4 ms·

A lawsuit is never meaningless. One doesn't stop trying to enforce the law because a criminal is persistent. And someone that willingly breaks a law for immoral

A lawsuit is never meaningless. One doesn't stop trying to enforce the law because a criminal is persistent. And someone that willingly breaks a law for immoral reasons and without being willing to face the consequences is a criminal.

toomuchtodo 2y ago
I agree that you must go through the motions to push to the maximum extent of judicial recourse. But, depending on your threat model, you must be prepared if recourse through the legal framework is not forthcoming. An injunction or favorable determination by a court is of little use if you're dead, for example (lots of other examples of irreversible harm, which needs no enumeration here). Trump's border czar [Tom Homan]: "I don't care what the judges think" - https://www.axios.com/2025/03/17/tom-homan-deportation-flights-trump-court-order https://www.axios.com/2025/03/17/tom-homan-deportation-fligh... - March 17th, 2025
outer_web 2y ago
I would add that pursuing legal recourse is the only way to reach that Supreme Court decision where either the administration is slapped down or the courts relinquish their Art III powers. Until then we're only approaching a potential constitutional crisis, where the administration has plenty of opportunity to back down.
- throwaway5752 2y ago
  A de facto surrendering of Art III is the same as the presumptive crisis. We are here, though, it's no longer a hypothetical to maneuver around.
  - outer_web 2y ago
    It is not in front of SCOTUS at the moment so we aren't "here" yet and the lower courts have not been surrendering to executive power.
    - Forgeties79 2y ago
      A lower court just declared their treatment and deportation of Venezuelans as unlawful and it changed literally nothing. They’re still doing it. We’ve seen this several times already. Unless enforcement happens, they simply don’t stop.
      - outer_web 2y ago
        Is that what happened? I am only aware of an injunction against additional deportation flights. There is some uncertainty about the administration's justifications for not complying - they may be entirely correct that the terrorist designation changes the calculus. And injunctions are far, far from the point at which things are "declared unlawful".

toomuchtodo 2y ago

I agree that you must go through the motions to push to the maximum extent of judicial recourse. But, depending on your threat model, you must be prepared if recourse through the legal framework is not forthcoming. An injunction or favorable determination by a court is of little use if you're dead, for example (lots of other examples of irreversible harm, which needs no enumeration here). Trump's border czar [Tom Homan]: "I don't care what the judges think" - https://www.axios.com/2025/03/17/tom-homan-deportation-flights-trump-court-order https://www.axios.com/2025/03/17/tom-homan-deportation-fligh... - March 17th, 2025

outer_web 2y ago

I would add that pursuing legal recourse is the only way to reach that Supreme Court decision where either the administration is slapped down or the courts relinquish their Art III powers. Until then we're only approaching a potential constitutional crisis, where the administration has plenty of opportunity to back down.

throwaway5752 2y ago
A de facto surrendering of Art III is the same as the presumptive crisis. We are here, though, it's no longer a hypothetical to maneuver around.
- outer_web 2y ago
  It is not in front of SCOTUS at the moment so we aren't "here" yet and the lower courts have not been surrendering to executive power.
  - Forgeties79 2y ago
    A lower court just declared their treatment and deportation of Venezuelans as unlawful and it changed literally nothing. They’re still doing it. We’ve seen this several times already. Unless enforcement happens, they simply don’t stop.
    - outer_web 2y ago
      Is that what happened? I am only aware of an injunction against additional deportation flights. There is some uncertainty about the administration's justifications for not complying - they may be entirely correct that the terrorist designation changes the calculus. And injunctions are far, far from the point at which things are "declared unlawful".