23 ms·

What happens when the US starts "deporting" US citizens to the custody of foreign strongmen? As is he is repeatedly saying he intends to do. Would anything chan

What happens when the US starts "deporting" US citizens to the custody of foreign strongmen? As is he is repeatedly saying he intends to do. Would anything change, or will it continue the same way—SCOTUS orders Trump to "facilitate" citizens' access to "due process"; foreign Trump affiliate says "no", and that's that. (?) - "President Trump just said he was open to sending American citizens convicted of violent crimes to President Bukele’s prison in El Salvador. Trump had a similar response when Bukele first offered to jail convicted American criminals in February. “I’m all for it,” Trump said, adding that his attorney general was studying whether the idea was legally feasible. “If it’s a homegrown criminal, I have no problem, no,” he said, adding: “I’m talking about violent people. I’m talking about really bad people.”"

ty6853 2y ago
The US has both deported and extra-judicially drone striked innocent US citizens. Your theory has already been tested.
stego-tech 2y ago
That's correct. The Constitution as-written gives the Judiciary no ability to implement its own orders, forcing it to rely on the Legislative or Executive Branches to enforce compliance. With the Legislature abdicating its own checks and balances, it effectively gives the Executive complete control. The only remaining options aren't pleasant, but the short-list: * The Legislative Branch turns on the Executive and begins stripping its power through laws or impeachment (unlikely, given the sycophants in both parties who championed this outcome) * States secede from the USA, citing the lack of legitimacy of the current Federal Government in its flouting of the Constitution (unlikely, given the spineless cowards in most State Governments more preoccupied with becoming the next President or Senator themselves) * The people revolt, waging a civil war against themselves and finding a new path forward I really don't think most folks understand how bad this is. People like me are accused of being hyperbolic or alarmist, but the current situation really is equivalent to a CEO firing his Board (Congress), locking out auditors (the Judiciary), and jailing dissident workers or contractors (this case), all while letting his buddies raid the accounts under the guise of reducing inefficiencies (DOGE and Technoligarchs). The closest parallels really are Nazi Germany, Maoist China, and Stalin's Russia, and none of those had a "happy ending". In the short term, trust is obliterated. In the long term, we're a crumbling empire who has to sacrifice far more than we will ever benefit, just to get an equivalent seat at the table again. For the next several generations (inclusive of the current ones), times are going to be bleak.
- generj 2y ago
  The Judiciary can deputize anyone to be their Marshals, if the executive prevents the existing Marshals to faithfully follow legal court orders. If that fails, the Judiciary could also in theory declare the executive in breach of their oaths and urge the military, state and other federal officials, and the public at large to follow their own oaths to the Constitution. But at that point it’s just a civil war with more legitimacy. It’s still the right move for the court to make in the situation where they can no longer force the executive to follow the law.
- mapt 2y ago
  In many countries, the refusal to pass budget authorization automatically removes the current leader. In ours it merely robs them of resources. It's very difficult understanding what Schumer was thinking a few weeks back, beyond personal cowardice.

ty6853 2y ago

The US has both deported and extra-judicially drone striked innocent US citizens. Your theory has already been tested.

stego-tech 2y ago

That's correct. The Constitution as-written gives the Judiciary no ability to implement its own orders, forcing it to rely on the Legislative or Executive Branches to enforce compliance. With the Legislature abdicating its own checks and balances, it effectively gives the Executive complete control. The only remaining options aren't pleasant, but the short-list: * The Legislative Branch turns on the Executive and begins stripping its power through laws or impeachment (unlikely, given the sycophants in both parties who championed this outcome) * States secede from the USA, citing the lack of legitimacy of the current Federal Government in its flouting of the Constitution (unlikely, given the spineless cowards in most State Governments more preoccupied with becoming the next President or Senator themselves) * The people revolt, waging a civil war against themselves and finding a new path forward I really don't think most folks understand how bad this is. People like me are accused of being hyperbolic or alarmist, but the current situation really is equivalent to a CEO firing his Board (Congress), locking out auditors (the Judiciary), and jailing dissident workers or contractors (this case), all while letting his buddies raid the accounts under the guise of reducing inefficiencies (DOGE and Technoligarchs). The closest parallels really are Nazi Germany, Maoist China, and Stalin's Russia, and none of those had a "happy ending". In the short term, trust is obliterated. In the long term, we're a crumbling empire who has to sacrifice far more than we will ever benefit, just to get an equivalent seat at the table again. For the next several generations (inclusive of the current ones), times are going to be bleak.

generj 2y ago
The Judiciary can deputize anyone to be their Marshals, if the executive prevents the existing Marshals to faithfully follow legal court orders. If that fails, the Judiciary could also in theory declare the executive in breach of their oaths and urge the military, state and other federal officials, and the public at large to follow their own oaths to the Constitution. But at that point it’s just a civil war with more legitimacy. It’s still the right move for the court to make in the situation where they can no longer force the executive to follow the law.
mapt 2y ago
In many countries, the refusal to pass budget authorization automatically removes the current leader. In ours it merely robs them of resources. It's very difficult understanding what Schumer was thinking a few weeks back, beyond personal cowardice.