Is the Supreme Court going to Lay down for Trump & Co. Also?

Trump, a convected Felon, Stephen Miller and the Project 2025 people ARE of the opinion that the President of the United Statre reins ABOVE the Legislative and Judical Branches of American Government…

Congress , run by the Republicans , seems unable to get past Donald ‘charm’ and threats….

Federal Judges and District Courts HAVE  BEEN trying to slow or STOP the above antagonist ‘s….

But 5 of the nations Top Judsges seem afraid or even sympathetic to a criminal ignoring the law….

The Trump Administration is arguing that the Supreme Court did not mean what nine Justices unanimously ruled in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Salvadoran man illegally sent to a Salvadoran prison because of what the Administration contends was an “administrative error.” On Thursday, the Court ordered the government to “ ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador.” The government, in an insolent filing on Sunday evening, rewrote that instruction. “Facilitate” means only “taking all available steps to remove any domestic obstacles that would otherwise impede the alien’s ability to return here,” it argued. “Indeed, no other reading of ‘facilitate’ is tenable—or constitutional—here.”

Forget any effort to repair the Administration’s admitted mistake by seeking Abrego Garcia’s release from Salvadoran authorities—authorities who, according to news reports, are being paid to jail him and others shipped there by the United States. That, the government argued, would intrude on the President’s sole power to conduct foreign relations. So the government’s responsibility here is to, what, maybe issue Abrego Garcia a Global Entry card to cut the immigration line if he somehow turns up at a U.S. airport? This defiant position cannot stand—not if the rule of law is to survive.

The Court sought in its order to insure what it termed “due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.” By instructing the government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release, the Court questioned whether a lower court went too far in telling the Administration to “effectuate” his return, not merely “facilitate” it. Still, the Court added, “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.” During ordinary times, this accommodation would reflect an appropriate respect for the constitutional separation of powers. In dealing with this Administration, with its maximalist conception of executive authority and its contemptuous attitude toward the judiciary, the Justices are being played for fools….

…

The federal appeals court found that “Abrego Garcia has no criminal history, in this country or anywhere else, and that Abrego Garcia is a gainfully employed family man who lives a law abiding and productive life,” as a sheet-metal apprentice in Beltsville, Maryland.

…

It doesn’t matter who is right, because even the Trump Administration agrees that Abrego Garcia should never have been returned to El Salvador—where, an immigration judge had found, he faced threats from another gang, Barrio 18, that was extorting money from his family pupuseria. The Administration contends, instead, that its hands are tied; nothing can be done now that Abrego Garcia is being held by Salvadoran authorities…

…

Even when this Administration obeys a court order, it does so reluctantly—indeed, contemptuously…

…

We have been here before, during the first Trump Presidency, when the Administration, at least at times, reaped from the courts the distrust that it had sowed. In 2019, Chief Justice John Roberts, joining with the liberal Justices to form a five-person majority, rejected the Administration’s disingenuous effort to add a question about citizenship to the census. The Administration’s stated rationale—that the question was necessary to help the Administration enforce the Voting Rights Act—“appears to have been contrived,” an apparently exasperated Roberts wrote. “Our review is deferential,” he added, “but we are ‘not required to exhibit a naiveté from which ordinary citizens are free.’ ” No ordinary citizen, and certainly no federal judge, can afford naïveté in the face of this Administration’s lawless behavior. It has earned the presumption of irregularity….

More…