how does a reasonable federal judge respond to such committedly proud lawlessness and lying?
It’s a hard question.
And Judge Xinis has certain significant handicaps in undertaking a confrontation with the president. The first is that she doesn’t, in fact, control the foreign policy apparatus of the United States. Our embassy in San Salvador represents Trump, not her. Our State Department does too. When the Salvadoran president meets with the American administration, he talks to Trump, not the judge. And when he gets asked whether he will send Abrego Garcia back, he’s sitting next to Trump. He’s not in Judge Xinis’s court.
[…]
The second problem for the judge is that it is not clear how far the judge can go and still have the backing of the Supreme Court. The court ruled unanimously that she was within her power to order the executive to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return and that the administration “should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps” to get Abrego Garcia back.
But it also said that the judge needs to proceed “with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.” How will the Supreme Court understand what that “due regard” looks like and what information the administration “can” share concerning the steps it is or isn’t taking on Abrego Garcia’s behalf? That’s unclear. So the judge doesn’t know how much latitude she has here to be aggressive with officials who are playing hardball with her.
Third, Judge Xinis will have to think hard about whether and how she can enforce whatever orders she issues. Normally, court orders are enforced by the threat of civil contempt, which can result in fines or incarceration of recalcitrant subjects. But this is a tricky tool to use when the executive branch—or its officials—are the contemnors.
After all, it is the executive branch that locks people up and presumably won’t do so to its own officials effectuating presidential will. And fines can be reimbursed.
This is, to say the least, not the system of government depicted on Schoolhouse Rock.
In fairness, the circus aspect still holds true.
This installment would need to be capped entirely:
It was good while it lasted.
Those Schoolhouse Rock clips are gold.
Trump says ‘home-grown’ Americans are next to go to El Salvador, tells Bukele ‘gotta build about five more places’ (New York Post)
Even the Murdochs are alarmed, apparently.
James – “It was good while it lasted.”
But the ending is pretty bitter tasting.
Can we start worrying now? I mean, if they get away with this, how sure are we that there will be elections in 4 years?
So far, the rules don’t seem to apply to Trump.
Demonic…
@Scott F.: Agreed.
These are evil people who value their power more than they value rule of law or the basic humanity of those over whom they exercise their power.
They are destroying foundational aspects of our country right in front of us and laughing all the while.
We’re fucked
@Min: Oh, I was worried about that before Trump actually got re-elected. How clever to sow distrust about election results so there’s an excuse to make up new arbitrary requirements to have your vote counted.
Odd that a convicted felon would want Presidents to have the power to deport convicted felons to third world prisons.
This behavior is pretty much a textbook example of contempt of court — literally, even. The obvious next step by the judiciary is to declare the relevant minions (not Trump himself) in contempt, and proceed with the usual process for enforcement. The real action starts when either the enforcers decline to enforce, or the perps resist arrest. Either way, this needs to escalate quickly while there is still a faint hope that Congress might finally realize that they are playing with nitroglycerine.
@DrDaveT: Or the president pardons everyone every morning when he walks into the office.
This ends only when the third branch of government steps in to end the lawlessness through impeachment, i.e., never.
Other than sternly worded letters to my Senators and Representative and donations to specific organizations, I am frustrated at my ability (or imagination) to do anything but complain. I wrote yet another letter this morning. I suspect there is a rising frustration in this country that can only lead to violence. And violence will lead to violence from governmental forces like all the various law enforcement agencies (ICE, local and state police, even National Guard (I was 10th grade when Kent State happened)). It can’t end well.
@Argon:
“Odd that a convicted felon would want Presidents to have the power to deport convicted felons to third world prisons.”
There two factors which apply, in the minds of the Right:
1) Dem Presidents won’t do that, so GOP presidents are free to run amok.
2) SCOTUS is GOP, and will rule accordingly. Remember that Biden was limited on student loan relief, while Trump’s EO’s affect vast amounts of spending at his whim.
@Scott: My very specific concern is that violence could lead to the decision to declare martial law and suspend a whole bunch of rights, or delay/postpone/cancel elections. I wouldn’t put it past this crew for that to be an actual *objective*.
@Jen:
Shouldn’t we just assume it is? I mean, the U.S. President just asserted that he has the authority to extraordinarily rendition U.S. Citizens. So what if they are criminals.
I think the time has passed for assuming any decent or even neutral intent.
It’s literally already too late. I’m just sitting here wondering what it’s actually going to take? Judge Xinis getting sent to El Salvador? Schumer?
