Salvadoran President says he won’t return wrongly deported man back to the U.S. This situation highlights a deeply troubling development in the handling of deportation cases, raising serious questions about due process and the rule of law. The refusal to return a man wrongly deported underscores a breakdown in international cooperation and accountability.
The core issue centers on a legal resident deported to El Salvador despite a Supreme Court ruling deeming the deportation improper. This blatant disregard for a court order points to a larger pattern of circumventing legal processes. The president’s statement that he won’t return the man suggests a lack of willingness to cooperate with U.S.… Continue reading
A significant partisan divide emerged regarding the economic impact of Trump’s tariffs, with only 44% of his voters believing they would be beneficial, compared to 87% of Harris voters anticipating harm. Trump’s inconsistent tariff policies, currently impacting various countries at differing rates, have already caused job losses in sectors like automobiles. This unpredictability threatens further economic instability and could erode Trump’s support among crucial manufacturing worker demographics. The lack of a clear strategy risks continued market disruption and potentially widespread job losses.
Read More
The urgent need for President Trump’s impeachment and removal from office is paramount, given his ongoing assault on democratic norms and the rule of law. Despite initial hesitancy, some Democrats are publicly advocating for impeachment, fueled by grassroots pressure and the escalating threat to the Constitution. Arguments against impeachment, such as anticipated political backlash, are demonstrably weak, given the lack of evidence supporting such claims in previous instances. The only viable path to restoring constitutional governance is to utilize the impeachment process, a tool designed to address precisely the kind of tyrannical behavior exhibited by the President.
Read More
The legality of removing U.S. citizens, a question posed to the government, is addressed: It is legally impossible to deport U.S. citizens. While President Trump has publicly and privately discussed the “potential” deportation of citizens, this refers solely to violent, repeat offenders. Therefore, no U.S. citizens are subject to removal based on current law.
Read More
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has sidelined a lawyer involved in a deportation case deemed “wholly lawless” by a judge. This action highlights a concerning trend of prioritizing loyalty over legal integrity within the administration. The lawyer, in his attempts to fulfill his duties, truthfully answered questions posed by the judge regarding the deportation. These answers apparently revealed a lack of evidence justifying the detention and deportation, exposing the questionable legality of the government’s actions.
The lawyer’s honest responses, instead of being praised for their transparency and adherence to legal ethics, resulted in him being placed on leave. This suggests that the administration values unwavering support above accurate reporting and the pursuit of justice.… Continue reading
A federal judge ordered the US government to return Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia to the United States by April 7th after he was mistakenly deported to El Salvador due to an administrative error. The judge ruled the deportation illegal, citing a prior grant of withholding of removal and the lack of legal basis for his apprehension and removal. The government admitted the error but initially claimed inability to retrieve Abrego Garcia from Salvadoran custody, a claim the judge questioned given US contractual control over the prison where he is held. Despite a government appeal, the judge’s order highlights the contentious legal battle surrounding recent US deportations to El Salvador.
Read More
Radio Free Europe’s assertion that the Washington administration shut down its Russian broadcast despite a court order is deeply unsettling. The very idea that a government would disregard a legal injunction to silence a news outlet raises serious questions about the rule of law and freedom of the press. This action smacks of authoritarianism, a blatant disregard for due process, and a chilling suppression of information.
The implications of this action extend far beyond the immediate impact on Radio Free Europe’s broadcasting capabilities in Russia. It suggests a pattern of behavior where the government feels emboldened to ignore legal constraints when it suits its agenda.… Continue reading
Trump’s demand that France “free” Marine Le Pen highlights a stark clash of legal systems and political ideologies. His assertion, echoing sentiments from other leaders, paints Le Pen’s conviction as a politically motivated persecution rather than a consequence of a legal process. This perspective ignores the established legal framework within which Le Pen was tried and convicted.
The core of Trump’s argument centers on the idea that Le Pen is a victim of a “witch hunt,” a term he frequently uses to discredit legal proceedings against himself and his allies. He suggests that the charges against her are minor, potentially a mere “bookkeeping error,” downplaying the seriousness of the embezzlement of EU funds that led to her conviction.… Continue reading
Ongoing coalition negotiations between Germany’s CDU/CSU and SPD include a commitment to stronger EU action against rule-of-law violators like Hungary. This involves more consistent application of existing EU mechanisms, including sanctions and potential membership restrictions. The coalition aims to overcome Hungary’s frequent veto power by advocating for expanded qualified majority voting in the Council of the EU, particularly on foreign policy matters. This follows previous EU efforts to sanction Hungary, including blocking billions in EU funds over human rights concerns. The aim is to enforce the rule of law within the EU more effectively.
Read More
The Trump administration’s lawsuit aiming to invalidate dozens of federal union contracts is a brazen move, claiming these contracts hinder the president’s ability to restructure the federal workforce and safeguard national security. This action raises serious questions about the rule of law; can existing legal agreements be simply disregarded because they stand in the way of an administration’s agenda? The decision to file the suit in Texas, rather than Washington D.C., fuels concerns about “judge shopping” – a practice of strategically choosing a court likely to deliver a favorable ruling.
This blatant disregard for established contracts echoes Trump’s business practices, a pattern of relentless litigation to achieve desired outcomes.… Continue reading
Matt Underwood 
John Q. Hosedrinker