High noon in Dodge City

[K-Dog]

It is like a gunfight in front of the saloon at high noon.  The ultimate bully is going to try and show he can kick Lady Justice in the ass.  Only to knock her down so he can do something else.  Does she want it?  Will she let him do it?  All eyes are watching.



The thread should start with documenting the convicted crimes.  Thank you Stormy.  But we have a prime time felony happening live right now so we might as well start with that.

Senator Van Hollen of Maryland posts image of meeting with Abrego Garcia today in El Salvador.  The president of EL Salvador replied after the meeting.

"Now that he's been confirmed healthy, he gets the honor of staying in El Salvador's custody."

For the dim witted in my nonexistent audience.  Trump's only playonce Senator Van Hollen sat down with Abrego (can we please use his first name) was to pick up the phone.  And the self-absorbed dumfuck did not do it.  Failure to do it demonstrates clear contempt of court to 8 billion people.  Trump is driving with flashing blue and red lights behind him and he is not pulling over.  In the real world (little people like us) this would be felony evading and a new charge.

Clearly, and for all the world to see :

All Trump has to say is "I'm sending a jet down to pick him up." Instead the hopeless pussy says he has to "do what his lawyers say."  Trump is just following orders.  From his lawyers.  Trump takes his admiration of fascism all the way.  Trump would have brought color to the proceedings.

That's what they should have done.  "Das Juden? Your honor we are going to plead the Trump defense.We were only following what our lawyers told us to do.

Trump could have taught them some tricks.  Mussolini might have been imitating Trump instead of the other way around.  What might have been. 

Instead we have an ongoing train wreck best described with this:



Plaintiffs – Appellees,
v.
KRISTI NOEM; TODD LYONS; KENNETH GENALO; NIKITA BAKER;
PAMELA JO BONDI; MARCO RUBIO,
Defendants

Appellants.WILKINSON, Circuit Judge, with whom KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, join: Upon review of the government's motion, the court denies the motion for an emergency stay pending appeal and for a writ of mandamus. The relief the government is requesting is both extraordinary and premature. While we fully respect the Executive's robust assertion of its Article II powers, we shall not micromanage the efforts of a fine district judge attempting to implement the Supreme Court's recent decision.

O R D E R

It is difficult in some cases to get to the very heart of the matter. But in this case, it is not hard at all. The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order. Further, it claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done.

This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.

The government asserts that Abrego Garcia is a terrorist and a member of MS-13. Perhaps, but perhaps not. Regardless, he is still entitled to due process. If the government is confident of its position, it should be assured that position will prevail in proceedings to terminate the withholding of removal order. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.24(f) (requiring that the government prove "by a preponderance of evidence" that the alien is no longer entitled to a withholding of removal). Moreover, the government has conceded that Abrego Garcia was wrongly or "mistakenly" deported. Why then should it not make what was wrong, right?

The Supreme Court's decision remains, as always, our guidepost. That decision rightly requires the lower federal courts to give "due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs." Noem v. Abrego Garcia, No. 24A949, slip op. at 2 (U.S. Apr. 10, 2025); see also United States v. Curtiss-Wright Exp. Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 319 (1936). That would allow sensitive diplomatic negotiations to be removed from public view. It would recognize as well that the "facilitation" of Abrego Garcia's return leaves the Executive Branch with options in the execution to which the courts in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision should extend a genuine deference. That decision struck a balance that does not permit lower courts to leave Article II by the wayside.

The Supreme Court's decision does not, however, allow the government to do essentially nothing. It 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." Abrego Garcia, supra, slip op. at 2. "Facilitate" is an active verb. It requires that steps be taken as the Supreme Court has made perfectly clear. See Abrego Garcia, supra, slip op. at 2 ("[T]he Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps."). The plain and active meaning of the word cannot be diluted by its constriction, as the government would have it, to a narrow term of art. We are not bound in this context by a definition crafted by an administrative agency and contained in a mere policy directive. Cf. Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 400 (2024); Christensen v. Harris Cnty., 529 U.S. 576, 587 (2000). Thus, the government's argument that all it must do is "remove any domestic barriers to [Abrego Garcia's] return," Mot. for Stay at 2, is not well taken in light of the Supreme Court's command that the government facilitate Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador.