They are just going to keep pushing the line forward because they believe that no one will or can stop them.
@Jen:Yes, the future paths for this country are many and just add to the rising national anxiety.
BTW, here is my latest screed sent this morning to my Senators (Cornyn and Cruz). I chose the theme of shame and duty this time. Not that they have displayed the ability to have anything of the sort.
@Jen:Yes, the future paths for this country are many and just add to the rising national anxiety.
BTW, here is my latest screed sent this morning to my Senators (Cornyn and Cruz). I chose the theme of shame and duty this time. Not that they have displayed the ability to have anything of the sort.
Trump isn’t defying the courts, it was the Supreme Court that made him a dictator above the law.
And there is nothing we can do about it. The US is done for, cooked, broken. We are no longer a free country, we are no longer a nation of laws, we are a nakedly corrupt and evil nation. And we citizens have the same ‘rights’ as a Russian or a Cuban.
We should be looking at ways to shield trans people to start, perhaps other groups to follow. We can protect them, for now in the blue states and to a limited extent in blue cities like Atlanta, but if it were up to me both my kids would be in Canada now.
Well, this is exactly what Bannon, Heritage Foundation, Vance, and the rest told us that they would do to with regard to legal challenges to (what used to be considered) unlawful actions – ignore court decisions and dare anyone to do anything about it.
The 2024 Roberts Immunity Decision gives Trump, not that as a practical matter he needs it, cover for future action to rendition ‘homegrown’ apostates of any and every type.
Make no mistake, Chief Justice Roberts is complicit in providing a legal basis for the final rise to power of a Mob President (aka Unitary Executive). And to the surprise of nobody, this ‘Unitary Executive’ does not at all resemble the one imagined by constitutional scholars.
@Joe:
I’m pretty sure that pardons don’t apply to contempt of court — it isn’t a conviction, or even a crime in the normal sense. And I’m pretty sure the courts would agree, out of self-preservation if nothing else.
And even if I’m wrong, it would be PR gold for the Democrats for the President to need to pardon his henchmen on an ongoing basis…
It occurs to me that the title picture is wrong. When Trump looks in the mirror I expect he sees a much younger, more handsome mad king.
@Michael Reynolds:
One quibble, SCOTUS made him a dictator AND he’s still defying the courts. I think that’s my fundamental problem with a lot of thinking around Trump specifically and the GOP generally, you can give them all they want, but if 1. you don’t give it to them when and how they want it your going to get hit, and 2. if you don’t love them they will hit you.
Alito and Thomas are prime examples of #2. The fact that they aren’t universally beloved is killing them.
There can’t be any equivocation at this point. No weaselly Whitmer-like crap. Just shovels all around.
I have little confidence that SCOTUS will put much in the way of limits on Trump. They will find some way to justify what Trump is doing to the guy in El Salvador. It’s only one guy, he was a foreigner anyway and who cares? I also expect that SCOTUS will contribute to Trump’s efforts by slow-walking cases that might impinge upon his power. Let’s not forget that the SCOTUS judges go to the same meetings and read the same stuff that members of Congress do so they are mostly politicians in robes. They will only rule against the most egregious of actions and even then it will be 7-2, 6-3, 5-4 votes.
Steve
Steve
@Scott: Cruz deserves any spit you can pile on him. The Lee quote is ironic, given his later treason (vernacular usage, not legal). However, I say later after I checked for a date, which turned out to be a letter in 1852. However, my source, Wikiquotes, also identifies it as misattributed, finding no evidence of said letter.
It is ironic that Lee was offered overall command of the United States Army. He declined, saying he couldn’t take up the sword against Virginia. But he could against his country, whose uniform he had worn throughout his career? Seems to me the “Duty, Honor, Country” thing left him two options. Sit out the war or accept the U. S. command and strive to end the war as quickly as possible. Which would have been the spring of 1862 had anyone with more stones than George McClellan commanded the Peninsula Campaign.
The one way Roberts can make it stop looking like the rapist is defying the rulings from the Crow & Leo court, is to rule in the rapist’s favor every time.
@al Ameda: @al Ameda:
Beyond the facially absurd immunity crap, Roberts deliberately set up the current standoff. From Adam Server, above, “Since last week’s Supreme Court directive, Trump officials have harped on a line stating that the lower court should clarify its “directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.”” Add the acceptance of “facilitate” but not of “effectuate”. Roberts knowingly gave Trump license to do exactly what he’s doing.
