Flowersignup
No bio...
User ID: 3556
I am not claiming that you've never pushed back on left-wing activists or government officials ignoring the courts. I am observing that the material outcome of that pushback was zero accountability in any significant form for the left-wing activists or government officials in question, across a very large number of issues and specific cases. I am entirely willing to accept as much pushback as you and others wish to provide against my side, provided that this pushback is similarly ineffectual. As I said above, frown away.
I can not control the actions of others, especially not in regards to vague and nonspecific events.
But your position seems to be that this time is different, and that this time, something must be done
If there is any particular case where a court ruling was flagrantly ignored by a left leaning administration in modern history, then I shall condemn it to.
To clarify though, an admin changing a process or plan in response to the court to no longer fall under what was ruled against would not count as it would be a different plan and this is standard course of politics. For example when Biden's main student loan forgiveness policies were struck down, he used different existing laws that were not yet ruled on. This worked because the SC did not rule on loan forgiveness in general but on the specific method the Biden admin had tried to use.
This is rather normal in politics, and if the Trump administration wishes to proceed with their goals they are free to find all sorts of clever ways to do it so long as they don't defy the judicial branch.
Flowersignup
3mo ago
I am no under obligation to dox myself or other accounts of mine on the internet for the satisfaction of a stranger who believes they can read my mind. If you wish to know my views on anything in particular, ask me. Otherwise I request you to stop assuming things.
Take it up with the courts, there will be plenty of gun rights organizations who like to fight for gun ownership freedom.
Neither of the cases you cited cover such a restriction, and while I said courts are generally not blind they are also not all encompassing. I never said it was right for such a restriction to exist, I'm just curious as to why it's an obstacle for you in particular given you're saying you can not get a gun.
If you want my personal opinion, it shouldn't be a restriction. But until this is taken up in courts and properly ruled on, the analogy does not work because they are not disobeying court orders. And I can not say whether or not it is, only if I personally think it should or should not be, it is the courts who will rule on the actual constitutionality of it.
As for any particular individual (regardless of whether or not such a restriction is allowed under the constitution), I still do find it a red flag if someone doesn't have two other adult humans willing to say they trust them.
Flowersignup
3mo ago
That answers the question quite well then if that's what was meant. Had no idea about such a restriction.
They specifically said
Nevertheless, I still cannot lawfully get a gun in my home state of New Jersey or any other state,
He might run afoul of New Jersey's other requirements but per his own words, he also seems to run afoul of all other states as well. Thus he likely falls into one of those categories such as an illegal immigrant, minor under 12, felon, etc.
Edit: And while it is possible he misspoke, there is no magical way I can know this. Those groups make up a sizable portion of the US's population when put together, there's a decent chance any random on the internet falls into one of them, it's not like it would be a rare event to be immediately suspicious of.
And look, I get it. I and others pointing out your isolated demands for rigor
Interesting how you and "others" know me well enough to know that I've apparently never pushed back on left wing activists or government officials ignoring the courts.
I wonder what other things you must totally know about me, have I been doxxed by this site??? But serious note, I see no need to engage in a conversation with someone who ignores my stated words in favor of their imagined beliefs about who I am.
There are very few things I can think of that would make it illegal to own a gun in every state beyond the status of being a violent felon.
Like I literally just double checked with Chatgpt and the groups it gave me
-
Felony Convicts
-
People Convicted of Domestic Violence Misdemeanors
-
People Subject to Domestic Violence Protective Orders
-
Fugitives from Justice
-
Drug Addicts and Users
-
People with Certain Mental Health Conditions
-
Illegal Immigrants
-
People Dishonorably Discharged from the Military
-
People Who Renounce U.S. Citizenship
-
People Under Age 18 (for certain firearms)
-
People Who Are Under Criminal Investigation
Nevertheless, I still cannot lawfully get a gun in my home state of New Jersey or any other state,
And that's what he said. So they're presumably a felon (particularly a violent felon since state laws tend to be less forgiving of that for gun ownership), done domestic violence, a fugitive of justice, under 18 or one of those other groups. Either that, or there's a category I'm not aware of/he's lying about not being able to get a gun in any other state.
Whichever one of these categories he is in, I think it's a fair thing to hope he can understand why society even in the pro gun states isn't particularly wanting felons, domestic abusers, the insane, etc to be owning firearms.
