The Supreme Court can solve this today, with a nullification of the Immunity and 14th sec 3 ruling.

[Bluethroughu]

The Constitution is expressly written. Their fantasy interpretation of what the framers were thinking and meant got us into this mess...and they will be responsible for the Megadeath to come and the end of our Constitutional Republic, if they do not nullify those two rulings.

The Constitutional Republic hangs in their balance. It's not trump, it's them.

[milestogo]

1. They will go down in history as the little court that wouldn't.

[Bluethroughu]

3. Or the little court that brought down the United States of America,

for personal profit and motives over their oath to the Constitution.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

2. There is no such case before the Court today. It will be a while before anything applicable rises to the Court

I think they need cases. I think they can't just issue edicts and dictats.

[Bluethroughu]

5. I don't know...this is unchartered territory of their own making.

I would think this Abrego Garcia ruling being not complied with would be a case against trump having Immunity and the 14 sec 3 ruling overturned, because he is talking g out loud about banishing citizens and has illegally deported a protected person to a prison for life in another country without Due Process, trump has admitted to.

This is blatant disregard for the rule of law and is aggression against the country.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

6. Not going to happen today. Somebody would have to allege "contempt" and bubble up the case through appeals

I'm not a lawyer and I could easily be partially or completely wrong. But I have not heard of the Court just writing any statement or ruling on its own without an actual active case before it. The Garcia ruling means that phase is finished as far as the Court's business goes and it was returned to lower courts. As far as I know.

And please don't use "unchartered territory". Rupert's Land in Canada was chartered territory centuries ago because the King of England issued a charter to the Hudson's Bay Company for trading there. The word you are looking for is "uncharted", which mean unmapped territory, an area which is mostly unknown. A map is a chart. A directive granting rights and responsibility is a a Charter.

[Bluethroughu]

8. Yes, the Supreme Court said he needs to be brought back,

For due process, and the lower court is to set the timeline and process on course, but they are rejecting the orders.

[Tickle]

24. Facilitate, that's how they

ruled. Not once did they tell the administration to go get him..

[Ms. Toad]

16. But it isn't a question of whether the president is immune.

For that question to be addressed by the court, there would need to be a case charging the president with a crime that reaches the supreme Court - and that can't happen until he is out of office because of the bar on criminal prosecution of a sitting president (which existed long before the immunity ruling).

[Ms. Toad]

14. Correct. n/t

[onenote]

4. No they can't.

The Supreme Court doesn't issue sua sponge declarations. They decide cases. And there are no cases involving presidential immunity or the 14th amendment in front of them.

We do a much better job of addressing Trump's attacks on the Constitution when we demonstrate that we understand the Constitution ourselves.

[Bluethroughu]

7. Yes, but if his administration IS willing to follow unlawful orders,

and attack citizens or protected people, then banish them to a torture prison in another country, we need to have CLARIFICATION TO EVERYONE INVOLVED THEY ARE ALSO ACTING ILLEGALLY.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

10. NONE of the orders were unlawful.

The regime is not following lawful orders.

"willing to follow unlawful orders" is not the opposite of "following lawful orders". I'm sorry, but if you want to talk about law, precision is require for cogency.

[Bluethroughu]

18. Look, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm on a message board making my opinion.

I am all about being corrected, but I can and will write my opinions the best way I can. I'm not writing an Amicus Brief.

[Clouds Passing]

9. He's ignoring the courts. The courts no longer have any power over the supreme ruler

[Bluethroughu]

11. We are at the point of no return.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

12. Wrong. That is a doomer claim just laid here like a goose egg

Yes, we know about the limited immunity ruling.

Yes, we know about the weasel wording of the way the regime is trying to dodge the Garcia ruling.

The entirety of the post:

11. We are at the point of no return.

These doomer claims are not facts, but they are laid in front of us with all the finality of a fact when they are only claims that are worse than useless. If a person truly believes the claim "we are at the point of no return" they would be folding up their affairs and getting the hell out of the US. I doubt you have made any substantive action to do that.

So, please don't drop depressive doomer splats like that in the way of DU people who really believe in America. Let them get on with the job of reversing things without having to fight nihilistic "end of the world" nonsense. Please.

[Bluethroughu]

19. Excuse me but you have no idea what I am thinking about.

I will not be gaslighted by you.

Who are you? To tell me what to think, say or do?

"DU people who REALLY BELIEVE IN AMERICA"?

