2d ago

Trump (and bukele) confirming they will ignore the supreme court and not return Abrego Garcia

Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com)

https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lmrwrrkbnf2e https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lmrwv7k3yb2f https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lmrwtnpd6s2b

https://atlantico.fr/article/pepite/a-washington-nayib-bukele-renforce-son-partenariat-controverse-avec-donald-trump

74 comments

The supreme court never demanded that the US government returns Abergo Garcia. The supreme court says that the US government just needs to "facilitate" his return. The demand from the district court that the US government "effectuate" his return from a previous district court ruling was considered unclear and exceeding the district court's authority. So in essence all the supreme court asked was for the US to make his possible return to the United States easier (facilitate), and not forcing the US government to return Garcia to the United States (effectuate). Liberals, who are wishing for some idealistic showdown between the supreme court and the US government out of a Harry Potter novel and wish casting a constitutional crisis, misread and misunderstood the demands of the supreme court order.
The rest of the District Court’s order remains in effect but requires clarification on remand. The order 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. The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. For its part, the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps.
- The supreme court says that the US government just needs to "facilitate" his return.
  Any good-faith reading would interpret "facilitate" as the US needs to do everything in its power to bring him back. Roberts tried to do Trump a solid by using very polite language in the Court's order. You are repeating the administration's bad faith interpretation of the ruling, rather than what any lawyer practicing in good faith would actually interpret the order as.
  Roberts tried to hand Trump a way to come down from this gently. This is going to go back to SCOTUS, at which point they will issue a ruling that is completely unambiguous and has no wiggle room for bad faith interpretations.
  
  It was worded that way to give plausible deniability when it was inevitably interpreted in bad faith
  
  I don't believe it will go back to SCOTUS for them to issue a less ambiguous ruling. The ruling was intentionally ambiguous as to allow Trump the wiggle room to not have to address it. It's better to give him a way to weasel out than to actually put the "checks and balances" to the test and reveal the entire system as flawed/fraudulent.
  
  It doesn't necessarily matter if it's a bad faith interpretation, it's the interpretation currently in action. If it wasn't in action, Garcia would already be on his way back to the United States. This was discussed as a distinct possibility when the ruling was initially announced due to the difference in definition between facilitate and effectuate, before the Trump administration took any actions, or in this case, a lack of action to repatriate Garcia.
  Lawyers don't participate in good faith, their responsibility is to secure the best outcome for their client within the constraints of the legal system. Trump's legal team will have read the ruling this way, because it gives them an obvious out here, as you have pointed out. It doesn't matter to them if it's a bad faith interpretation, as long as it's an interpretation that can be put into action. The second paragraph in my original comment is not an interpretation in any way, it's a direct quote from the ruling.
  Just to make it clear I do not agree with any of this, I detest it. But this is what is happening currently, I think any idea of some kind of grand Trump - supreme court showdown and constitutional crisis is overblown. For some reason the United States have decided to make their supreme court a partisan institution, and the majority of current judges in the court are Republican nominees. If the court was non partisan, then the chances of such a showdown would be much greater.
- I love how the entirety of the the judicial system is predicated on word games dressed up in deeply dubious notions of “reasonability” and “good-faith”
- I also think if
  wanted to do a cynical thing he'd move him to Gitmo and say "his laywer has access and he's not in El-CIAdoor" just keep swaping blacksites.

74 comments