Van Hollen in El Salvador
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Then you would have seen that the read facilitate in terms of the understanding in immigration court, and streamlined the process on the US side for example if he arrived at a port of entry. So stop saying they didn’t “provide evidence it complied.” They outlined the exact steps they took. |
Anonymous
That’s not true. Name a specific act Xinis said Trump has to do that he has not. You won’t find it. All she has done is require daily updates (given) and now opened up for further discovery. |
Anonymous
Why? How far would the government need to go to satisfy this requirement? Send in Seal Team 6? Declare war? How far should this go just so he can be deported again? |
Anonymous
Exactly. Xinis is playing a game here by not stating exactly what she wants Trump to do, because she knows once she does, Trump can immediately appeal as encroaching on presidential powers. That’s why she is refusing to clarify “effectuate” and the appeals court let her get away with it. You say “receipts need to be a lot better” but even you aren’t saying exactly what you think this district judge has the power to tell Trump to do when it comes to international relations with El Salvador. |
Anonymous
Thus far, whatever has been produced is unsatisfactory per the unanimous Appeals court ruling (which I will continue to emphasize was written by an ultra conservative justice). How far they need to go is unclear. Obviously this will return to the Supreme court, so anyone indicating the case has been appropriately litigated and closed is providing a premature opinion. |
Anonymous
You keep referring to Xinis, but the latest ruling was by the Court of Appeals and sided with her. It returns to her courtroom but obviously will end up back in the Supreme court. |
Anonymous
I think most of us have understood this is heading back to SCOTUS for the simple reason that the lower court didn’t do what SCOTUS directed - clarify. The reason you are saying “how far they need to go is unclear” is the entire point. If you don’t know, then how should DOJ know? That’s why the idea that this appeals court decision was so definitive and important was rather silly. |
Anonymous
Because Xinis is who the Supreme Court directed. The court of appeals has been overturned very recently, so I’m not sure why you think that’s such a big deal. |
Anonymous
So it's unclear what the courts want the administration to do but some here are having a fit over the fact that the administration hasn't done enough based on vague wording. Got it. |
Anonymous
Sounds like you are the one who is game playing. You want her to define acts which you them say she can’t do. Xinis doesn’t need to clarify the part of the order that was remanded if she doesn’t plan to hold the government to that part of the order. She can drop it and just look to the part that was upheld. |
Anonymous
Why? |
Anonymous
The government has facilitated his return as the district judge ordered. However, the Supreme Court ordered that they facilitate his release from custody, which they have not done. |
Anonymous
Yeah agreed. In fact, I hope he doesnt work too hard at it. I voted for these gang members to be deported. |
Anonymous
This man will likely be deported even if released and returned to the US. Downstream, when this "whoops!" happens to a US citizen or even a citizen of an ally (e.g.European citizens have been mistakenly detained by ICE), what then? As there is no clarity for "how far" the government needs to, this case opens the door for many "whoops it's too late now!" occurrences. |
Anonymous
As well as intentional "whoops" for political rivals Concerned this established a permanent way for the current administration to disappear whoever they want. |