| ▲ | singpolyma3 7 hours ago |
| Is a refund even likely? Seems more likely the administration orders everyone to ignore the court. |
|
| ▲ | sjm-lbm 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| If you read the opinions, it's even less clear. The majority does not make it at all clear whether or not refunds are due, and Kavanaugh's dissent specifically calls out this weakness in the majority opinion. Even if the executive branch's actions stop here, there's still a lot of arguing in court to do over refunds. |
| |
| ▲ | jeffbee 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It is not a "weakness" of the majority that the criminal activity has left a mess. | | |
| ▲ | sjm-lbm 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | No, but it is a weakness that they have neglected to provide the clarity that would be required to clean it up. | | |
| ▲ | Terr_ 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | All rulings can be better, but Kavanaugh contributed to making the mess in the first place, as he and conservative members of the court spent 2025 voiding lower-court injunctions against similar radical policies, essentially telling lower-courts to "let Trump move fast and break things." In other words, Kavanaugh is lying: He doesn't actually care about legal clarity or mess-prevention. If he did we wouldn't even be in this situation in the first place. | | |
| ▲ | sjm-lbm 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I agree with your first point (and I wasn't trying to defend Kavanaugh, just pointing out that the dissent calls something out), but I disagree with your second. Kavanaugh isn't lying - this ruling causes some chaos and uncertainty and I think that one of the reasons Kavanaugh doesn't like it is because it causes some chaos and uncertainty - but, to your first point, he doesn't appear to be acting in good faith. The Supreme Court absolutely could have handled this much better, and is part of the reason there's so much to undo. |
| |
| ▲ | vkou 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | In society, isn't it generally accepted that the person shitting on the floor be the one responsible for cleaning up after himself? | | |
| ▲ | MadnessASAP 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Anybody who has worked a service/retail job can tell you that the person literally shitting on the floor rarely is the one to clean it up. And unfortunately that extends to the metaphor as well. Society would like to see those responsible for the mess to also be responsible for the cleanup. However society expects that everybody but the mess maker will be left cleaning up. | | |
| ▲ | jopsen 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, tax payers will pay the refund, and the interest accrued on the refund -- when the makaes it's wats through the courts in 3 years |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | Terr_ 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Meh, Kavanaugh indirectly caused the whole mess, and directly caused many related and similar ones. It's a bad-faith complaint, Kavanaugh's actual track record is "always let Trump move fast and if he breaks things then whatever." Basically we have a legal processes for courts going "this is weird and unlikely to stand and hard/impossible to fix afterwards, so do nothing until you get a green light", using temporary restraining orders and injunctions. Yet Kavanaugh et al spent the last year repeatedly overriding lower-courts which did that, signaling that if someone said "let's figure this out first" to radical and irreparable Republican policies, the Supreme Court would not have their backs. ______________ > In case after case, dissenting justices have argued that the Court has “botched” this analysis and made rulings that are “as incomprehensible as [they are] inexcusable,” halting lower court injunctions without any showing that the government is facing harm and with grave consequences, including in some cases in which the plaintiffs are at risk of torture or death. The majority’s response to these serious claims? Silence. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/supr... |
|
|
| ▲ | conartist6 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The executive branch couldn't so much as order me drink a cup of tea unless it first drafted me into the army or declared martial law. |
| |
| ▲ | wat10000 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Irrelevant. The people who would send the money for refunds are people who do take such orders. | |
| ▲ | rasz 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | With that attitude you will be shot on the spot for resisting. |
|
|
| ▲ | grosswait 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Why does that seem more likely? They haven't done that yet. |
| |
| ▲ | exe34 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | "Seem more likely to" usually refers to the future, but is based on past behaviour. Hope that clears it up! | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Sure they have. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/07/21/trump-cou... > President Donald Trump and his appointees have been accused of flouting courts in a third of the more than 160 lawsuits against the administration in which a judge has issued a substantive ruling, a Washington Post analysis has found, suggesting widespread noncompliance with America’s legal system. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/18/us/politics/justice-depar... > Judge Provinzino, who spent years as a federal prosecutor, had ordered the government to release Mr. Soto Jimenez “from custody in Minnesota” by Feb. 13. An order she issued on Tuesday indicates that the government failed not only to return his documents, but also to release him in Minnesota as she had initially specified. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_Kilmar_Abrego_G... > On April 10 [2025], the Supreme Court released an unsigned order with no public dissents. In reciting the facts of the case the court stated: "The United States acknowledges that Abrego Garcia was subject to a withholding order forbidding his removal to El Salvador, and that the removal to El Salvador was therefore illegal." It ruled that the District Court "properly 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." > During the [April 14 2025] meeting, US Attorney General Pam Bondi said that it was up to El Salvador, not the American government, whether Abrego Garcia would be released. (That was, of course, a blatant lie.) | | |
| ▲ | dmix 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | All of those are deportation cases, the NYTimes one for example is a $500/day fine on a government lawyer because they haven't returned a man's ID documents a week after he got bail. There's been lots of coverage of how government lawyers are overwhelmed because they have thousands of immigration cases being appealed and government lawyers keep quitting due to workload. So they have a giant backlog causing lots of administrative issues on following through with court orders. https://newrepublic.com/post/206115/this-job-sucks-doj-attor... | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | > All of those are deportation cases… Sorry, is there a "you can ignore the courts if it's deportation" clause I missed somewhere? > There's been lots of coverage of how government lawyers are overwhelmed because they have thousands of immigration cases being appealed… That's their own fault. You don't get to violate people's rights because you yourself fucked up the system beyond repair! | | |
| ▲ | umanwizard 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Sorry, is there a "you can ignore the courts if it's deportation" clause I missed somewhere? No, but you are arguing in a very annoying style. Nobody is claiming it's good or okay that this is happening. What people are discussing is whether it's likely that Trump will order people to ignore the court in this case. This is just a question of predicting probabilities, not morality. And, indeed, the administration has been dropping the ball on following rulings in low-level deportation cases, but hasn't really ignored, or ordered people to ignore, major big-ticket Supreme Court cases. You can't really use one as evidence for the other. This is what people were pointing out to you. But you took them pointing out this factual distinction as somehow defending Trump, which it is not. Imagine you said of a known thief: "that guy will surely murder someone, look at his long criminal record!" and someone responded "but all his crimes are petty theft, none involve violence". It'd be illogical for you to then get indignant that the other person was defending theft or claiming it's not bad. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > And, indeed, the administration has been dropping the ball on following rulings in low-level deportation cases, but hasn't really ignored, or ordered people to ignore, major big-ticket Supreme Court cases. They did exactly that in the Garcia case, which was a "big-ticket SCOTUS case". It became politically untenable and they eventually backed down, but the post-ruling response was initially "nuh uh!" | | |
| ▲ | umanwizard 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | They didn’t ignore it, at most they bullshitted for a while about how they couldn’t bring Garcia back because he was in the hands of the El Salvador and then ultimately did bring him back. |
| |
| ▲ | fuzzfactor 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >it's likely that Trump will order people to ignore the court in this case. He sure is confirming his contempt for the court right now on live TV. Trying to drum up support for his hate against anything sesible in his sight. Edit: This just in . . . he is peeved, his face just turned so red it bled plum through the orange layer. People should review this on Youtube later if nothing else for this alone. The most meaningful thing in the rant :) Edit2: And . . . he's announcing additional tarriffs in real time. You can't make this up. |
| |
| ▲ | dmix 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I get it, nuance isn't popular in political discussions. But the reality is these are all large flawed human systems with complex and competing motivations that rarely fit neatly into a box. |
|
|
|
|
