Taro T

Good luck w/ it.

You forgot Patterson. (Who, by NYS Governor standards, actually did a good job as Governor.)

Pretty sure 47 found out the resistance to his rightful and glorious annexation of the 51st state was being formulated ENTIRELY at Harvard U and that is the REAL reason he's coming after them so hard. 😒

So, in other words, no, you won't give what you claim is the definition of "facilitate" under "the art of immigration law." And, btw, 47 asking for him to be released into US custody, is effectively pretty d*mn near the same thing as saying we'll have a plane ready to take him back. Which was already suggested as the definition of (or more precisely an example of) "facilitate" upthread.

Read his article. In a couple of places he states that the US must "facilitate his return." At no point in the article was it readily apparent HOW "faciiltate" is being defined. So, why don't you be a mensch and give us the definition from "the art of immigration law."

So, why don't you tell us what this "term of art in immigration law" means?

Well, according to dictionary.findlaw.com it means "to make easier" or "to help bring about." (Which is essesntially what had been said in the previous post.) So, what part of "making easier" his coming back to the US is synonymous with "actually bringing him back to the US?" Isn't that kind of what the term "effectuate" means in this instance, and kind of the cause of this whole kerfuffle as the SCOTUS has asked the district judge what was meant by THAT term?

And further to this, what exactly does the term "facilitate" mean? In most of the non-potato head speaking parts of the world, to facilitate usually means to enable something to happen but not to necessarily actually make it happen. (And thus, the reason the judge wanted the US to facilitate AND effectuate his release back into the US.) As this guy is an El Salvadoran citizen in El Salvador; facilitation could be as simple as telling their President that we can have a plane waiting to take him back to the US but it still is up to the El Salvadorans as to whether they release him for travel back to the US or not.

And from that, should he get his immigration hearing, via Zoom or Teams or whatever, even while still being in El Salvador; it SEEMS that would be a remedy per the SCOTUS ruling. Not certain of that because the SCOTUS said the District Court Judge needs to explain what was meant by "effectuate." The SCOTUS has said THAT might be the District Court taking the judicial branch into the executive branch's territory. Also, not sure whether the US can even "facilitiate" his removal from the El Salvadoran prision as he is an El Salvadoran citizen in the country where he is a citizen. Margot Cleveland has a very informative series of posts on this issue. It is very possible that we've stumbled upon an area of law that is far from black and white and even if he was sent to El Salvador improperly that there may not be a lawful remedy to get him out of there (or out of that prison should he be there actually by mistake as several have claimed). If he really shouldn't be there AND if there isn't a legal remedy to fix that; the law needs to be fixed.

Sure they don't. Suppose they ALL sold them in the "Great Tesla Used Car Sale Event" of Thanksgiving 2024. 😒

Did you see the other fancy word in that original sentence? The court judge needs to define what was meant by that other fancy word and the SCOTUS said that judge may have overstepped the court's authority on that count. The SCOTUS ruling also states clearly that "the order properly 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." It remains to be seen what the District Court Judge meant by the other fancy word to determine whether he needs to be sent back to the US. Considering he's an El Salvadoran citizen now in El Salvador, it is not entirely clear that the US can make the action suggested by that other fancy word actually happen. And, btw, have taken no position on this issue other than to state that what the SCOTUS said is not what you believe it said. There will likely be a further time set for arguments before the SCOTUS after the District Court Judge follows the SCOTUS instructions.

Did you actually read the decision? It's only 4 pages long, so it shouldn't take you more than 4 or 5 hours to do so. If you did read it; did you understand it? Because the ruling doesn't say what you claim it says.

There's been a ~$2 TRILLION / year budget deficit for several years now. If the money "saved" from DoGE goes anywhere except towards reducing that, it ISN'T actually saved. Its being spent on something other than what it was originally going to get spent on. Realize that for political reasons they'll spend it in some manner to show that they're "saving" it. But if it goes ANYWHERE other than reducing the budget deficit it isn't actually getting saved. Expecting they'll show it as a reduction in taxes in some way; which, if the deficit doesn't increase will have been an actual saving as total federal expenditures (which is what taxes truly are; its just some of them are paid by us and some of them are paid by our grandchildren's children) will have necessarily decreased. But if total federal spending isn't decreased, then DoGE will have actually saved nothing. They'll have simply spent it on different things. Now, its possible that what they spend it on instead of what they were going to spend it on ends up making sense; though personally wouldn't have money on it. But that all needs to be in the next budget (or series of continuing resolutions as Congress hasn't done its job since 2007) and SHOULD be shown as lowered expenditures in the current fiscal year and nothing else in the current fiscal year.

