this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2025
275 points (99.6% liked)

politics

22913 readers
3942 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A showdown may be imminent at the Supreme Court now that the Justice Department has hedged again.

A federal judge denied the Justice Department’s request for more time on Friday to explain its plans for returning a man to the U.S. after the government deported him to a notorious prison in El Salvador.

U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis issued a two-page order Friday after Justice Department prosecutors cited a need for a “reasonable period of time to review the Supreme Court’s order,” issued late Thursday that ordered the government to “facilitate” the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the U.S..

all 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dhork@lemmy.world 122 points 4 days ago (3 children)

I hope that judge is pissed off enough to start jailing Administration officials for contempt.

[–] MisterOwl@lemmy.world 52 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Thanks for the laugh, I needed that.

[–] skozzii@lemmy.ca 40 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Imagine how different America would be if they actually held people accountable for their actions and crimes.

[–] barneypiccolo@lemm.ee 32 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I was SCREAMING for it after the Bush administration, but Obama and the rest of weak-willed Dem weenies let them off the hook.

If Obama had shown bold leadership when he needed to, MAGA never could have taken root. If Biden had shown bold leadership after Jan 6, HitlerPig and his henchmen woukd be in either Gitmo or the Supermax, and their followers would all be claiming they were never MAGA.

[–] Freshparsnip@lemm.ee 10 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Republicans are evil. Democrats are useless.

[–] barneypiccolo@lemm.ee 4 points 3 days ago

Very succinct. You said in a few words, what I always need a few paragraphs to say. Nice job.

[–] Parsizzle@lemm.ee 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Genuine question: who exactly would do that? Like I understand their are bailiffs who act as "police" in the courtroom but who would be the ones who physically arrested the Administration officials? The police or other members of the executive branch?

Presumably the Marshalls.

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 18 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Start sending US Marshals to the DOJ to arrest a few higher ups for contempt of court and remind them that the judiciary has a branch of law enforcement too.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago

The US Marshals are actually organized under the DOJ. Meaning they'll just fire any Marshal that obeys that order.

[–] smayonak@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

They teach in school that the court's weakness is that it lacks an enforcement mechanism. It seems that the founding fathers believed that broken judiciaries are balanced by the common person's conscience. This is back when people like Benjamin Franklin was able to influence thousands of literate, land owning Americans through his periodicals.

They did not anticipate that eventually the Russians and oligarchs would create mass influence disinfo campaigns using cable news, email, and social media.

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (2 children)

The US Marshals are the enforcement mechanism

[–] MacAttak8@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago

Controlled by the DOJ and Executive Branch.

[–] smayonak@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

https://theharvardpoliticalreview.com/supreme-court-reform-judicial-power-accountability/

They are powerful because the various branches of government follow their rulings. But if the executive doesn't then we have a problem.

[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 39 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Nothing will meaningfully improve until the rich fear for their lives

[–] FenrirIII@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] Freshparsnip@lemm.ee 8 points 3 days ago

I want to see Luigi run for office, since the precedent has been set that running for office is a way to escape consequences for crimes

[–] ryper@lemmy.ca 56 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (3 children)

It's ridiculous that the US government is paying a foreign government to detain prisoners on its behalf and seems to be claiming it didn't put anything in the contract about a way to get the prisoners back.

[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 52 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I strongly suspect that this was all by design. If they jail them in US prisons, it's very easy for them to be released. When they're being held by a foreign government, it's very difficult to force them to release them, especially when they know the president doesn't actually want them released in the first place. I'd even wager there's an under the table agreement that they won't release them, even if pressed.

[–] forrgott@lemm.ee 14 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Well, it's not even under the table. The vile price of shit warden publicly said something to the effect of, "Yeah, none of them are ever seeing their homes again"

[–] Mirshe@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago

There's also the fact that the prisons are NOTABLY deadly. So if the administration winds up actually being forced to release a person, they can just have an "unfortunate accident" and now that's ANOTHER court case to determine whether they have to ship the body back (which again, is easily handled by "well it's in one of these mass graves.")

[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 28 points 4 days ago

Given that they admitted he was detained by mistake in the first place, I think "evil" is the word I'd use.

[–] barneypiccolo@lemm.ee 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

It just temporary, until they finish the 30,000 bed facility theyre building in Guantanamo.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Suuure. Temporary. Just like when IT strung that wire across the ceiling...

[–] grysbok@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 days ago

And like when I had to move offices to make room for a temporarily displaced group that's still there 2 years later. They were supposed to be gone by summer.

[–] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 3 days ago
[–] Freshparsnip@lemm.ee 6 points 3 days ago

Is it time to pack it in and admit that Trump is a dictator yet?

[–] selkiesidhe@lemm.ee 18 points 4 days ago (1 children)

SCrOTUS is spineless. They will kiss his slimy ass.

[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 15 points 4 days ago (1 children)

It's what they were appointed to do.

When the pendulum swings back and we put the fascists to the wall we can't forget SCOTUS

[–] Krackalot@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I really hope you're joking. We shouldn't advocate shooting fascists if they are in custody. That's a waste of bullets. Drown the fuckers in a pillow case instead.

[–] nulluser@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Waste of a perfectly good pillow case. 🤨

[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 12 points 4 days ago (2 children)

How do we know he’s even alive? They were so sure he’d never go home they may have simply killed the prisoner.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 15 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Possible. The other possibility is that they absolutely do not want a first hand account of what's going on inside to be available to the press.

[–] barneypiccolo@lemm.ee 17 points 4 days ago

ABC just had a reporter in another part of the prison, and they pack 80 prisoners to a cell, with 2 toilets, and NOTHING else.

That's the part of the prison they didnt mind showing on international television.

[–] barneypiccolo@lemm.ee 8 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Because if he were dead, they'd happily announce it, just to make the Libs scream, and scare the shit out of any undocumented people.

Right now he's just Schroedinger's Political Prisoner.

[–] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 10 points 4 days ago

Uh oh! A VERY STERN LETTER is ABOUT to be MAYBE Written!

[–] MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world 10 points 4 days ago (2 children)

They'll return him in a body bag.

[–] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago

Nah, he'll be the next one sent to that prison and never be seen again.

[–] barneypiccolo@lemm.ee 1 points 4 days ago

They wouldnt waste money on a body bag.