| Trump v Constitution 07:13 - Apr 17 with 1443 views | Churchman |
Attached is an interesting article on the deportation to El Salvador of Kilmar Garcia.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/5250512-trump-is-laughing-at-the-supreme
From it: ‘Trump just effectively told the Supreme Court to go screw itself. The highest court in the land ruled unanimously that the Trump administration must “facilitate” the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national wrongfully deported, against a judge’s order, to El Salvador’s infamous CECOT mega-prison.
Trump’s answer: Nah.’
So what if some bloke who originates from El Salvador and might be a gang member is dumped back there in a concentration camp? Who cares beyond his American wife and families? Probably guilty.
And that of course is the problem. If Trump and his cronies are going to ignore the ruling of the highest court in the land (technically they can) then the law, judge jury and executioner, will essentially sit with Trump-gang. Is it just extension of power and control for the benefit of the American people or benefit of him? Where does it end?
I’ve always seen the US constitution as an upgrade on ours. Looks like I was wrong. This isn’t going to end well. Oh and Mr Starmer - next time that greasy eyeliner windbag Vance’s rudely gasses on about U.K. freedom of speech, throw Trump ignoring the Supreme Court back at him.
[Post edited 17 Apr 7:19]
|  | | |  |
| Trump v Constitution on 08:42 - Apr 17 with 1296 views | SaleAway |
They are undermined by the same poor assumption that our parliament has, that the people elected are "decent folk", and will abide by convention. They have never put in place laws to enforce this, and unfortunately, now, we have seen the weaponisation of this constitutional weakness on both sides of the atlantuic |  |
| |
| Trump v Constitution on 09:11 - Apr 17 with 1246 views | Churchman |
| Trump v Constitution on 08:42 - Apr 17 by SaleAway |
They are undermined by the same poor assumption that our parliament has, that the people elected are "decent folk", and will abide by convention. They have never put in place laws to enforce this, and unfortunately, now, we have seen the weaponisation of this constitutional weakness on both sides of the atlantuic |
Are the two comparable? I can’t think of too many examples in this country in recent years of the government throwing the rule of law in the bin. But I am open minded on this given I have no legal expertise that I know some on here have so I’d be interested in their views.
What is clear to me is that if in America Trump can ignore the highest Court in the land then there is nothing to stop him unilaterally jailing, exiling literally anyone in America he doesn’t like or who disagrees. It makes no difference if they are American or Martian. That becomes rule by fear and we have plenty of examples of that now and in history.
At least in this country if you are mad and dangerously incompetent you will be got out. Even Johnson’s attempt to prorogue Parliament failed. | | | |
| Trump v Constitution on 09:41 - Apr 17 with 1203 views | ElderGrizzly |
From what I can tell, the crux of Trump's gang are hanging on the word "facilitate".
They have apparently asked and were told it was only in the gift of El Salvador. So, in the style of a 3 year old, 'they tried'.
Of course you then had this week the meeting in the Oval Office with the dictator from El Salvador who was asked directly by a journalist (and Trump stooge) could he send the guy back and he said "I don't have the power".
So as far as Trump is concerned. We tried and "oh well". |  | | |
| Trump v Constitution on 10:22 - Apr 17 with 1140 views | DJR |
Leaving aside the question of whether a constitution drafted well over 200 years ago is fit for the 21st Century (and I don't know enough about it to answer that question), there are a couple of things which to my mind are problematic.
First, the US is not subject to any external legal principles such as is the case with the ECHR when it comes to European countries.
Secondly, the politicisation of the justice and legal system is not to my mind compatible with the rule of law.
The second point has been brought into focus by the following case.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c045qg9xr30o
"US judge says he could hold Trump administration in contempt of court"
"If the administration does not provide the requested information by the 23 April deadline, Boasberg will then seek to identify the individual people who ignored the order to stop the deportations.
He could then recommend prosecutions for those involved. Federal prosecutions come under the US justice department which ultimately reports to the Trump administration." |  | | |
| Trump v Constitution on 11:13 - Apr 17 with 1081 views | Churchman |
| Trump v Constitution on 10:22 - Apr 17 by DJR |
Leaving aside the question of whether a constitution drafted well over 200 years ago is fit for the 21st Century (and I don't know enough about it to answer that question), there are a couple of things which to my mind are problematic.
First, the US is not subject to any external legal principles such as is the case with the ECHR when it comes to European countries.
Secondly, the politicisation of the justice and legal system is not to my mind compatible with the rule of law.
The second point has been brought into focus by the following case.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c045qg9xr30o
"US judge says he could hold Trump administration in contempt of court"
"If the administration does not provide the requested information by the 23 April deadline, Boasberg will then seek to identify the individual people who ignored the order to stop the deportations.
He could then recommend prosecutions for those involved. Federal prosecutions come under the US justice department which ultimately reports to the Trump administration." |
Thanks DJR - I thought you’d have a grip of it. Interesting.