Instead, you've thrown allegations of a felony or domestic violence condition, and pointed to a survey run by an explicitly antigun policy outfit, which gets numbers that are wildly out of line with every other analysis and the state's own estimates.
No, I asked you why you are unable to access a gun when 20% of households can and a common answer in the population is being a criminal so it's a pretty likely possible reason for it.
New Jersey's "shall issue" purchase permit requires anyone who wants to buy a gun to submit the names of two adults, who have known the applicant for three years, and will vouch for that person.
Do you not know two adults who will vouch for you? That seems a red flag on its own.
If you've ever seen a mental health professional, you're required to provide their contact information. Don't know it, or a shrink you saw twenty years ago happen to be antigun? Gfl. This includes not just involuntary commitment -- the recent A4769 explicitly prohibits purchase permits for anyone who's ever had a "voluntary commitment", and the permit form itself now asks if applicants have ever "attended, treated or observed by any doctor or psychiatrist or at any hospital or mental institution".
20% of household have guns, I doubt 20% of households have never seen a doctor ever so it seems like there's a misunderstanding on your side. Either that or it is violating rights and there is really just a large portion of people who have never seen a doctor before.
Somehow they've been able to do it and while I don't know the specific of state law if they're specifically violating court rulings there are processes to punish them for it in court. Either they're "skirting' the rulings by doing something not yet ruled against, you misunderstand the rulings in question, SCOTUS is compromised by gun haters (despite as you say ruling in favor of the 2nd amendment multiple times), or you're in the middle of a legal correction and are just frustrated that procedures can take time.
Flowersignup
3mo ago
The funniest part, though, is that you don't recognize that we are in fact following your advice. We have not rioted nation-wide. We are not actively fomenting assassins. We are not burning down the homes and offices of people we don't like. We organized and won an election, and now we are playing the game according to the existing rules.
That doesn't make any sense given the rest of your argument is "it's ok to ignore the rules".
It's also an interesting question in general, if one is so willing to abandon a principle simply because they believe others don't follow it, then was it really a principle of theirs to begin with? Perhaps those people are simply against the classic American values to begin with and they are seeking an excuse to abandon it.
Flowersignup
3mo ago
Hence also why, when repeatedly challenged to this, you conduct an appeal to authority whose limitations are the subject of question. And whose argument already failed by past actions of previous administrations.
If you fundamentally don't like how the US legal system makes the courts the decider, then that's fine. You can have that view. But it doesn't change how the system works.
Nothing changes because you keep saying "bad faith, bad faith!" to someone explaining that your feelings don't make facts.
Flowersignup
3mo ago
Nevertheless, I still cannot lawfully get a gun in my home state of New Jersey or any other state,
So you are a violent felon or something? I hope you understand why even most gun advocates, including in Republican states are fine with limiting you having access to firearms.
Flowersignup
3mo ago
"if you don't entertain my made up accusation of a stranger I don't know anything about, then it must be true" is an interesting way to look at the world
When a Tribe systematically breaks the rules, they don't get to appeal to those rules any more.
"America" is dead, and has been for some time. The current situation is not America dying, but the rotting of the national corpse.
Yeah if you just make up stuff about all the evils the "enemy" is doing where they're just straight up ignoring court orders over and over then I guess it would look like the country is dead.
People have been pointing out for a long time that the principles you appeal to were not sustainable without significant reform. Reforms were rejected, and now those principles are no longer being sustained.
None of this is new; we've been debating this for about a decade at this point, and the point of view you're arguing against is supported by quite a bit of solid evidence.
Hey if Americans agree with you on this specific point, start pushing for politicians to write a new amendment! We have a process established since the founding fathers for this and it's been done 27 times already. Start a movement to electorally challenge politicians that won't cooperate with it. We're in a democracy, use your voice and convince your fellow citizens. If they don't agree, then tough shit.
The Supreme Court has ruled. Several times. In favor of my side. I still don't get my gun, because there has been resistance all down the line, including lower Federal courts, state courts, state legislators, and governors.
You either misunderstand the specifics of the rulings (like Heller and Bruen do allow for some restrictions or "Shall-issue permitting" for instance) and fail to pass those lawful restrictions, or you have a great court case in your hands and there are plenty of gun groups and lawyers who would be willing to fund and help your case if they believe it's likely to win.