I'm not a robot, animal or nihilistic.
And YOU have a lot of nerve accusing me of not caring about my country. You don't know me.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

20. That's right! I'm not a mind reader! I can only read what you actually write!

And NOTHING in what I wrote is telling you what to think.
And NOTHING in what I wrote is accusing you of not caring about your country.

I write carefully because my readers are not mind readers. So read what I wrote again. I did not do either thing. And look up the definition of gaslighting. It is not the way you used it.

You wrote, in its entirety:

We are at the point of no return.

We is either DU or the USA. Neither is at the point of no return.
Point means a position in time or space or events.
"no return" means no way back. It means that things are impossible to repair. It means that the only way is down. It is nihilism.

I wrote:

Yes, we know about the limited immunity ruling. Yes, we know about the weasel wording of the way the regime is trying to dodge the Garcia ruling.

Those are facts and it is a fact we know them. None of that tells you what to think. None of that accuses you of not caring. None of that is gaslighting.

These doomer claims are not facts, but they are laid in front of us with all the finality of a fact when they are only claims that are worse than useless.

You made a claim. It is not a fact. It is not gaslighting to call it a claim. None of that tells you what to think. None of that accuses you of not caring.

If a person truly believes the claim "we are at the point of no return" they would be folding up their affairs and getting the hell out of the US. I doubt you have made any substantive action to do that.

I bet you are not folding up affairs and getting out. I did not claim you were. In fact it is clear from what I wrote that I'm pretty sure you are not. None of that tells you what to think. None of that accuses you of not caring. None of that is gaslighting. If I thought you were bugging out I might accuse you of not caring, but I clearly don't think that so I did not do that.

So, please don't drop depressive doomer splats like that in the way of DU people who really believe in America. Let them get on with the job of reversing things without having to fight nihilistic "end of the world" nonsense. Please.

Doomer splats are depressive, there is no denying that. Asking for a person to lead, follow, or get out of the way is not telling them them what to think. You can think what you want, but choose one of lead, follow or get out of the way. Nihilism is not leading, it is just in the way.

[Lovie777]

13. Courts pursue contempt ......................

and don't back down should be the opening.

[jalan48]

15. The Supreme Court is part of the Coup. Look no further than Thomas, he's been taking a billionaire's gifts for years.

They are not going to rule against the oligarchs and their President.

[Bluethroughu]

17. If they do not put trump in contempt, for kidnapping

People and putting them in a concentration camp in a foreign country, we do not have a country or a Constitution.

[GoodRaisin]

21. I am getting the feeling that certain members of SCOTUS and Congress

are aware of and taking part in the larger takeover plan Krasnov is very obviously pursuing. I hope I am wrong but I see some justices that engage in semantics and giving deference to “the president’s aurhority over immigration” in written opinions instead of just ordering the administration to bring Garcia back in plain language, and the Republican congressional members sitting silently while watching Krasnov openly violate laws.

Krasnov has openly said he wants to have 5 more prisons built in El Salvador to send American citizens to. After he said this his impeachment and removal should already be taking place. It’s not.

[Bluethroughu]

23. It's frightening, but we have to keep calling it as we see it.

[WarGamer]

22. And the Mega Millions can solve my not having a yacht...

[B.See]

25. Bottom line is, they were COMPLICIT

in protecting Trump, by enabling him, in doing his bidding. And by doing so they rendered THEMSELVES powerless against him.

Seems a fitting comeuppance for his conservative fascists cohorts in robes, but, hey, we told em so.

[Meowmee]

26. Can they nullify immunity?

I wasn't aware that was possible. I thought they can only respond to specific cases before them.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

27. Correct

In order for the immunity ruling to be overturned, they will need another case in front of them on that very subject. That chances of that happening while he is in office is extremely low.

[tritsofme]

28. Why spread misinformation like this? The Court cannot just decide to change a years old ruling on a case

that is not before them.

[travelingthrulife]

29. The Republicans in Congress can end it if they grow spines and impeach the monster.

The Congress invoking the 25th amendment is another pathway, but the required Cabinet members are at least as crazy as he is.

[markpkessinger]

30. Would that it were so . . .

. . . but there is no mechanism by which the Supreme Court can nullify a previous ruling without a case before it that challenges those earlier rulings. So, no, the Supreme Court can't "solve this today."

[republianmushroom]

31. If they have the intestinal fortitude to do so.

We shall see if they will admit to their mistake.