328
Trump suggests Supreme Court is ‘illegally’ blocking his lawless deportations
(www.rollingstone.com)
this post was submitted on 18 May 2025
328 points (99.4% liked)
politics
23538 readers
2811 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
But they don't make law. Only rule on what is lawful. Congress can change the rules at any time and the SCOTUS would be required to uphold it.
In a functioning democracy...
SCOTUS has been effectively making laws for a while. Interracial marriage is legal because of a SCOTUS ruling. Gay marriage is legal because of a SCOTUS ruling. Abortion was legal because of a SCOTUS ruling.
These are all legal in Canada because parliament passed laws making them legal, and not because of Supreme Court rulings. I get the sense that the US Congress is so bad at passing any laws whatsoever that the only time laws change is when SCOTUS changes them.
We're fucking terrible at passing any good laws. I really think being able to add riders to a bill is the biggest reason for this.
But then who says what the statutes that Congress passed mean...?
In this case, the court has determined that notices in English only, that give a 24 hour deadline, with no information about how to contact an attorney, are illegal. That amount of notice is not due process as guaranteed by the 5th amendment of the Constitution.
The constitution overrides all parts of federal law, including the Alien Enemies Act. There is no power to suspend the constitution here. Not even a war power. The constitution applies to the plaintiffs in this case, because they are in the territory of the United States. Full stop.
The government has argued to the court, without citing any specific clause of the constitution, that the President enjoys broad "war powers" that prevent the court from looking into any aspect of what the administration is doing here. The court has clearly rejected that argument* with respect to the 5th amendment concerns.
So that is what the law is, and that's what the law is not. That's a final decision.
*The court has not decided yet on whether the government can use this reasoning to block any interpretation of the meaning of the words "invasion" or "predatory incursion." The lower courts that have ruled are something like 4 or 5 to 1, on the side that the judiciary can interpret those words.
EDIT: Actually, I think the one judge that ruled for the AEA proclamation did so by interpreting "invasion" by looking it up in a dictionary. She just used a modern dictionary, while the others have been using 1798 dictionaries.
that's not completely true considering the presidential immunity ruling was completely made up out of whole cloth and not existing legislation.
Congress would need a constitutional amendment in this case, though in state supreme courts you are generally correct.