New Jersey while more restrictive than other states still has 20% of homes with a gun in it so I have to wonder why you don't have a gun if you're wanting one so bad.
Do you have a felony? A conviction for domestic violence? What is it that's restricting you but not 20% of homes?
Many of those things have already been answered by the courts or are in the process of being answered.
I'm sure your position will get stronger if you try to avoid it for another last word.
Do you not understand how the legal system works? It's not "I think it should work like X" or "I believe it'd be better if it was Y". The courts do not have jurisdiction over El Salvador, the courts are not claiming to have that. They claim to have jurisdiction over the US, which they do. And as for their rulings in the US, there is no answer you or I could give because it's not our calls as individuals, that is the role of the judicial branch. If Americans don't like it we have official mechanisms to change things like writing new laws, impeaching judges or even making a new amendment in the constitution. It might be rarely changed but it is a living document and Americans when they agree have been able to change it 27 different times.
It is possible, go out and convince your fellow voters to push locally and federally for a new amendment that takes power away from the court system.
Flowersignup
3mo ago
Are you implying that you a stranger, not knowing everything I talk about by the nature of being a complete stranger have any means whatsoever to accuse me of hypocrisy here?
If you're gonna argue with the made up vision of other people you don't know that you have imagined in your head, then enjoy yourself.
Flowersignup
3mo ago
"until the courts rule the exact way I want, I shouldn't have to respect them" is to be quite frank, anti-American. Not just in disrespecting our legal system as a whole, but in disrespecting one of the fundamental values America and western democracy is built on, the rule of law and proper legal process.
Yes, Eisenhower executed on rulings he didn't like. He turned out to be a chump to do so,
Eisenhower despite his different views on racial segregation still agreed in this fundamental principle of the American system and faithfully executed on the rulings because of that, not because he was a chump.
Flowersignup
3mo ago
Maybe Félix Ulloa was lying when he said the Trump admin is paying them to house the deportees, but it's weird to imagine that they accepted a deal to house them without anything in return. So if it's not the money, what shady deal is going on that they're trying to cover up?
Flowersignup
3mo ago
Well if you think you're right, you're welcome to volunteer your service as legal counsel to the Trump admin. Maybe you'll be the one to convince the judges on the Supreme Court and Fourth District that they don't understand the process of law.
Flowersignup
3mo ago
So if they do this tomorrow via zoom call, you're going to switch sides on the debate and boldly battle the people claiming that bad things have happened?
It might be surprising to hear that some people care about the rule of law instead of just partisan "Lawbreaking I agree with = good, lawbreaking I don't like = bad" but yes.
I recommend looking up people like John Locke and William Blackstone to get a basic idea of the foundational values our modern western legal system operate on.
I suppose I'm just not enough of a lawcuck to understand why this is being blown up into such an ordeal.
That's fair, which is why I think it's good to look at what the seasoned legal system is doing to get an idea at what is important and why. In this case, there's a reason the Supreme Court went 9-0 (with a reminder three of them were appointed by Trump himself), there's a reason why the appeals here was 3-0, there's a reason why the Trump admin keeps getting ruled against so much on this case in general.
These are experienced judges, many of whom have deep histories of conservative sided judicial idealogy.
There was some minor procedural error, therefore we must make an elaborate show of correcting it, at great expense, to achieve an outcome that will immediately collapse back to the current status quo. This is your brain on legalism.
Maybe it will just collapse back to the status quo, doesn't really matter. That's not the concern of the courts anyway. The court system doesn't really need to care what happens as long as it's not unconstitutional or against a constitutionally valid law, it does care how it happens if it breaks those though.
Edit: As was written after all
If the government is confident of its position, it should be assured that position will prevail in proceedings to terminate the withholding of removal order. See 8 C.F.R. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.24(f) (requiring that the government prove "by a preponderance of evidence" that the alien is no longer entitled to a withholding of removal)
Flowersignup
3mo ago
Exactly what due process do people think was missed?
Lucky for us that was provided "If the government is confident of its position, it should be assured that position will prevail in proceedings to terminate the withholding of removal order. See 8 C.F.R. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.24(f) (requiring that the government prove "by a preponderance of evidence" that the alien is no longer entitled to a withholding of removal)."
