They have been defying SCOTUS because they disagree with the administration. 'Politically' doesn't enter into it, when the administration starts to do blatantly illegal stuff some people will just not accept that, no matter what the politics of the ruling party nominally are.
The whole point of SCOTUS is that they are the final arbiter of what is legal and what is illegal in this country[0]. Are you saying that federal judges in lower courts are given leeway to act against the law, provided they disagree with the administration?
[0]: Not what is right or wrong, and obviously like any other human enterprise, they are capable of making mistakes.
It is - to me, at least - abundantly clear that SCOTUS is now a political instrument and no longer in any way impartial. Between that, a congress and a senate that seem to be incapable of standing up for the rule of law you can no longer claim that SCOTUS is the final arbiter of what is legal and what is not, besides that, they only are supposed to rule on whether or not something violates the constitution or not.
> Are you saying that federal judges in lower courts are given leeway to act against the law, provided they disagree with the administration?
This is a weird and convoluted strawman, I'm not even sure what kind of question you want me to answer here, given your apparent stance on all this, did you maybe omit a negative in there?
> they only are supposed to rule on whether or not something violates the constitution or not.
The constitution is the supreme law of the land, so yes, by definition, they are the final arbiter of what is legal and what is not. Note that I explicitly pointed out that decisions on what is legal and what is not doesn't always line up with what is right and what is not. I'm not saying that the Supreme Court is some divine moral arbiter, just that under the laws that organize this country, there is no higher court that can tell it that it is wrong.
You're free to disagree with SCOTUS decisions. I disagree with quite a few myself. The justices don't even agree with each other a lot of the times[0]! But it would be good for the republic for people to not reach for the "SCOTUS is now clearly political!" jar every time they disagree with a decision or the makeup of the court, because your political opponents will feel the same way, as well.
> I'm not even sure what kind of question you want me to answer here
Let me clarify: you seemed quite worried that the Trump administration would defy SCOTUS rulings. My rebuttal was that lower court judges are already doing that, because of their opposition to some of what the administration is doing; that is, they are issuing rulings that clearly contravene prior SCOTUS rulings, in defiance of the law.
Prima facie, the administration isn't engaging in any behavior that their political opponents aren't engaging in, and I find the apocalyptic talk about authoritarianism, fascism, or the end of democracy in the US very unpersuasive, not to mention unhelpful and unhealthy.
> the administration isn't engaging in any behavior that their political opponents aren't engaging
So ignoring court orders to quickly deport people happened before?
Could you show me an example where Biden ignored a court ruling, because i dont know any. Ill insta-upvote you, if you can show the occurrence numbers are roughly equal.
If you cant provide any example, i strongly suggest you reconsider your above statement about the end of democracy, or whether you would be willing to storm the capitol to defend it against trump.
Like illegally using the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport people when the act literally states it's a wartime authority (no new wars). like illegally deporting Abrego Garcia to the one country that he wasn't allowed to be deported to.
Thanks - the Supreme Court clarified this in their ruling. But, the Supreme Court has also ruled that the US administration can deport individuals to third countries, while legal challenges to the practice are pending.
I see this as a perfect example of the US Supreme Court clarifying the scope and applicability of law - just like they rejected Biden's student loan forgiveness under the HEROES act and Biden found a workaround instead.
I hate comments like this, so I hate making them myself as well, but are you trolling?
If so, forgive me for not responding.
If you are not trolling, and well intentioned: why don't you go and read some of that main-stream-news that everybody loves to piss on these days and use that to get to at least a moderately up-to-date state of mind before engaging in threads like these. It would save a lot of time.
If you are of the mindset that you are in fact informed and that Trump's administration has not yet performed any acts that are blatantly illegal then you're entirely on your own, or at least, I would hope you are (unfortunately, you probably would not be).
Cults need isolation from former environments and values, thats a key element in any cult initialization. Resulting in internalized ignorance so strong, not even a speaking burning bush could convince them otherwise, let alone main stream media.
No, I am not trolling. Mainstream news hyper-exaggerates and when one studies the matter, one realizes that few laws if any are broken. Several court battles are waged until the Supreme Court makes judgements on the scope and applicability of the law. Once that is done, the administration follows the ruling or chooses a workaround law.
AFAIK, the Trump Administration - as controversial as it may be - has not broken any Supreme Court rulings. Legal workarounds are not unique to this administration - such were done by the previous Biden administration as well. Please note the Supreme Court struck down President Biden’s broad student loan forgiveness plan, ruling it exceeded the administration’s authority. Nevertheless, a workaround was found by using the Higher Education Act instead.