"Facilitation" does not permit the admittedly erroneous deportation of an individual to the one country's prisons that the withholding order forbids and, further, to do so in disregard of a court order that the government not so subtly spurns. "Facilitation" does not sanction the abrogation of habeas corpus through the transfer of custody to foreign detention centers in the manner attempted here. Allowing all this would "facilitate" foreign detention more than it would domestic return. It would reduce the rule of law to lawlessness and tarnish the very values for which Americans of diverse views and persuasions have always stood.

The government is obviously frustrated and displeased with the rulings of the court. Let one thing be clear. Court rulings are not above criticism. Criticism keeps us on our toes and helps us do a better job. See Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 24 (1958) (Frankfurter, J., concurring) ("Criticism need not be stilled. Active obstruction or defiance is barred."). Court rulings can overstep, and they can further intrude upon the prerogatives of other branches. Courts thus speak with the knowledge of their imperfections but also with a sense that they instill a fidelity to law that would be sorely missed in their absence.

"Energy in the [E]xecutive" is much to be respected. FEDERALIST NO. 70, at 423 (1789) (Alexander Hamilton) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961). It can rescue government from its lassitude and recalibrate imbalances too long left unexamined. The knowledge that executive energy is a perishable quality understandably breeds impatience with the courts. Courts, in turn, are frequently attuned to caution and are often uneasy with the Executive Branch's breakneck pace.

And the differences do not end there. The Executive is inherently focused upon ends; the Judiciary much more so upon means. Ends are bestowed on the Executive by electoral outcomes. Means are entrusted to all of government, but most especially to the Judiciary by the Constitution itself.

The Executive possesses enormous powers to prosecute and to deport, but with powers come restraints. If today the Executive claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport American citizens and then disclaim responsibility to bring them home?∗ And what assurance shall there be that the Executive will not train its broad discretionary powers upon its political enemies? The threat, even if not the actuality, would always be present, and the Executive's obligation to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" would lose its meaning. U.S. CONST. art. II, § 3; see also id. art. II, § 1, cl. 8.

Today, both the United States and the El Salvadoran governments disclaim any authority and/or responsibility to return Abrego Garcia. See President Trump Participates in a Bilateral Meeting with the President of El Salvador, WHITE HOUSE (Apr. 14, 2025). We are told that neither government has the power to act. The result will be to leave matters generally and Abrego Garcia specifically in an interminable limbo without recourse to law of any sort.

The basic differences between the branches mandate a serious effort at mutual respect. The respect that courts must accord the Executive must be reciprocated by the Executive's respect for the courts. Too often today this has not been the case, as calls for impeachment of judges for decisions the Executive disfavors and exhortations to disregard court orders sadly illustrate.

∗ See, e.g., Michelle Stoddart, 'Homegrowns are Next': Trump Doubles Down on Sending American 'Criminals' to Foreign Prisons, ABC NEWS (Apr. 14, 2025, 6:04 PM); David Rutz, Trump Open to Sending Violent American Criminals to El Salvador Prisons, FOX NEWS (Apr. 15, 2025, 11:01 AM EDT).

It is in this atmosphere that we are reminded of President Eisenhower's sage example. Putting his "personal opinions" aside, President Eisenhower honored his "inescapable" duty to enforce the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education II to desegregate schools "with all deliberate speed." Address by the President of the United States, Delivered from his Office at the White House 1-2 (Sept. 24, 1957); 349 U.S. 294, 301 (1955). This great man expressed his unflagging belief that "[t]he very basis of our individual rights and freedoms is the certainty that the President and the Executive Branch of Government will support and [e]nsure the carrying out of the decisions of the Federal Courts." Id. at 3. Indeed, in our late Executive's own words, "unless the President did so, anarchy would result." Id.

Now the branches come too close to grinding irrevocably against one another in a conflict that promises to diminish both. This is a losing proposition all around. The Judiciary will lose much from the constant intimations of its illegitimacy, to which by dent of custom and detachment we can only sparingly reply. The Executive will lose much from a public perception of its lawlessness and all of its attendant contagions. The Executive may succeed for a time in weakening the courts, but over time history will script the tragic gap between what was and all that might have been, and law in time will sign its epitaph.

