| ▲ | ceejayoz 6 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||
> 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||