I don’t know what Roberts is playing at here:
1. Sending it back hoping the lower court could find a way out?
2. Negotiating desperately to get a unanimous opinion, at the cost of the opinion actually deciding anything?
3. Trying to finagle a way out of making a decision Trump will defy?
4. Trying to finagle a path between his funders and his duty?
5. Hoping Bukele will have Abrego Garcia mysteriously die, mooting the issue?
6. Exercise for the reader.
Whatever he thinks he’s doing, it won’t work for four years.
Clearly the US Constitution has failed. It is not too early for us to start thinking about the America we’d like to build on whatever wreckage is left post-Trump. If our message is just, ‘restoration,’ we will fail. My preference would be to adopt a parliamentary system, though I’d leave it to @Steven to think more deeply about the form that should take. I’m better at seeing the future than I am at planning for it.
The Supreme Court order left a whole lot of wiggle room — I think one of our fine hosts noted it at the time it was issued — so the administration is wiggling.
The AP being kept out is petty, and a lower judge ruling.
Not saying this isn’t a fucking shitshow, or a constitutional crisis, but it’s a fucking shitshow and constitutional crisis that most Americans can ignore because it doesn’t directly affect them, and they barely read the news, and they can file this away as politicians fighting over things.
I feel like I’m in high school, in a class, I understood the lesson almost immediately and am now just waiting for the rest of the class to catch up. (This happened a lot)
@Scott:
Last week nearly 1% of Americans turned out to protest the Trump administration. That’s with most of America not catching up yet. What happens when they do? I have no idea.
This could get violent very easily, which would be bad because I’m on blood thinners and am generally squeamish to begin with.
@Beth:
That’s been available since the Patriot Act. The difference this time, to channel Patsy Schroeder, is “this is not some big-hair, trailer park woman…I mean, my God, that coulda been me.”
That was always the problem. And to be fair, some of us have always gotten that. Just not enough. Our system has always lucked out on the having good people so the flaws don’t show thing. Not so much now.
Good time to be old, but not as good as it was before inauguration day–and it’ll get worse before it gets better.
@Scott: I liked your letter. I wish that Cruz and Cornyn cared and that there were enough Texans to have elected better people to begin with.
@gVOR10: Yeah, I’m well aware the Lee “quote” is apocryphal but still a good quote nonetheless.
@Gustopher:
Many of the large national progressive orgs–ACLU, Indivisible, and many others–have been laying the groundwork for a nationwide general strike, but the question has been ‘when?” The ACLU’s line has been that we shouldn’t pull the trigger until Trump is directly defying the Supreme Court (sort of check) and defying the SC on an issue that will animate a significant number of Americans. As you point out, this incident probably won’t do it. Both because of Americans indifference and because (as someone, maybe here? put it) the Supreme Court has been busy rerouting the Rubicon to make sure Trump doesn’t cross it.
I remember going into the summer of 2020 and thinking that the nation was going to burn. Didn’t know what was going to cause it, but one could feel the tension. George Floyd’s murder caused the spark.
I have that same feeling now but times 1000. I have a feeling there will be a SCOTUS decision in June that is clearer and more direct, maybe around troop deployment in the US, and Trump will flagrantly cross it. Then its game on. And the nation is going to burn.
@Michael Reynolds: I’ve thought for years that a parliamentary system would be better in that it reduces the numerous veto points that can halt effective action. But those veto points generally make presidential systems more resistant to authoritarian takeover. That’s not working real well at the moment, but there’s hope for the midterms reversing the GOP edge in at least one house of Congress, assuming anything like honest elections in ‘26. And state control of elections, clumsy as it is, is another barrier to autocracy. And there’s always the faint hope John Roberts will grow a spine.
I’ve never really thought about redesigning the Constitution, what with being terrified of a Constitutional convention in the age of dark money. For starters I’d go for more modest reforms like a much larger House, effective bans on money in politics, and a wealth tax and/or return to confiscatory rates. The Bible was right, money is the root of our current political evils.
@gVOR10:
I see it as just the opposite. A parliamentary system makes it harder for an executive to run amok because in many such systems elections can be called more readily. It allows for more parties, and those parties can bob and weave a bit, rise and fall, changing the picture. But it would come down to the specific design, so that’s @Steven territory.
One of the all-but-certain upsides of a constitutional convention would be the elimination, or severe restriction of, the 2d amendment. OTOH, not so sure about freedom of speech surviving. But most European countries don’t seem to need our absolutist approach in order to keep a free press going.