It is, as we have noted, all too possible to see in this case an incipient crisis, but it may present an opportunity as well. We yet cling to the hope that it is not naïve to believe our good brethren in the Executive Branch perceive the rule of law as vital to the American ethos. This case presents their unique chance to vindicate that value and to summon the best that is within us while there is still time.

In sum, and for the reasons foregoing, we deny the motion for the stay pending appeal and the writ of mandamus in this case. It is so ordered.

For the Court
/s/ Nwamaka Anowi, Clerk


* Mandamus

A writ of mandamus is a judicial remedy in the English and American common law system consisting of a court order that commands a government official or entity to perform an act it is legally required to perform as part of its official duties, or to refrain from performing an act the law forbids it from doing.

[K-Dog]

Dow Jones Industrial Average
As of April 17, 2025 • 1:55 PM PDT

39,142.23USD
-527.16(1.33 %)

This being good Friday the market is closed.  Good thing because the constitutional crisis heats up and loosing more than one % of your retirement savings in a day might be like a pinprick compared to the wound that is coming up next.  Monday will be bad.

Trump has managed to scare most people now, and the morons he has put in place for no reason other than that they are loyal to him are totally screwing up civilization as we know it.

The hammering to the economy by Trump is making all his popular madnesses now become not so popular.  People will be supporting Abrego not from the bottom of their hearts, but because their assets are vanishing.

Whatever works.  End the age of orange, and bring Abrego back.

It feels good to be part of the Diner today.  We have known about American Fascism for a long time here.  But the mainstream liberal media now echoes these exact sentiments.  MSNBC is comparing Trump to Hitler in a video I have open right now.  Who would have thought that loosing 4% of the stock markets' value in five days could generate such a reaction.  LOL

A year ago just typing Hitler in a You-Tube chat would shadow ban your ass.  But back then the American Gestapo did not have a rogue president.  Times have changed.

The alligators Trump adds to the swamp will not be long endured.

Too long a 9-11 mentality has ruled the land.

[TDoS]

Dow Jones Industrial Average
As of April 17, 2025 • 1:55 PM PDT

39,142.23USD
-527.16(1.33 %)

This being good Friday the market is closed.  Good thing because the constitutional crisis heats up and loosing more than one % of your retirement savings in a day might be like a pinprick compared to the wound that is coming up next.  Monday will be bad.

Praise Jesus! Smart money has already bailed. Although there are those who can profit off just the volatility.Probably not many indivduals though, we are happy to get out on time and kick back and see what happens.

Trump has managed to scare most people now, and the morons he has put in place for no reason other than that they are loyal to him are totally screwing up civilization as we know it.

Well, America anyway. And by extension can cause heartburn elsewhere, but as with all bad things (peak oil circa 1990, 1998, 2003, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2008, and currently 2018, BOE a couple times in the last decade, the 2008 recession) they mostly blow over in time. None of us have died from those chemtrails commercial airliners are distributing around the US population right?

The hammering to the economy by Trump is making all his popular madnesses now become not so popular.  People will be supporting Abrego not from the bottom of their hearts, but because their assets are vanishing.

Well those of us with assets should worry! Particularly if it housing based! Good thing American investors with half a brain are familiar with diversification.

End the age of orange, and bring Abrego back.

Abrego being just the tip of the iceberg, I say we figure out what immigration in America SHOULD be (considering how obvious it is a majority of us apparently don't like it) and starting there. Abrego is just a test case tragedy, the real crime is the universal application of the kind of government malice that dropped him where he is, and while Orange is the American expression of it, the REAL problem is....Orange is the AMERICAN EXPRESSION of it.

It feels good to be part of the Diner today.  We have known about American Fascism for a long time here.

Well sure...we are quite a clever bunch of geriatrics. Might have gotten all the past world collapses wrong but once we get a decent fascist in charge we are golden! Although you could argue he is just a moron, and we survived with King George II for 8 years and we all got through it.

Too long a 9-11 mentality has ruled the land.

Which one? Mike Ruppert's that it was all designed to hide the horrors of 2005 peak oil by destroying WTC7, or just nation building in countries that can't be rebuilt by us in general?