7 ms·

The First Amendment applies to everyone on US soil, not just citizens. That’s settled law. The government can revoke visas for legitimate immigration violations

The First Amendment applies to everyone on US soil, not just citizens. That’s settled law. The government can revoke visas for legitimate immigration violations, but it’s not allowed to use immigration machinery as a pretext to punish political expression. That’s exactly what they are doing. It looks like the courts will eventually put an end to this [0] but it won’t reverse the damage that’s already been done. I’m generally receptive to point the finger at Google’s intentions but in their defense, administrative subpoenas frequently include non disclosure orders. Google’s own transparency policies have always carved out (industry standard) exceptions for cases where they’re legally prohibited from notifying. [0] https://evrimagaci.org/gpt/judge-rebukes-trump-over-student-deportation-crackdown-505576 https://evrimagaci.org/gpt/judge-rebukes-trump-over-student-...

rootusrootus 6mo ago
> administrative subpoenas frequently include non disclosure orders Which Google definitely knows are not enforceable.
- laughing_man 6mo ago
  When you're a huge company trying to do business in the US (or any country, for that matter) you have to think very, very carefully before you make an enemy of the government. Google could refuse to go along with this stuff and find itself the subject of a big, expensive anti-trust probe.
  - gambiting 6mo ago
    Or more simply, a target of a temper tantrum that suddenly declares them a national risk and orders everyone in the government to stop doing business with them.
    - laughing_man 6mo ago
      Or a tax action where the government sues them for for billions by ruling assumptions Google made are incorrect. That's my point, though. The levers the government has to move businesses are endless.
    - orochimaaru 6mo ago
      Not just temper tantrums. This has been happening since the patriot act. Even during Obama’s term where there were obviously no temper tantrums - telco’s were strong armed into sharing call data with the government. So while the current presidents language is more colorful and entertaining the policy is at least a couple of decades old.
  - rootusrootus 6mo ago
    I think it could easily be argued that the reverse is true. Even Donald Trump would think twice about taking on Google. He might bluster about them on Truth Social, sure, but America is a corporatocracy and I'd put my money on Google. Yes, I know there are examples where he is trying to screw with big corps like Anthropic. But Anthropic is not Google.
    - laughing_man 6mo ago
      I don't think that's true at all. Google would lose billions going head-to-head with Trump and he knows it.
oceanplexian 6mo ago
Technically incorrect, Supreme Court precedent has held that aliens are entitled to lesser First Amendment protections while seeking to enter the United States. You could be on US Soil (i.e. entering customs at an airport) and those protections don't apply. The person in question said he was in Geneva when he received the email from Google. Therefore is a non-US citizen residing outside the country entitled to 1A protections for something they said or did while in the US? I'm not expressing an opinion but I wouldn't take that statement as legal advice.
- Jimmc414 6mo ago
  Yes, someone in customs at an airport can be treated as functionally “at the border” with reduced protections. But you are conflating seeking entry with being present inside the country. That’s the legal line, and the Supreme Court has stated it clearly. “once an alien enters the country, the legal circumstance changes, for the Due Process Clause applies to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.” [0] As for the First Amendment specifically the Supreme court has reversed the deportation order of an Australian labor activist due to alleged Communist Party affiliation, concluding that “freedom of speech and of the press is accorded aliens residing in this country” [1] The Geneva detail doesn’t apply. He was on US soil as a lawful visa holder when he attended the protest. It’s a question of where he was when the government action targeted his protected expression not where he was when Google emailed him. His departure doesn’t retroactively strip the constitutional protections that applied when the conduct occurred. [0] https://law.onecle.com/ussc/533/533us693.html https://law.onecle.com/ussc/533/533us693.html [1] Bridges v. Wixon https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/aliens/ https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/aliens/
  - logifail 6mo ago
    > Yes, someone in customs at an airport can be treated as functionally “at the border” with reduced protections. But you are conflating seeking entry with being present inside the country. That’s the legal line, and the Supreme Court has stated it clearly. At least in terms of being "at the border", United States v. Martinez-Fuerte would appear to disagree. That legal line you mention is both figuratively and literally not at the border; protections are weakened up to 100 miles away.
jmyeet 6mo ago