Here’s an amendment I’d support. Median net worth in the US is ~190K. Set 10,000 times median net worth as the upper limit. That’s just under 2 billion. Because it’s not about income, it’s about the hoarding of capital and resultant power imbalances.
@Michael Reynolds:
There is no one today, no one, that can put together what our founders did. JFC the parliamentary system allowed Brexit to happen.
The problem isn’t the Constitution. The problem is the craven fuck-wads that have been allowed to ignore it, and walk all over it, by an uneducated and disinterested populace.
I don’t claim to be smart enough to solve that problem, but I do know that throwing out a document that changed the course of history ain’t an answer.
@Neil Hudelson:
An exciting idea.
Can’t wait to see who becomes the face (faces) of the effort.
@DrDaveT:
1000 Thumbs up!
@gVOR10:
@Michael Reynolds:
I’d begin any new constitution with a declaration of rights. First and foremost that all rights listed in the constitution, as well as any others not listed, apply equally to all people inside the country and any other places where the government has jurisdiction (ie embassies, military bases, territories, etc.), be they citizens, residents, visitors, undocumented immigrants, documented immigrants, castaways, people in transit, etc. Meaning simply setting foot in the country, grants anyone equal rights to everyone else, no exceptions.
I’d also establish a real wall of separation between church and state, and make it 100% crystal clear the constitution is the basis for all state and local laws.
@Kathy:
Thank you for the idea that the Dominionist autogolpe could end up being the thing that finally detaches US democracy from the myth that our nation was founded as a Christian polity. It’s unlikely, but the mere thought was enough to brighten an otherwise kinda shitty day.
@Daryl:
Ding ding ding! Because rewriting the Constitution is a non-starter (unless it’s SCOTUS rewriting it) there should be a spate of laws attempting to authoritarian-proof the country, should there be a post-MAGA period.
But we’re already making the same error the Union made, repatriating Confederates instead of erecting gallows.
Trump voters made a stupid decision. There is no excuse. Trump is a pathological lying, amoral, incompetent freak who has never been qualified. America’s racism and sexism has allowed him a pass for actions that would never be accepted from woman or nonwhite. Heinous.
All this blaming Democrats, trans people, the Constitution, “woke” excess etc. lets Trumpers skate, the way Confederates skated. This talk of finding a way to welcome regretful Trump voters is too nice. They can be welcomed after they are excoriated. Those who are sincere will survive it.
@gVOR10:
Both for the sake of accuracy, AND because I think it’s worth paying attention to, the exact quote, from 1 Timothy 6:10 is “The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil”.
It’s the love/lust for money that drives so much, money itself is just a piece of paper or a bit of metal. Or a number in a database.
And there are evils that are driven more by fears or jealousy than by money. Of course, this creates an opportunity for someone to make money, which amplifies things.
We have money. This is a fact that facilitates many valuable aspects of our lives. I don’t wish to go to a system that doesn’t have money. Going back to barter would be stifling.
@DrDaveT:
Here’s hoping.
Back in the 80s and 90s, when the neoliberal reforms here were in full swing, many pundits made much of the simplicity of the US constitution as compared to Mexico’s. At the time, I agreed.
Now, though, I’m not so sure. certainly the Mexican Constitution of 1917 is unwieldy and has been amended tons of times (the articles themselves are amended, there’s no list of separate amendments added). But it spells out a lot of things the US one says little or nothing about. One such thing is a separation of church and state. Also how elections are conducted by federal and state electoral agencies, and how these agencies are staffed. It also talks about political parties.
@Michael Reynolds: There have, as I recall, been cases of late where in multi-party systems the non-RW parties cooperated to shut out the authoritarian right. This is impossible with our two party system.
In saying presidential systems are more resistant to authoritarianism I’m largely echoing Kurt Weyland’s Democracy’s Resilience to Populism’s Threat. I’d defer to Dr.Taylor, but I believe Weyland’s opinion is common in Poli Sci.
A presidential system does not have to have two parties. Per Duverger’s Law it’s a function of single member districts with first-past-the-post elections. Legislative elections, and presidential elections, can be, and are, done differently. I expect a committee of Poly Sci profs could write a much-improved constitution. The bitch would be creating a process for them to do so. And I fear there would always be a tradeoff between efficiency and risk of authoritarianism.