If the government managed to bring him back, sticks him before an immigration judge who says "Your asylum claims are no longer valid due to changed facts on the ground, assuming they ever were, it's fine to execute the deportation order to El Salvador", then is everyone who is upset about this going to nod sagaciously and be satisfied that due process was followed
From a legal perspective, yes. There's a reason why the courts (including this Reagan appointed Bush supported conservative judge) have been so consistent here.
How much due process in general needs to be given to each of the 10-30 million illegal immigrants? There was certainly no due processes when they came in; can we hold the entire Biden administration and Democrat party in contempt?
This is just a fundamental misunderstanding of government. Due process applies to government taking action, it is a limit on the ability of government to do what it pleases to people in its jurisdiction.
Back to Garcia, what "options" remain after the government of El Salvador has declined to release him? Do the courts expect special forces to exfiltrate a foreign national from a foreign prison?
Courts are lenient, but they are not intended to be blind. They can easily see through the obvious and barely hidden ruse that if Trump really wanted to, he could help facilitate Garcia's return quite easily. One easy way to help for instance would be to stop paying El Salvador to hold him there.
This isn't unique to the Trump admin, judges have always been able to consider a wider context in their decisions. This can even happen with normal citizens in criminal/civil court. There is a reason why the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 on this, despite judicial disagreements they're all seasoned experts just like Wilkinson and they understand this well.
Flowersignup
3mo ago
This is not a contradiction. The US does not have the authority to demand a sovereign state turn over its citizens to the US, absent some bilateral agreement between states enabling it. The court does not identify a basis of authority to demand sovereignty over this over El Salvador's objections. In turn, El Salvador has no legal responsibility to turn over Garcia, regardless of the US mistake in deporting him. The court does not identify any basis of a legal responsibility to turn over Garcia.
I think this whole thing stems from a common misunderstanding of the court system and how it works. There's this often understood idea of law being entirely about saying the correct magic words in the correct way to get technicalities and while it's certainly true that's a large portion of it, judges have always had the freedom to look into things a bit past that as well in determining if orders are being carried out in good faith. You can be held in contempt (and it happens pretty often) when people are caught "officially" following the rules, but admitting they aren't elsewhere.
The court system is not intended to be blindly idiotic. It's the reason why Eisenhower, despite his disagreement with the rulings actually executed on it, instead of playing games pretending to. You can still do that mind you, they tend to give lots of leeway but the court system would have to be blind to not see how the Trump admin is purposely sabotaging efforts. And again, the court system is not intended to be blind. That's part of why we have multiple judges (for example this ninth circuit ruling had three judges) and so many appeals processes to begin with, because there is room for interpretive and judicial idealogical differences.
Flowersignup
3mo ago
The 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals declined to lift the order on the executive to "facilitate" the return of Abrego Garcia and I recommend reading it
It's written up by judge James Wilkinson III, a Reagan appointee and Bush era short list candidate for the supreme court and he's quite well respected in the legal profession. This guy has been a conservative for longer than many people here have even been alive, and the stance of seasoned judicial figures like him with old style "respectable" political ideologies are an interesting way to see the change in the rest of politics.
Most importantly in that it incidentally addresses many of the questions and concerns people have about this whole situation.
Like does it matter whether or not the executive's allegations against Garcia are correct?
The government asserts that Abrego Garcia is a terrorist and a member of MS-13. Perhaps, but perhaps not. Regardless, he is still entitled to due process. If the government is confident of its position, it should be assured that position will prevail in proceedings to terminate the withholding of removal order. See 8 C.F.R. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.24(f) (requiring that the government prove "by a preponderance of evidence" that the alien is no longer entitled to a withholding of removal). Moreover, the government has conceded that Abrego Garcia was wrongly or "mistakenly" deported. Why then should it not make what was wrong, right?
What does the Supreme Court's decision actually say?
The Supreme Court's decision remains, as always, our guidepost. That decision rightly requires the lower federal courts to give "due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs" Noem v. Abrego Garcia, No. 24A949, slip op. at 2 (U.S. Apr. 10, 2025); see also United States v. Curtiss-Wright Exp. Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 319 (1936). That would allow sensitive diplomatic negotiations to be removed from public view. It would recognize as well that the "facilitation" of Abrego Garcia's return leaves the Executive Branch with options in the execution to which the courts in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision should extend a genuine deference. That decision struck a balance that does not permit lower courts to leave Article II by the wayside.