> ... it’s not allowed to use immigration machinery as a pretext to punish political expression. That’s exactly what they are doing. I agree: this is exactly what the administration is doing. > I’m generally receptive to point the finger at Google’s intentions but in their defense, administrative subpoenas frequently include non disclosure orders. Except immigration aren't allowed to put gag orders on administrative subpoenas [1]: > First, any gag order in these subpoenas has no legal effect; you are free to publicize them and inform the target of the subpoena. and > The agency’s administrative subpoena power is limited, but ICE often uses the subpoenas to obtain more assistance than is legally required This is the key problem. Companies like Google aren't making government agencies go to court to get a subpoena, they're not resisting that subpoena, they're not informing targets when they're legally allowed to and they're giving agencies more assistance than is legally required. I don't think it's asking a lot to expect any platform to only provide the minimum legally required cooperation. [1]: https://www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/app/uploads/drupal/sites/default/files/aclu-kyr-on-ice-administrative-subpoenas-4.17.25.pdf https://www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/app/uploads/drupal/sites...
- Ray20 6mo ago
  > as a pretext to punish political expression I sincerely don't understand why deportation is called a punishment in this discussion. As in any country in the world, US immigration law operates on the principle that a foreigner is granted a PRIVILEGE to be in the US. Or this privilege is denied with no reason whatsoever. Just because it is a PRIVILEGE. When someone is deported for participating in protests, they are still literally in a better position than the BILLIONS of people who want to be in the US but who are denied this privilege without any justification. Why do we think this man was punished by the United States, at the same time thing that the BILLIONS of people the US arbitrarily bans from being in its territory were not punished? Compared to those billions, he rather have been granted the privilege of being on US territory (for a while).
  - greycol 6mo ago
    Even assuming your incorrect framing of immigration as a privilege (You may as well say parents give their kids the privilege of going to play with their friends so grounding is not a punishment) consider the following. It would be a privilege for me to give you a parachute for free. If you jump out of a plane with that privileged parachute, then it turns out to be a backpack with a sheet in it, what are your thoughts? Now you may not necessarily feel the word punishment fits in me giving you a backpack instead of a parachute, but you do see that I'd be the one in the wrong in that situation and that you are considerably worse off than before? I could wax lyrical about how thousands of people are in the air above the ground every day while jumping about, it doesn't change the fact that your position 3000ft in the air is a lot worse than those 2ft of the ground if you don't have the privilege of a free parachute you thought you had.
junofan 6mo ago
Here’s a video of what this guy was involved in (to my best knowledge): https://statements.cornell.edu/2024/20241019-career-fair-disruption-video.cfm https://statements.cornell.edu/2024/20241019-career-fair-dis... I’m a First Amendment absolutist and AFAIK foreign students can protest, but this video shows to me it probably crosses the line into something else. Exactly what, I have no opinion.
- sojournerc 6mo ago
  Yeah, masks and intentionally antagonizing police doesn't scream peaceful protest
  - Terr_ 6mo ago
    It sounds like you're trying to shift the legal goalposts of "peaceful" into something more like "inoffensive" or "respectful" or "polite". For example, you have a First Amendment right to "peacefully" hurl the most awful insults you can think of at a police officer. If that police officer feels "antagonized"--or even if your goal was to hurt their feelings--that does not permit them to abuse the special power of their workplace to attack you. If they try anyway, now that's a real crime.
    - Terr_ 6mo ago
      P.S.: Supposing you went beyond rude, like violating a noise-ordinance with a megaphone, or "littering" with pamphlets, or trespassing to chain yourself to a tree... The First Amendment bars authorities from going: "Ah hah! Now I can sneak in some punches for that shit you said earlier!" No, that's simply not allowed to be part of it. There is no crime where "saying stuff that pissed the policeman off" is an enhancing factor. It's difficult, but that's why we pay them the big bucks for a job that's safer than landscaping or bartending or delivering food. In practice this abuse of authority occurs because we live in an imperfect world... But it's still evil, and we shouldn't accept it or endorse it.
      - herewulf 6mo ago
orochimaaru 6mo ago
Does the government need a reason to revoke a persons visa? First amendment or not, that is the real question. If no reason is needed then whether the first amendment applies or not is moot. There seems to be broad discretion that the government has in revoking visas.
- impossiblefork 6mo ago
  Think like this: in the US you can fire someone for almost any reason, except if it's one of certain forbidden reasons. Similarly, the US government can revoke someone's visa, but they can't revoke someone's visa because of speech protected by the first amendment.
  - Gareth321 6mo ago
    This makes sense but then the outcome of this is all theatrical. What will happen in future is that people have their visas revoked without any comments or reason given. There is no legal requirement to list a reason. It will end up the same as employment law, where people can discriminate and break the law as long as they don't tell the applicant they are doing so.