IF that is true/ correct; then htf did the Democrats nominate in 2020 a man who's "mind was shot" for roughly the previous 18 years? Totally get it, that once it came down to 45 or Puddin' fer Brains, people that couldn't abide 45 were left with voting 3rd party or sitting 2020 out hoping others weren't as "principled" or voting for the guy who could work a solid 18 minutes per day at least 3 times per week. But, if your premise is correct, again, htf did he get nominated to be 45's strongest challenger?

Show me where I said DoGE is making cuts. You can't. And you are making a whole lot of other stuff up too. Have a good day.

Respectfully completely disagree that DoGE should be accountable to Congress. They're accountable to the President and to the Department/Agency heads running the different Executive bodies. THOSE are the people that end up accountable to the American citizenry and to Congress and the SCOTUS through the Constitutional system of checks and balances. Having midlevel people directly accountable to those outside the Executive branch creates all sorts of other issues.

It's a small point, but an important one: DoGE doesn't cut ANYTHING. They make recommendations to the department/agency they happen to be auditing at the time and the department/agency head takes that recommendation into consideration and then performs an action (or doesn't) based upon their view of that recommendation. Pretty sure there is nothing forcing those leaders to do exactly what DoGE has recommended.

Well, in fairness to Hamas, they'd never thought of looking for these missing Palestinians on the Wisconsin voter rolls. It's truly amazing what DoGE and other accoutability organizations have been able to accomplish. 😉

In principle, am glad he and the DoGE team are doing this. Not sure how wise it is to take that one on while the examination of the executive branch is nowhere near complete. Because there isn't a chance that any of the changes that are getting effected via executive action can be made permanent without Congressional approval via legislation and there isn't a snowball's chance in heck that Congress will be on board for ANY of it if they aren't just getting indirectly effected by this but now directly effected. And if there's one thing everybody in Congress can agree on, it's that their own personal spigots will never get turned off.

He's a self admitted troll. Why make his day by responding?

Fire the staffer if it actually was the staffer's fault. Understand why they even have Signal on their machines and if appropriate keep it and set up / refine protocols to ensure this doesn't happen again; if it shouldn't be on the machines, get it off ASAP and figure out why it was there in the 1st place. And when adding someone's info that will go into secure communications channels, for Christ's sake, VERIFY that the info is correct BEFORE sending classified/secret/etc. communications to that individual on the secure communication channel. There should be repercussions for those directly responsible for this snafu. Whether this was due to incompetence or maliciousness, there should be appropriate consequences. And verify that Goldberg got these communications in the manner he claims. I.e., verify that someone didn't try to verify that the number he has is the number they thought they were entering and that he didn't either directly or indirectly let the verifier believe it was the correct number. Fortunately this seems to be a case of "no harm, no foul" and this is giving the administration an understanding that they need to be better with how they handle secure / sensitive information. Internally, this needs to be treated as an opportunity to do better.

We'll fight tooth and nail to fight tyranny, unless of course the tyrants bring Lite Brites. In which case we'll cower under covers like the sad little putzes we truly are.

Didn't say it was the point of the post. But that claim that there were "surpluses in the late 90's" is a personal pet peeve.

We're in agreement on the fact that they SHOULDN'T have called it Snow White. BUT you are missing the point that the people that MADE the movie WANTED to completely scrap the story while KEEPING the original characters. They did EXACTLY what they wanted to do. The ridiculousness is that they managed to convince people to give them hundreds of millions of dollars to do just that. And no doubt that when it fails spectacularly they will blame THAT failure on the viewers/public. It won't be their fault for being creatively deficient hacks who view their proper role in the entertainment industry as being woke scolds rather than being actual entertainers, though any cogent postmortem would determine that to be the cause.

We did NOT have true budget surpluses. ONLY by including FICA revenues as general revenue was there a surplus. And those have ALWAYS been earmarked to be spent as payments to retired workers since they day the government collected them. The national debt increased in those years that we had "surpluses" while 42 was in office.