I have a feeling challenges are going to come thick and fast and I suppose Trump will do his best to muzzle, crush, obscure and ultimately try and get rid of any opposition to his whims. | | | |
| Trump v Constitution on 11:59 - Apr 17 with 1008 views | ElderGrizzly |
| Trump v Constitution on 11:13 - Apr 17 by Churchman |
Thanks DJR - I thought you’d have a grip of it. Interesting.
I have a feeling challenges are going to come thick and fast and I suppose Trump will do his best to muzzle, crush, obscure and ultimately try and get rid of any opposition to his whims. |
Trump is trying to 'muzzle and crush' Harvard right now too as they won't do as he says.
They've withdrawn research funding yesterday and said they will withdraw over $2bn of federal funding and disallow them to bring in foreign students unless they turn over the visa status and background checks on all students.
They are also saying they want a veto position on teaching of certain topics. | | | |
| Trump v Constitution on 12:41 - Apr 17 with 962 views | Guthrum |
| Trump v Constitution on 10:22 - Apr 17 by DJR |
Leaving aside the question of whether a constitution drafted well over 200 years ago is fit for the 21st Century (and I don't know enough about it to answer that question), there are a couple of things which to my mind are problematic.
First, the US is not subject to any external legal principles such as is the case with the ECHR when it comes to European countries.
Secondly, the politicisation of the justice and legal system is not to my mind compatible with the rule of law.
The second point has been brought into focus by the following case.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c045qg9xr30o
"US judge says he could hold Trump administration in contempt of court"
"If the administration does not provide the requested information by the 23 April deadline, Boasberg will then seek to identify the individual people who ignored the order to stop the deportations.
He could then recommend prosecutions for those involved. Federal prosecutions come under the US justice department which ultimately reports to the Trump administration." |
The problem with any written constitution is that it is a static document. Which is why the US one has had 27 amendments (to date).
The other issue is that the writers assumed they were dealing with rationalist, enlightenment-style users, who would interpret things in a similar way to themselves. Trump & co are deliberately not like that, driving a cart and horses through the original intentions of the Founding Fathers, twisting everything to suit their agenda. |  |
| |
| Trump v Constitution on 13:04 - Apr 17 with 917 views | DJR |
EDITED: wrong thread. [Post edited 17 Apr 13:06]
| | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Trump v Constitution on 18:17 - Apr 17 with 733 views | DJR |
| Trump v Constitution on 11:59 - Apr 17 by ElderGrizzly |
Trump is trying to 'muzzle and crush' Harvard right now too as they won't do as he says.
They've withdrawn research funding yesterday and said they will withdraw over $2bn of federal funding and disallow them to bring in foreign students unless they turn over the visa status and background checks on all students.
They are also saying they want a veto position on teaching of certain topics. |
Republican senator Lisa Murkowski has said a fear of retaliation under the Trump administration is rising to levels she has not seen before.
“We are all afraid,” the Alaska senator said at leadership summit on Monday. “It’s quite a statement,” she continued.
We’re in a time and place where – I don’t know, I certainly have not – I have not been here before. And I’ll tell you, I’m oftentimes very anxious myself about using my voice because retaliation is real. And that’s not right.
“It is as hard as anything I have been engaged in, in the 20-plus years I’ve been in the Senate,” she added. | | | |
| Trump v Constitution on 14:35 - Apr 18 with 555 views | Churchman |
| Trump v Constitution on 18:17 - Apr 17 by DJR |
Republican senator Lisa Murkowski has said a fear of retaliation under the Trump administration is rising to levels she has not seen before.
“We are all afraid,” the Alaska senator said at leadership summit on Monday. “It’s quite a statement,” she continued.
We’re in a time and place where – I don’t know, I certainly have not – I have not been here before. And I’ll tell you, I’m oftentimes very anxious myself about using my voice because retaliation is real. And that’s not right.
“It is as hard as anything I have been engaged in, in the 20-plus years I’ve been in the Senate,” she added. |
That is awful.
I don’t think Trump and his gang will ease up either on enemies or friends come to that. | | | |
| Trump v Constitution on 15:45 - Apr 18 with 503 views | iamatractorboy |
| Trump v Constitution on 18:17 - Apr 17 by DJR |
Republican senator Lisa Murkowski has said a fear of retaliation under the Trump administration is rising to levels she has not seen before.
“We are all afraid,” the Alaska senator said at leadership summit on Monday. “It’s quite a statement,” she continued.
We’re in a time and place where – I don’t know, I certainly have not – I have not been here before. And I’ll tell you, I’m oftentimes very anxious myself about using my voice because retaliation is real. And that’s not right.
“It is as hard as anything I have been engaged in, in the 20-plus years I’ve been in the Senate,” she added. |
Diddums. Grow a spine and do something about it.
What am I saying? They've had plenty of chances and done nothing about him previously. They will continue to sit on their hands. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