    - impossiblefork 6mo ago
      Yes, of course this won't have any practical effect, unless people are writing everything down, which I, however, think they often are.
- cycomanic 6mo ago
  No the government can't just revoke a visa because Trump doesn't like your face, the reasons must be based in law and there is the pesky thing called due process that needs to be followed. I am honestly flabbergasted that people think the government can just do willy billy.
  - MichaelRo 6mo ago
    [flagged]
voidfunc 6mo ago
There is no such thing as "settled law" in the US. The Supreme Court can always throw away precedent at any time they choose.
- Jimmc414 6mo ago
  "Settled law" isn't a matter of opinion and it doesn't mean it can't be reversed or overturned. It means the potential legal ambiguity at question has been adjudicated by the Supreme Court (or lower courts without higher court intervention), and that ruling is the operative interpretation that governs how every court below applies the law.
znpy 6mo ago
> The government can revoke visas for legitimate immigration violations, but it’s not allowed to use immigration machinery as a pretext to punish political expression. What is the punishment though? According to the article (written by the same person whose data was subpoenaed) they are still around, alive, safe and sound in geneva, not even formally accused of anything. So far there is only evidence of an investigation. And pro-pal movements arr usually pro-terrorism, so it make sense to investigate.
thuridas 6mo ago
Does this administration care to much about the law? A judge can rule something but they mostly keep doing the same thing. Not to mention the supreme court that is willing to let this happen.
- Gareth321 6mo ago
  > Does this administration care to much about the law? As a European my opinion of Trump could not be any lower, but it is my understanding that they have complied with all court orders to date (with some being contested all the way to the Supreme Court). They are certainly testing the authority limits of various courts and congressional processes, but they have complied with all legal processes to date.
  - nothrabannosir 6mo ago
    Notable exception: the TikTok ban.
    - unselect5917 6mo ago
      [flagged]
      - nobody9999 6mo ago
        >Now if you search for the USS Liberty, you get no results and instead a hardcoded link to a 'holocaust museum' website as the only result. That's a lie. A search[0] shows these as the first three results: USS Liberty incident - Wikipedia [1] USS Liberty incident | Facts, Deaths, & Investigation | Britannica [2] 'We're Fed Up With It': Survivors of the USS Liberty Look for Answers [3] In fact, the entire first page (and much of the second) of search results are specifically about the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty. There are no links to the Holocaust Museum anywhere to be found. Did you make up that lie yourself, or are you just blindly parroting what others tell you to believe? [0] https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ftsa&q=USS+Liberty&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ftsa&q=USS+Liberty&ia=web [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident [2] https://www.britannica.com/event/USS-Liberty-incident https://www.britannica.com/event/USS-Liberty-incident [3] https://www.military.com/daily-news/2022/06/08/were-fed-it-survivors-of-uss-liberty-look-answers-55-years-later.html https://www.military.com/daily-news/2022/06/08/were-fed-it-s... Edit: Apparently (or at least that was claimed here[4]), GP was referring to searches on TikTok, not general web searches. I can neither confirm nor deny as I don't use that cesspit (or any other of those odious sewers). If it is true, it's just another good reason not to use that dumpster fire. [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47792757 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47792757
bean469 6mo ago
> It looks like the courts will eventually put an end to this If that is to happen, who would enforce the rulings? The DOJ is not neutral and will likely abide to the wishes of the Administration
- lobsterthief 6mo ago
  I wouldn’t say “would likely abide”, I would say “will abide” based on their actions. They are nothing but an extension of the Trump administration at this point.
- jasomill 6mo ago
  Ultimately, Congress. But the odds of getting the majority vote in the Republican-controlled House and 2/3 majority vote in the Republican-controlled Senate required to remove Trump from office are unlikely to be any better. At least not until Republican primary voters start voting out pro-Trump Republicans in favor of candidates who don't pledge unwavering loyalty to a President who openly opposes institutions they (the voters) hold dear, like the free market, say, or the Pope. Or just bite the bullet and vote for a Democrat they may agree with less, but trust more.
deIeted 6mo ago
[flagged]
direwolf20 6mo ago
I think settled law may be that it applies to everyone in the US, but the settled reality is that none of the amendments apply to anyone, and more generally, there are no human rights in the US.
- valianteffort 6mo ago
  [dead]
ahhhhnoooo 6mo ago
You are arguing with the ref that the rules say dogs can't play basketball while a dog dunks on you over and over in the background. You think "not allowed to" is something this government will ever abide by?
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]