The Supreme Court's decision does not, however, allow the government to do essentially nothing. It requires the government "to 'facilitate' Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador." Abrego Garcia, supra, slip op. at 2. "Facilitate" is an active verb. It requires that steps be taken as the Supreme Court has made perfectly clear. See Abrego Garcia, supra, slip op. at 2 ("[T]he Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps."). The plain and active meaning of the word cannot be diluted by its constriction, as the government would have it, to a narrow term of art. We are not bound in this context by a definition crafted by an administrative agency and contained in a mere policy directive. Cf. Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 400 (2024); Christensen v. Harris Cnty., 529 U.S. 576, 587 (2000). Thus, the government's argument that all it must do is "remove any domestic barriers to [Abrego Garcia's] return," Mot. for Stay at 2, is not well taken in light of the Supreme Court's command that the government facilitate Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador.
An interesting difference between the role of the executive and the rule of the judiciary
And the differences do not end there. The Executive is inherently focused upon ends; the Judiciary much more so upon means. Ends are bestowed on the Executive by electoral outcomes. Means are entrusted to all of government, but most especially to the Judiciary by the Constitution itself.
Are the claims that this could be used on citizens valid?
The Executive possesses enormous powers to prosecute and to deport, but with powers come restraints. If today the Executive claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport American citizens and then disclaim responsibility to bring them home?" And what assurance shall there be that the Executive will not train its broad discretionary powers upon its political enemies? The threat, even if not the actuality, would always be present, and the Executive's obligation to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" would lose its meaning. U.S. CONST. art. II, § 3; see also id. art. II, § 1, cl. 8.
On the contradictions between both government's public claims of authority and/or responsibility.
Today, both the United States and the El Salvadoran governments disclaim any authority and/or responsibility to return Abrego Garcia. See President Trump Participates in a Bilateral Meeting with the President of El Salvador, WHITE HOUSE (Apr. 14, 2025). We are told that neither government has the power to act. The result will be to leave matters generally and Abrego Garcia specifically in an interminable limbo without recourse to law of any sort.
Are there previous major examples of an executive following a court order it did not like?
It is in this atmosphere that we are reminded of President Eisenhower's sage example. Putting his "personal opinions" aside, President Eisenhower honored his "inescapable" duty to enforce the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education II to desegregate schools "with all deliberate speed." Address by the President of the United States, Delivered from his Office at the White House 1-2 (Sept. 24, 1957); 349 U.S. 294, 301 (1955). This great man expressed his unflagging belief that "[t]he very basis of our individual rights and freedoms is the certainty that the President and the Executive Branch of Government will support and [e]nsure the carrying out of the decisions of the Federal Courts." Id. at 3. Indeed, in our late Executive's own words, "[u]nless the President did so, anarchy would result." Id.
And if you're wondering "Why do the courts even get a say here to begin with about the executive's actions?", here's a basic primer.
If your standard of evidence was so lax as to take "Just take me trust bro, I believe X and Y", why were you seemingly unwilling to accept it beforehand? You start off accusing me of something with no evidence beyond a lack of, and I quote "a large backlog of posts making this same point at progressives" and only when I point out the absurdity of what you're asking requires me to dox myself and my other accounts did you dial back.
If you want an example where I criticized progressives, I believe Biden's covid era eviction moratorium was a bad thing. While not on the exact level (such a thing was not ruled against yet), Biden had previously suggested he knew it was likely to get struck down and proceeded anyway. He then tried a second plan importantly, it was distinct from the coverage of the original ruling with the same knowledge it was likely to get struck down.
Now in this case procedurally, the rules were followed. A law or policy being implemented that gets struck down (in that case because it is on Congress to pass such laws, not the executive to decide) is par for the course and as long as they obey the courts and cease their actions it's all normal. There is no rule, and can not reasonably be a rule that says "If you think it's >X% that you will be ruled against you can't do a policy but if it's <X% chance you can". But it was still morally incorrect of the Biden admin to do so with the knowledge they were (highly likely at the time and now confirmed to be) overstepping their authority.
More options
Context Copy link