@Scott:
@just nutha:
et al
A charming thought, but as I’m sure those here who’ve been involved in actual legislative-type gummint can attest, the odds that your “democratically elected representative”™
actually seeing your letter on their desk approaches infinitesimal. The odds of their actually giving a flying frack about your opinion approaches a “milli-micro-pico fruck, ” which I’m informed equals the amounts of flying fracks that Trump gives about anything/anyone not named Donald J. Trump.
@Daryl:
Taking the money out of politics, including un-doing Citizens United, would solve so many problems. You think you can muster the remaking of our system of government? Well heck, getting rid of the money should be easy.
I forgot to mention:
The electoral college ought to be killed, drawn, quartered, cremated, and shot into the other end of the universe.
@gVOR10:
The reality is that there’s only a tiny difference between Roberts on one hand and Alito/Thomas on the other and it’s that Roberts can make it seem like he’s not a delusional looney tune. But it’s just marketing. Roberts is absolutely 100% A-OK with all of this, he’d just like it done a with a little more order and less shouting.
When the history of this era gets written, John Roberts is going to be remembered like Benedict Arnold.
@Neil Hudelson:
Imagine what it’s going to be like when the weather gets better across most of the U.S. and more people are willing to protest cause it’s not cold or oddly rainy. Add in that Trump is almost certainly going to send a citizen to El Salvador and it wouldn’t surprise me if he decided to make it someone showy just to be an idiot.
In any event, I have a distinct feeling that time is running out. Just watching the stock market makes me think that a whole bunch of people have disconnected from reality and are going to be absolutely fucking shocked when the whole thing crashes down.
@gVOR10:
The reality is that there’s only a tiny difference between Roberts on one hand and Alito/Thomas on the other and it’s that Roberts can make it seem like he’s not a delusional looney tune. But it’s just marketing. Roberts is absolutely 100% A-OK with all of this, he’d just like it done a with a little more order and less shouting.
When the history of this era gets written, John Roberts is going to be remembered like Benedict Arnold.
@Neil Hudelson:
Imagine what it’s going to be like when the weather gets better across most of the U.S. and more people are willing to protest cause it’s not cold or oddly rainy. Add in that Trump is almost certainly going to send a citizen to El Salvador and it wouldn’t surprise me if he decided to make it someone showy just to be an idiot.
In any event, I have a distinct feeling that time is running out. Just watching the stock market makes me think that a whole bunch of people have disconnected from reality and are going to be absolutely fucking shocked when the whole thing crashes down.
@Neil Hudelson:
The triggering event is likely to be them f’ing up SS. Miss one check, I beg of you…
@DK:
“Unlimited power in the hands of limited people always leads to cruelty.”
― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956
@DrDaveT:
I believe the “usual process for enforcement” is the court turns it over to the DOJ. That is, to the US Marshal service, the Bureau of Prisons, whatever organization seizes financial assets, etc. The weakness in our checks-and-balances system is that both the judicial and legislative branches depend on the executive actually enforcing the laws and court orders.
Republicans are essentially betting that Democrats won’t be as shitty as them, as shitty as they are, and won’t deport them to El Salvadoran jails for thought crimes in 2028.
They’re right. That’d be unconstitutional. And super icky. Norms, constitutionally protected norms about protected speech shouldn’t be fucked with. First amendment protected speech. Are y’all insane?
I don’t want to live in a police state – deporting thought criminals.
Trump is seemingly okay, on board with stiking native born Americans into a foreign prison. People who disagree with him.
The problem with opening this insane option is that could be used against you…
@Daryl:
Sure. But parliamentary systems are also keeping the far-right out of power in places like Germany. Brexit was a massive self-own, and not directly attributable to the fact that system is parliamentary.
To a degree, sure. But the Constitution is not blameless. The EC gave us Trump in the first place. The Constitution is why the GOP dominates the Senate disproportionately to their actual power. The Constitution is why the EC+Senate+dumb term lengths from the Constitution are why SCOTUS is 6-3 conservative, even though that does not reflect broader society.
I could go on.
The Constitution is not blameless in our current predicament.
Truly it’s good to be king, although Charles I, Louis XVI, and Nicholas II might disagree.
@Steven L. Taylor:
110% THIS!
I know you said you could go one Steven. I also think there is one other key issue with the Consitution that needs to be called out as directly tied to all of this:
The amendment process, designed for the country as it stood in 1785, has made it all but impossible to fix the challenges that you have laid out above. Meaning that we are stuck with a set of ground rules that, if you are willing to ignore norms, can be easily gamed and lead to existentially bad outcomes.