Prior Current Thread —> US Sends Immigrants to Salvadoran Prison

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 359
  • Views: 6K
  • Politics 
nycfan said:


IMG_5730.jpeg
Click to expand...

I realize that many here believe that most any judge has the power to stop US deportation flights. If that is true, then it would it not be possible for most any judge to completely nullify the presidency of Trump or really any president they disagree with or dislike?
 
ZenMode said:
I realize that many here believe that most any judge has the power to stop US deportation flights. If that is true, then it would it not be possible for most any judge to completely nullify the presidency of Trump or really any president they disagree with or dislike?
Click to expand...
Look at Judge Kaczmaryk, for example, and notice how the Biden Administration immediately appealed his rulings. Appeals Courts can overturn or stay application of the district court order if they think the district court judge was in error, and frequently do so. There is a legal process in place (that is hobbled by being too slow at times) and the process is the protection against overreach.
 
ZenMode said:
I realize that many here believe that most any judge has the power to stop US deportation flights. If that is true, then it would it not be possible for most any judge to completely nullify the presidency of Trump or really any president they disagree with or dislike?
Click to expand...
Sure. That does happen. And that is why we have appellate courts - to rein in judges who decide in a way contrary to the constitution (of course sometimes the Supreme Court does as well, but there has to be a final word at some point)

The real question is whether you want the president to be his own check on his power or whether you want a separate branch to be a check. The same issue is playing out in Israel right now (although there, the courts have even more independence). A good democratic system involves checks and balances and doesn’t allow the concentration of power in one branch.

If the courts think Trump is acting outside of the constitution, then they have the right to so hold. If the decision is unpopular enough, you can always try to amend the constitution.
 
Calheel said:
Sure. That does happen. And that is why we have appellate courts - to rein in judges who decide in a way contrary to the constitution (of course sometimes the Supreme Court does as well, but there has to be a final word at some point)

The real question is whether you want the president to be his own check on his power or whether you want a separate branch to be a check. The same issue is playing out in Israel right now (although there, the courts have even more independence). A good democratic system involves checks and balances and doesn’t allow the concentration of power in one branch.

If the courts think Trump is acting outside of the constitution, then they have the right to so hold. If the decision is unpopular enough, you can always try to amend the constitution.
Click to expand...
Well, what doesn't happen in 99.9% of cases is a judge trying to 'nullify" a presidency. In fact, judges used to be limited in what they could do, because of random case assignments. Then they found the Amarillo loophole.
 
Calheel said:
Sure. That does happen. And that is why we have appellate courts - to rein in judges who decide in a way contrary to the constitution (of course sometimes the Supreme Court does as well, but there has to be a final word at some point)

The real question is whether you want the president to be his own check on his power or whether you want a separate branch to be a check. The same issue is playing out in Israel right now (although there, the courts have even more independence). A good democratic system involves checks and balances and doesn’t allow the concentration of power in one branch.

If the courts think Trump is acting outside of the constitution, then they have the right to so hold. If the decision is unpopular enough, you can always try to amend the constitution.
Click to expand...
I definitely want checks and balances and all Presidents test, to varying degrees, their Executive powers. Trump has done it a lot in a short amount of time and he's probably playing games to a point - Judge says to turn the planes around and no new flights to El Salvador. The written order does not mention turning planes around, so Trump admin says "We aren't disobeying. We're just following what was written."
 
Mulberry Heel said:
I get the impression that even if many of our board Trumpers are finally arrested by Trump 2.0 and sent to a gulag here in the US of A, even while they're rotting away in their cell they'll continue to somehow blindly defend the actions of this administration. "Well, they must have had a good reason for arresting and imprisoning me without a trial. I don't know what it is yet, but I'll think of something here soon!"
Click to expand...
Reminds me of Kafka's short story In The Penal Colony...
 


[No, POTUS doesn’t have such authority but we will have to wait for the courts to sort it out]
 
nycfan said:


Why would we do that?
Click to expand...

Trump admin considers giving up NATO command that has been exclusively American since Eisenhower​

The move is being discussed as part of a possible restructuring of combatant commands that would help the Defense Department cut costs.

“… The Pentagon is undertaking a significant restructuring of the U.S. military’s combatant commands and headquarters. And one of the plans under consideration, the two defense officials said, would involve the U.S. giving up the role of NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe — known within military parlance as the SACEUR.

The general now in this role, who also serves as the head of U.S. European Command, has been the primary commander overseeing support to Ukraine in its war against Russia. It is not clear how long such a reorganization could take, and it could by modified by the time it is complete. Congress could also weigh in, using the power of the purse should members oppose any aspect of the initiative.

