The American people have just survived, well the ones not murdered or od’d on Fentanyl, four years of a Pres who decided not to enforce our border. No new laws passed, no judicial decisions. Overturned wildly popular policy like the Remain in Mexico policy with the stroke of a pen. Don’t remember much pearl clutching from you back then.
In fact, I don’t remember you showing up at all until Trump took office.
I do appreciate your posts though since one of our libs is AWOL and the other seems to just be barely hanging on.
Now the Left is clutching their pearls over a member of a designated terrorist group MS13, who has a history of domestic violence, who has been in our country illegally for 13 years. This case says more about how a small ruling elite is attempting to normalize deviant behavior than it does about executive overreach.
You throw out a lot of distracting stuff in this post that has nothing to do with the argument I made.
First, this isn’t about pearl clutching over one individual. The core issue is that the executive branch ignored a direct order from the Supreme Court. That’s not partisan—it’s constitutional. If the courts can be brushed aside whenever inconvenient, it sets a precedent: any ruling, on any issue, from any judge can be ignored. That should concern everyone, no matter who’s in office.
Second, whatever you believe about the individual in this case, the legal reality is simple: a federal judge ordered that he not be deported. That should’ve been the end of it. Instead, the government went ahead anyway—then refused to comply with a unanimous Supreme Court ruling. And the solution here was simple: bring him back, let the legal process play out, and if it led to deportation, so be it. They didn’t do that. I wonder why?
As for Remain in Mexico, yes—it was rolled back by executive action. But it was also challenged in court, reviewed by judges, and went all the way to the Supreme Court, which upheld the administration’s authority to end it. You may not like the result, but the process was followed. This is different. This is outright defiance of the courts.
So if the new precedent is that it’s fine to ignore the courts when we like the outcome, what happens when the next president uses that logic for something we don’t?
I appreciate your concerns about checks and balances and the rule of law. As well as our Founders’ original intent. Honestly, these same arguments of overreach and usurpation of power have been used against every Pres in my lifetime. Most of us are tuning it out. The little boy who cried wolf scenario could be playing out in real time; at the same time no one trusts the Media anymore after the laptop, Russia Hoax, so much more. The Right media are Trump cheerleaders. The other 90% have been out to get him for ten years.
Overreach gets thrown around a lot, sure—but this is different. A federal judge issued an order. The executive branch ignored it. Then the Supreme Court—unanimously—told them to fix it, and they still haven’t.
The media’s failures don’t excuse what happened. You don’t need to trust CNN or Fox to see what this is: one branch of government refusing to follow the law.
