politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
This shit is going down today. There are three possibilities:
If they don't get a stay and they make some kind of half hearted "bad man Bukele won't cooperate" argument, I don't think Xinis will buy that, and they'll be back to #3.
Psst. Justice Roberts granted the stay.
Americans and America are fucked that much more.
Yeah. All by himself too; did not refer to the rest of the court. And his order appeared after the plaintiff filed the response that was requested.
That's not half-hearted. It's a very, very real possibility especially if Bukele wants to cozy up to Trump and give him an out.
"Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia is a citizen of El Salvador and is currently in our custody awaiting trial on criminal charges for crimes he committed before he fled the country to escape justice. He will remain in the custody of El Salvador until he is tried for those charges and any sentence imposed on him has been completed. He will not be sent back to the United States."
From there, Trump can easily make a "good faith" argument that he tried to have the citizen returned but was unable to secure his release. His MAGA base will eat it up, and it's very likely that the Supreme Court would dismiss the case based on lack of jurisdiction and lack of enforcement mechanism. Even if they don't, any ruling would be a symbolic gesture at best and carry as much practical weight as me making the same demands from my front porch.
Remember, El Salvador has absolutely no reason to send this guy back. Bukele is under no circumstances going to defy Trump's wishes when he's actively trying to cozy up to Trump. If anything, he's only going to run cover for Trump.
We don't have to like it, but that's the reality of the situation. There is no method of enforcement. If El Salvador is unwilling to send him back, he's staying there. And the Supreme Court could very well recognize that reality. They could easily vote 9-0 that Trump was in the wrong but dismiss Xinis' order anyway due to it being unenforceable.
Has Bukele said this? Has the administration made any attempt to return him?
It is possible that they will stonewall, but it is important to force them to do so rather than obeying in advance.
No, he has not said that, and I agree that it's important to get it on the record for a variety of reasons.
I'm just saying that there is a very likely possibility of this being the end result, even if only so Bukele can cozy up to Trump, and that if he does say this, the geopolitical reality of the situation is that it would essentially be the end of the case.
If they managed to get Bukele to make such a statement, and they got it into the district court record, I would guess that Xinis would back off and not press contempt.
If I had to predict the supreme court on this pending appeal, I'm going with 7-2 to deny the stay, with Thomas and Alito dissenting.
This case is moving so fast because the DOJ career lawyer basically conceded the government's entire case at the hearing last week. The normal rule is that you can't introduce evidence and arguments on appeal if you didn't raise them at the district court. The government is now furiously trying to bypass that in these appeals.
So I think some of the conservative justices will be upset with that, and they will also not want to concede power from the courts to the executive branch. They want that power for themselves.
The US is paying them to house those prisoners though, which makes it harder to pass the buck onto Bukele. Not to say they won’t try that argument, but this isn’t just a situation of us dropping him off and saying bye.
They're paying $6 million. At a geopolitical level, that would barely qualify as a rounding error on one of their budgets.
That, and we don't know the details of the agreement that Trump made with El Salvador. This is Trump we are talking about. He very well could have made a deal to give Bukele $6 million and dump a bunch of random gang members to rot away in CECOT while getting nothing in return and having no recourse if mistakes are made. This is a Trump deal we're talking about after all.
Assuming Trump even wanted to cooperate (spoiler alert: He doesn't), the only leverage is that $6 million payment. And that's assuming that the payment hasn't already been made. If Trump handed over a plane full of random people and a $6 million check, it very well could be a case of Trump dropping them off and saying bye.
Agree with what you say, was just pointing out that the 6 million payment gives US courts a little more leverage over holding Trump to bring them back. Assuming the SC doesn’t just punt it anyways.
100% agree that really the supreme Court's decision here is likely to determine how much longer the horrors last.
If things go well, this won't last more than 4 years.
If things go poorly this could be the end of the free world as we know it.
Thankfully, there are two other options in this game theory square that both offer a glimmer of hope even if they suggest a period of darkness.
Edit: the supreme court paused the decision. This represents one of the "other two options" in this game theory square. It's not ideal, but there's still a path forward.
Hastening the slide? We're already there. Everything now is just damage control.