Giving up SACEUR would, if nothing else, be a major symbolic shift in the balance of power in NATO, the alliance that has defined European security and peace since World War II.

“For the United States to give up the role of supreme allied commander of NATO would be seen in Europe as a significant signal of walking away from the alliance,” retired Adm. James Stavridis, who served as SACEUR and head of European Command from 2009 to 2013, said in an email.

“It would be a political mistake of epic proportion, and once we give it up, they are not going to give it back," he wrote.

"We would lose an enormous amount of influence within NATO, and this would be seen, correctly, as probably the first step toward leaving the Alliance altogether.” …”

www.nbcnews.com

Trump admin considers giving up NATO command that has been exclusively American since Eisenhower

The move is being discussed as part of a possible restructuring of combatant commands that would help the Defense Department cut costs.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com
 

Trump administration freezes $175 million in federal funding to Penn​


www.thedp.com

Trump administration freezes $175 million in federal funding to Penn

According to a White House tweet, Wednesday's decision is a result of Penn's
www.thedp.com www.thedp.com

“President and 1968 Wharton graduate Donald Trump's administration announced that it would be freezing over $175 million in federal funding to Penn on March 19, citing the University's failure to bar transgender athletes from women's sports.

According to a White House tweet, Wednesday's decision is a result of Penn's "policies forcing women to compete with men in sports." The funding pause follows a Feb. 5 executive order signed by Trump threatening to remove federal funding from universities that allow the participation of biological men in women’s sports.

“This is just a taste of what could be coming down the pipe for Penn,” one senior Trump administration official told Fox News. …”
 
nycfan said:

Trump administration freezes $175 million in federal funding to Penn​


www.thedp.com

Trump administration freezes $175 million in federal funding to Penn

According to a White House tweet, Wednesday's decision is a result of Penn's
www.thedp.com www.thedp.com

“President and 1968 Wharton graduate Donald Trump's administration announced that it would be freezing over $175 million in federal funding to Penn on March 19, citing the University's failure to bar transgender athletes from women's sports.

According to a White House tweet, Wednesday's decision is a result of Penn's "policies forcing women to compete with men in sports." The funding pause follows a Feb. 5 executive order signed by Trump threatening to remove federal funding from universities that allow the participation of biological men in women’s sports.

“This is just a taste of what could be coming down the pipe for Penn,” one senior Trump administration official told Fox News. …”
Click to expand...
“… In a statement to The Daily Pennsylvanian, a senior White House official wrote that the funding freeze was not a result of an ongoing Title IX investigation into Penn but rather “[an] immediate proactive action to review discretionary funding streams to … universities.”

The official said that the decision to cut funding was made because Penn “infamously permitted a male to compete on its women’s swimming team.”

They added that the cuts would be made to federal funding that Penn receives from the Department of Defense and the Department of Health and Human Services.

… Riley Gaines, an activist and former University of Kentucky swimmer, called the news “serendipitous” in a statement on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. Three years ago, Gaines tied with Thomas in the 200-yard freestyle at the 2022 NCAA championships and subsequently built a career out of campaigning against transgender women’s participation in women’s sports.

In a separate statement on X, 2022 Engineering graduate and former Penn women’s swimmer Paula Scanlan — who has also built a platform speaking out against Thomas' participation in Penn athletics — wrote, "This is what I voted for. More of this." …”
 

War-Torn Congo Has a Deal for Trump: Kick Out Rebels, Get Minerals​

U.S. president’s ally Erik Prince in separate talks to help embattled Congolese government​



“… In a Feb. 8 letter to Trump, Félix Tshisekedi, president of the Democratic Republic of Congo, offered mining opportunities for the U.S. Sovereign Wealth Fund, an entity Trump had launched a few days earlier.

“Your election has ushered in the golden age for America,” Tshisekedi wrote in the letter, which has been seen by The Wall Street Journal.

“Our partnership would provide the U.S. with a strategic advantage by securing critical minerals such as cobalt, lithium, copper and tantalum from the Democratic Republic of Congo.”

In exchange, Tshisekedi asked Trump for a “formal security pact” to help his army defeat M23, a Rwandan-backed rebel group that recently routed Congolese soldiers, United Nations troops and private mercenaries and seized key cities in Congo’s mineral-rich east.

The Congolese letter didn’t specify what kind of military backing it wants from the U.S. A White House official said it doesn’t “provide details on the private correspondence to the president.”

The offer comes at the same time Tshisekedi is in negotiations with Erik Prince, a Trump ally who founded the controversial private-military company then called Blackwater.

If the talks succeed, Prince would help the Congolese government collect and secure taxes from mining operations, according to Congolese and Western officials. …”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top