rootusrootus 6mo ago

> administrative subpoenas frequently include non disclosure orders Which Google definitely knows are not enforceable.

laughing_man 6mo ago
When you're a huge company trying to do business in the US (or any country, for that matter) you have to think very, very carefully before you make an enemy of the government. Google could refuse to go along with this stuff and find itself the subject of a big, expensive anti-trust probe.
- gambiting 6mo ago
  Or more simply, a target of a temper tantrum that suddenly declares them a national risk and orders everyone in the government to stop doing business with them.
  - laughing_man 6mo ago
    Or a tax action where the government sues them for for billions by ruling assumptions Google made are incorrect. That's my point, though. The levers the government has to move businesses are endless.
  - orochimaaru 6mo ago
    Not just temper tantrums. This has been happening since the patriot act. Even during Obama’s term where there were obviously no temper tantrums - telco’s were strong armed into sharing call data with the government. So while the current presidents language is more colorful and entertaining the policy is at least a couple of decades old.
- rootusrootus 6mo ago
  I think it could easily be argued that the reverse is true. Even Donald Trump would think twice about taking on Google. He might bluster about them on Truth Social, sure, but America is a corporatocracy and I'd put my money on Google. Yes, I know there are examples where he is trying to screw with big corps like Anthropic. But Anthropic is not Google.
  - laughing_man 6mo ago
    I don't think that's true at all. Google would lose billions going head-to-head with Trump and he knows it.

oceanplexian 6mo ago

Technically incorrect, Supreme Court precedent has held that aliens are entitled to lesser First Amendment protections while seeking to enter the United States. You could be on US Soil (i.e. entering customs at an airport) and those protections don't apply. The person in question said he was in Geneva when he received the email from Google. Therefore is a non-US citizen residing outside the country entitled to 1A protections for something they said or did while in the US? I'm not expressing an opinion but I wouldn't take that statement as legal advice.

Jimmc414 6mo ago
Yes, someone in customs at an airport can be treated as functionally “at the border” with reduced protections. But you are conflating seeking entry with being present inside the country. That’s the legal line, and the Supreme Court has stated it clearly. “once an alien enters the country, the legal circumstance changes, for the Due Process Clause applies to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.” [0] As for the First Amendment specifically the Supreme court has reversed the deportation order of an Australian labor activist due to alleged Communist Party affiliation, concluding that “freedom of speech and of the press is accorded aliens residing in this country” [1] The Geneva detail doesn’t apply. He was on US soil as a lawful visa holder when he attended the protest. It’s a question of where he was when the government action targeted his protected expression not where he was when Google emailed him. His departure doesn’t retroactively strip the constitutional protections that applied when the conduct occurred. [0] https://law.onecle.com/ussc/533/533us693.html https://law.onecle.com/ussc/533/533us693.html [1] Bridges v. Wixon https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/aliens/ https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/aliens/
- logifail 6mo ago
  > Yes, someone in customs at an airport can be treated as functionally “at the border” with reduced protections. But you are conflating seeking entry with being present inside the country. That’s the legal line, and the Supreme Court has stated it clearly. At least in terms of being "at the border", United States v. Martinez-Fuerte would appear to disagree. That legal line you mention is both figuratively and literally not at the border; protections are weakened up to 100 miles away.

jmyeet 6mo ago

> ... it’s not allowed to use immigration machinery as a pretext to punish political expression. That’s exactly what they are doing. I agree: this is exactly what the administration is doing. > I’m generally receptive to point the finger at Google’s intentions but in their defense, administrative subpoenas frequently include non disclosure orders. Except immigration aren't allowed to put gag orders on administrative subpoenas [1]: > First, any gag order in these subpoenas has no legal effect; you are free to publicize them and inform the target of the subpoena. and > The agency’s administrative subpoena power is limited, but ICE often uses the subpoenas to obtain more assistance than is legally required This is the key problem. Companies like Google aren't making government agencies go to court to get a subpoena, they're not resisting that subpoena, they're not informing targets when they're legally allowed to and they're giving agencies more assistance than is legally required. I don't think it's asking a lot to expect any platform to only provide the minimum legally required cooperation. [1]: https://www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/app/uploads/drupal/sites/default/files/aclu-kyr-on-ice-administrative-subpoenas-4.17.25.pdf https://www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/app/uploads/drupal/sites...

