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.