This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
...is that it?
This point on facilitation, for example-
-does not actually provide a definition that serves as an alternative to the administrative agency on what 'facilitate' means. Saying "Facilitate is an active verb" does not say what sort of verb, which is required for a categorical basis to say that no facilitation has occurred.
Without criteria, it would seem the only proof of facilitation the court would accept is the successful return of Garcia.
However, that would seem to contradict this position on executive versus judicial role.
This claim reverses what the previous lack of specificity implies. A position that the government must facilitate the return without specifying the means is an argument of ends, not means. The court in this quotation is again not addressing what actual means are required to constitute facilitation short of achieving an ends- i.e. the return- which is, per this section, the focus of the Executive.
Put another way, the court in question is demanding an ends, without accepting there a means that legitimately constitutes facilitation but is insufficient to achieving this end. This is a direct inversion to the self-declared role of the judiciary of concerning the means, even if it frustrates the executive's ends.
Similarly, your choice of moving quotation has a notable case of bolted horses and barn doors.
The answer is presumably related to the same assurance that relates to the war on terror programs taken by (both of) Trump's predecessors that allowed targeting of actual American citizens, up to and including killing them abroad, without requiring assurances that it would never happen again.
This is notably not factoring in the security state abuses against political opponents that actually did occur during previous administrations, which to my knowledge neither judge or prior administration conceded were improper, let alone offered assurances.
Now, if this judge in question would like to argue that those mean the obligation has already lost its meaning, then well and good. You cannot lose meaning if meaning was already lost. But if the judge maintains that the meaning is currently held despite prior and reoccurring abuses, the judge needs to explain why this case, which does not involve an American citizen, is more concerning than prior cases involving American citizens.
This connects to the authority and/or responsibility issue, which the court similarly doesn't actually seem to address.
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.
The consequence of this- that Abrego Gardia has no recourse to US law- does not imply that the US government or judiciary has jurisdiction over him. Garcia's legal prospects in El Salvador also have no implication on US legal jurisdiction. If the court wanted to cite US law that Congress passed to provided the president or even the courts jurisdiction, it certainly could... but if it can't, because no law exists, then prior court precedent recognizes the implication. When Congress can provide authorities in an area, but does not want to, that is indicative of Congressional intent.
The confusion of the limits of american national law to non-American citizens in foreign states has been a consistent theme of the critiques of the judges to date, and this is no different. Appeals to Eisenhower and a domestic internal policy issue furthers the apples-to-oranges comparison.
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.
Judges do not have the freedom to invent jurisdiction.
Nor do judges have the freedom to define good faith with their preferred results of foreign affairs.
The Trump administration is not admitting they have jurisdiction over Garcia elsewhere.
There are motivated partisans who are claiming that payments to El Salvador amount to administrative control and thus jurisdiction over Garcia, but alas the fungibility of money does not actually demonstrate either jurisdiction or even administrative control.
Did the Eisenhower case entail individuals over which the United States government executive branch no longer had jurisdiction?
If not, the continued attempts to appeal to the Eisenhower case are indicative of bad faith that intends to ignore the non-applicability of dissimilar cases to the legal issue at hand. And that legal issue is the jurisdiction issue.
Why is a natural consequence of a loss of jurisdiction being treated as proof of sabotage?
The nature of deportation is that it removes an individual not only from a country's territory, but it's governance. The court's order to 'facilitate the return' of Garcia is a demand for an result of governance if it does not acknowledge that 'facilitation' can acceptably not delivere a preferred result. However, the nature of sovereignty under international law is that government of a separate government does not have jurisdiction over the affairs of another country absent criteria that would allow a claim of jurisdiction. These criteria generally hinge around citizenship, which does not apply.
What does the number of judges and appeals processes matter if those judges and appeals do not have jurisdiction over a foreign citizen in a foreign country?
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.
Can't answer the sovereignty and jurisdiction issues, eh?
I'm sure your position will get stronger if you try to avoid it for another last word.
Many of those things have already been answered by the courts or are in the process of being answered.
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.
No, they haven't. Hence your forced resort to repeated appeals to non-equivalent cases that don't apply to the relevant issues of foreign citizens in foreign countries, while dodging the lack of criteria that were already raised. 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.
Unsurprising, but I'm sure the demands of bad faith partisans will improve if you ignore it for another attempt at a last word.
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.
The system works on the principles of sovereignty and jurisdiction that you (continue) to avoid addressing the implications of. Your repeated attempts to avoid those relevant facts do not make them not-facts or not-relevant to the merits of your citations.
Nothing needs to fundamentally change to respect those fundamental limitations to the judiciary's ability to demand policies of the executive branch. The government not merely submitting to an improper attempt to invoke judicial authority over foreign policy regarding a foreign citizen in a foreign country is the system working appropriately. As is dismissing appeals that are blind to history or standing precedents, particularly when repeated by people who know the legal differences in play.
Judges are not the source of law, or even legitimacy. Their word is not Law.
But I'm sure your next attempt at a last word will be all the stronger if you ignore the implications of sovereignty or jurisdiction to focus on anything else.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link