Ray20 6mo ago
> as a pretext to punish political expression I sincerely don't understand why deportation is called a punishment in this discussion. As in any country in the world, US immigration law operates on the principle that a foreigner is granted a PRIVILEGE to be in the US. Or this privilege is denied with no reason whatsoever. Just because it is a PRIVILEGE. When someone is deported for participating in protests, they are still literally in a better position than the BILLIONS of people who want to be in the US but who are denied this privilege without any justification. Why do we think this man was punished by the United States, at the same time thing that the BILLIONS of people the US arbitrarily bans from being in its territory were not punished? Compared to those billions, he rather have been granted the privilege of being on US territory (for a while).
- greycol 6mo ago
  Even assuming your incorrect framing of immigration as a privilege (You may as well say parents give their kids the privilege of going to play with their friends so grounding is not a punishment) consider the following. It would be a privilege for me to give you a parachute for free. If you jump out of a plane with that privileged parachute, then it turns out to be a backpack with a sheet in it, what are your thoughts? Now you may not necessarily feel the word punishment fits in me giving you a backpack instead of a parachute, but you do see that I'd be the one in the wrong in that situation and that you are considerably worse off than before? I could wax lyrical about how thousands of people are in the air above the ground every day while jumping about, it doesn't change the fact that your position 3000ft in the air is a lot worse than those 2ft of the ground if you don't have the privilege of a free parachute you thought you had.

junofan 6mo ago

Here’s a video of what this guy was involved in (to my best knowledge): https://statements.cornell.edu/2024/20241019-career-fair-disruption-video.cfm https://statements.cornell.edu/2024/20241019-career-fair-dis... I’m a First Amendment absolutist and AFAIK foreign students can protest, but this video shows to me it probably crosses the line into something else. Exactly what, I have no opinion.

sojournerc 6mo ago
Yeah, masks and intentionally antagonizing police doesn't scream peaceful protest
- Terr_ 6mo ago
  It sounds like you're trying to shift the legal goalposts of "peaceful" into something more like "inoffensive" or "respectful" or "polite". For example, you have a First Amendment right to "peacefully" hurl the most awful insults you can think of at a police officer. If that police officer feels "antagonized"--or even if your goal was to hurt their feelings--that does not permit them to abuse the special power of their workplace to attack you. If they try anyway, now that's a real crime.
  - Terr_ 6mo ago
    P.S.: Supposing you went beyond rude, like violating a noise-ordinance with a megaphone, or "littering" with pamphlets, or trespassing to chain yourself to a tree... The First Amendment bars authorities from going: "Ah hah! Now I can sneak in some punches for that shit you said earlier!" No, that's simply not allowed to be part of it. There is no crime where "saying stuff that pissed the policeman off" is an enhancing factor. It's difficult, but that's why we pay them the big bucks for a job that's safer than landscaping or bartending or delivering food. In practice this abuse of authority occurs because we live in an imperfect world... But it's still evil, and we shouldn't accept it or endorse it.
    - herewulf 6mo ago

orochimaaru 6mo ago

Does the government need a reason to revoke a persons visa? First amendment or not, that is the real question. If no reason is needed then whether the first amendment applies or not is moot. There seems to be broad discretion that the government has in revoking visas.

impossiblefork 6mo ago
Think like this: in the US you can fire someone for almost any reason, except if it's one of certain forbidden reasons. Similarly, the US government can revoke someone's visa, but they can't revoke someone's visa because of speech protected by the first amendment.
- Gareth321 6mo ago
  This makes sense but then the outcome of this is all theatrical. What will happen in future is that people have their visas revoked without any comments or reason given. There is no legal requirement to list a reason. It will end up the same as employment law, where people can discriminate and break the law as long as they don't tell the applicant they are doing so.
  - impossiblefork 6mo ago
    Yes, of course this won't have any practical effect, unless people are writing everything down, which I, however, think they often are.
cycomanic 6mo ago
No the government can't just revoke a visa because Trump doesn't like your face, the reasons must be based in law and there is the pesky thing called due process that needs to be followed. I am honestly flabbergasted that people think the government can just do willy billy.
- MichaelRo 6mo ago
  [flagged]

voidfunc 6mo ago

There is no such thing as "settled law" in the US. The Supreme Court can always throw away precedent at any time they choose.

