All they did was uphold the injunction from the lower court. Boasberg would be the one to hold them in contempt for violating the injunction. They have no more room to appeal.

I agree. That’s why I wrote that SCOTUS ruling to uphold the stay is reassuring.

And that information should change my ability to fight in what way? God you’re an arrogant one.

Go ahead. I’m not stopping you. I’m not even criticizing you for a difference of opinion, even though you seem very insistent on trying to change mine.

I’m advocating realism through comprehension of the situation. SCOTUS has twice now upheld the federal court orders regarding these deportations. The concern about the judiciary not having their own enforcement arm is negotiable through a court appointed attorney, a writ to law enforcement, or by deputizing in the most extreme case.

This doesn’t mean he can’t pardon those involved, but that would be an outright admission of guilt, and most certainly prompt the revolution that everyone seems to be so hungry for.

Good for you. I’m disabled, so that’s not a choice I get to make for myself. I have to rely on the system that I’ve heavily invested my time and money into for the last 25 years.

Not if it comes with a side of condescension. Why are you so worried about my actions? Aren’t you a capable person?

You seem to have the criticism down, but where is the proposed action? What do you suggest we do?

I’m not telling anyone how to react. I said I am non-violent and have faith in the courts. I will continue protesting, messaging and calling my congresspeople. You do you.

Cool, then you go ahead and storm the Capitol. I have faith in the courts.

I agree. You asked why they wrote adjudicated gang member. Technically, he would be an adjudicated former gang member.

To El Salvador? Zero, according to this final appeal attempt. They’re still deporting people to other nations.

Had people not abandoned Democrats at the polls in November, Congress could’ve already stopped this. Their action is much faster than the judiciary.

Be my guest. I’m non-violent, and our system has yet to fail. That doesn’t mean it can’t, but I’m not accepting defeat until then.

He said that, and now his administration is facing a contempt of court hearing on the 23rd. The presiding judge preemptively stated that he will appoint an attorney to enforce his order if the DoJ refuses to do so.

Trump bluffs. He’s a bullshitter. Harvard called him on it and now he’s saying the letter was sent in error. He can’t talk his way out of this.

Fair enough. You are technically correct. That’s not a roadblock, it’s just an additional step.

You don’t understand the urgency behind active checks and balances to maintain a government’s function and a criminal prosecution case of a former president.

This can’t be swept under the rug or pushed out on a calendar like the former.

The Justices are siding with the Constitution of the United States, and upholding a previous ruling by a federal court.

Aren’t you supposed to be the party of law and order? Kinda turning into more of a lynch mob these days, wouldn’t you say?

Then the parties involved will be charged with contempt of court. Courts are slow. There are many steps to this process. If you want this done quickly, convince the loyalist Republicans in Congress to vote against his executive order. Defeatism is actionless criticism.

It’s in that same article. A judge may deputize someone to enforce a court order. That’s assuming the DoJ refuses, then the judge issues a writ that is ignored.

Rule 4.1 specifies how certain types of “process” — the legal term for orders that command someone to appear in court — are to be served on the party to which they are directed. The rule begins in section (a) by instructing that, as a general matter, process “must be served by a United States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially appointed for that purpose.”

He admitted in 2019 to having been in a gang as a 16-year-old that would result in persecution if he were returned to El Salvador, hence the judge’s ruling on blocked deportation. He testified that he came here to leave that life behind.

This is literally the opposite of what they just ruled. They supported the injunction 7-2. The district court would be charging them with contempt, not SCOTUS.