Last week, the Supreme Court issued an unsigned opinion requiring the Trump administration to “facilitate” the return of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a 29-year-old Maryland man whom immigration officials deported to a Salvadoran megaprison 32 days ago. But the justices pointedly stopped short of requiring the administration to “effectuate” Abrego Garcia’s return, in light of the “deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.” They did so despite the fact that lawyers for the government have conceded that it had no legal basis to deport Abrego Garcia; in court, they have characterized his disappearance as an “administrative error,” as if shipping a man who has not been accused of a crime to an overseas gulag is the equivalent of neglecting to attach an itemized receipt to an expense report.

    • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      15 hours ago

      Just keep on holding presidents in contempt until you get someone rational. I think the first stop for that is Rubio.

    • thedruid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      12 hours ago

      the legislature cant charge the president with anything while in the official act of his duties. congress has to, and they wont

        • thedruid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          I missed typed. You are correct. Only the legislature Can prosecute trump in contempt As far as I know. I THINK they can hold the other parties in contempt

      • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        The Supreme Couet was the one who decided that and if Roe V Wade showed us anything they can undecide that.