Jimmc414 6mo ago
"Settled law" isn't a matter of opinion and it doesn't mean it can't be reversed or overturned. It means the potential legal ambiguity at question has been adjudicated by the Supreme Court (or lower courts without higher court intervention), and that ruling is the operative interpretation that governs how every court below applies the law.

znpy 6mo ago

> The government can revoke visas for legitimate immigration violations, but it’s not allowed to use immigration machinery as a pretext to punish political expression. What is the punishment though? According to the article (written by the same person whose data was subpoenaed) they are still around, alive, safe and sound in geneva, not even formally accused of anything. So far there is only evidence of an investigation. And pro-pal movements arr usually pro-terrorism, so it make sense to investigate.

thuridas 6mo ago

Does this administration care to much about the law? A judge can rule something but they mostly keep doing the same thing. Not to mention the supreme court that is willing to let this happen.

Gareth321 6mo ago
> Does this administration care to much about the law? As a European my opinion of Trump could not be any lower, but it is my understanding that they have complied with all court orders to date (with some being contested all the way to the Supreme Court). They are certainly testing the authority limits of various courts and congressional processes, but they have complied with all legal processes to date.
- nothrabannosir 6mo ago
  Notable exception: the TikTok ban.
  - unselect5917 6mo ago
    [flagged]
    - nobody9999 6mo ago
      >Now if you search for the USS Liberty, you get no results and instead a hardcoded link to a 'holocaust museum' website as the only result. That's a lie. A search[0] shows these as the first three results: USS Liberty incident - Wikipedia [1] USS Liberty incident | Facts, Deaths, & Investigation | Britannica [2] 'We're Fed Up With It': Survivors of the USS Liberty Look for Answers [3] In fact, the entire first page (and much of the second) of search results are specifically about the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty. There are no links to the Holocaust Museum anywhere to be found. Did you make up that lie yourself, or are you just blindly parroting what others tell you to believe? [0] https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ftsa&q=USS+Liberty&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ftsa&q=USS+Liberty&ia=web [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident [2] https://www.britannica.com/event/USS-Liberty-incident https://www.britannica.com/event/USS-Liberty-incident [3] https://www.military.com/daily-news/2022/06/08/were-fed-it-survivors-of-uss-liberty-look-answers-55-years-later.html https://www.military.com/daily-news/2022/06/08/were-fed-it-s... Edit: Apparently (or at least that was claimed here[4]), GP was referring to searches on TikTok, not general web searches. I can neither confirm nor deny as I don't use that cesspit (or any other of those odious sewers). If it is true, it's just another good reason not to use that dumpster fire. [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47792757 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47792757

bean469 6mo ago

> It looks like the courts will eventually put an end to this If that is to happen, who would enforce the rulings? The DOJ is not neutral and will likely abide to the wishes of the Administration

lobsterthief 6mo ago
I wouldn’t say “would likely abide”, I would say “will abide” based on their actions. They are nothing but an extension of the Trump administration at this point.
jasomill 6mo ago
Ultimately, Congress. But the odds of getting the majority vote in the Republican-controlled House and 2/3 majority vote in the Republican-controlled Senate required to remove Trump from office are unlikely to be any better. At least not until Republican primary voters start voting out pro-Trump Republicans in favor of candidates who don't pledge unwavering loyalty to a President who openly opposes institutions they (the voters) hold dear, like the free market, say, or the Pope. Or just bite the bullet and vote for a Democrat they may agree with less, but trust more.

deIeted 6mo ago

[flagged]

direwolf20 6mo ago

I think settled law may be that it applies to everyone in the US, but the settled reality is that none of the amendments apply to anyone, and more generally, there are no human rights in the US.

valianteffort 6mo ago
[dead]

ahhhhnoooo 6mo ago

You are arguing with the ref that the rules say dogs can't play basketball while a dog dunks on you over and over in the background. You think "not allowed to" is something this government will ever abide by?

deleted 6mo ago

[deleted]