115 Comments
User's avatar
Linda MacDonald's avatar

What would be really cool? A leak of the names of all the ICE thugs, especially newly hired over the last 6-9 months then comparing to the 1600 people pardoned by felon34. That would be fabulous! 🐸🐸🐸

Heather.B's avatar

These ICE agents are J6ers, Proud Boys and MAGA masked thugs pretending to uphold the law. Their mission is obedience but their legacy will be SHAME. These are not soldiers of a nation. They are enemies of the people. Don’t call them law enforcement, call it what it is: state-sponsored terror.

ICE was never about immigration. It was ALWAYS about intimidation and hate. When the Democrats take back any kind of power, they MUST shut down ICE. Defund The Abuse, NO more tax paying dollars to pay for hate!

Why are they masked? Because they are aware that they would be unpopular with their friends and neighbors if they were publicly identified.

People need to start removing their masks. Let us see the faces of these "brave" ICE agents. Let the world see their faces. Expose them!

T I wear regularly: "Keep the immigrants, deport the racists". This one 👇

https://libtees.dashery.com/products/34623496-keep-the-immigrants-t-shirt

Michela A. C.'s avatar

You can tell the J6ers, proud boys, and maggots by their cheap shoes and physique. The newer hires look old and they can be seen filming. One guy was so old he waddled out of a van, pulled out the cell phone to record, and waddled back. He looked like an imbecile. They all look like imbeciles. Real police and fed officers should be up in arms that dink heads with no training are allowed to hold the same positions and real fed officers that spent years training for their jobs, are all making the same amount of money.

Richard Waddell's avatar

Before this year, when did any US police forces use face masks to hide their identity? Never?

ASBermant's avatar

I have the same T-Shirt. As far as ice agents should be rendered to Russia. That’s where they belong.

Mim Eisenberg (NYer now in GA)'s avatar

I'll bet there would be a bunch of matches.

Linda MacDonald's avatar

I'm sure of it. $50,000 signing bonus. Really. That adds insult to injury.

Stevens's avatar

I have next to zero confidence in the SCOTUS, and little confidence that their corruption and abhorrent partisanship will truly get on more American's radar.

IF the SCOTUS rules against democracy again, I'd love to see something more than a "scathing dissent," I'd love to see something unprecedented, like Sotomayor giving some major interviews on just how egregious this is, and that the SCOTUS has been an accelerant in lighting democracy on fire. Call the extremist majority out. And speak to more than just a law school, but a 60-Minutes type interview, or perhaps with some really big podcasts.

Stuyvesant Bearns's avatar

Desperate times, such as now, call for just the kind of raducal action you are envisioning. BRAVO

Nicholas Pretzel's avatar

When will they learn? Authoritarian régimes Go after the press first, but the judiciary aren't far behind. Do they think they're safe by appeasing Trump all the time, they haven't read their history. It doesn't matter of they're friendly to Trump, authoritarians would prefer not to deal with them at all.

Stevens's avatar

Sadly, for the majority on the SCOTUS, as well as many in the lower courts, they are getting what they want. Trump appointed so many, after all.

Betsy L's avatar

Some of those people are too busy committing more felonies to join ICE, like the guy who threatened to kill Hakeem Jeffries. They don't need no stinkin' jobs.

Stuyvesant Bearns's avatar

AND a salary of $100,000.

Stuyvesant Bearns's avatar

Hello Linda, Yjose figures show us just how desperate to get people they are, and just how unsuccessful. Then too, when you scrape the bottom of the barrel you don't get much that is good.

Linda MacDonald's avatar

I think you are correct.

Lady Emsworth's avatar

Does the signing require them to stay in the job? I wonder how many are taking the money and running?

Kathe Rich's avatar

Sign-on bonuses are common in RN jobs, with which I am familiar. Usually the bonus is given after a specified time on the job, such as 6-12 months. It's not usually awarded upon hiring.

GeorgeC's avatar

But then, ICE Barbie takes bimbosity to a new level. The stupid is STRONG in that despicable agency.

Luana Miller's avatar

What is “usual” obviously does NOT apply to the situation DHS is facing re new ICE agent hires.

Stuyvesant Bearns's avatar

Thank you for the clarification.

Linda MacDonald's avatar

Interesting question. I assume a basic requirement.

Stephanie Gibbs Dunlap's avatar

EXACTLY 🔝 I have been saying this all along, I am sure that Trump’s Ice who beat on people, are the ones with faces masked, won’t give their name, or show their badges. They feel indebted to Trump, because he took them out of jail. Remember the violence of their crazed attack, caused by Trump. Could we get the local Police in these states to look into this? - Find out their names?

Kim ianacone's avatar

I suspect you’re right. You usually are but we all will hope. Thank you for the honest truth and still giving us hope we can get through this.

Richard Waddell's avatar

Not only is Jay giving us hope by his in-depth and level headed explanations, he is showing is how we can, on our own, grow that hope by sharing and expressing it in our

day-to-day attitudes FROM WITHIN, instead of waiting for specific events OUTSIDE to stimulate us. Practice can help sharpen and make positive our

Resting Mental Heart Rate.

Wis's avatar

I so appreciate your frank and thoughtful assessment of this nightmare, Jay, and that you make the educated guess at how SCOTUS will likely act, giving us the ramifications and limits of what can happen if they allow the deployment of troops. I also appreciate that you’ve never thrown up your hands and declared our fight unwinnable or hopeless. Having experts and intelligent people joining the fight and rooting us on with game plans and scenarios is invaluable, at least to me. There’s still hope!!

So, thank you, Jay.

LHS's avatar

I think giving up any hope that the SCOTUS is going to save us, restrain Trump, etc. makes us more clear-eyed about the possibilities. They don't call it hopium for nothing.

Wis's avatar

I agree. I’d rather see reality as reality, not some invented, slanted lie. That’s trump’s department.

Stuyvesant Bearns's avatar

I find it to be strange, but encouraging, to see our nation rising up aginst the man who is our president and his administration, but it is happening with a force I never expected to see.

It is a profound shame, and a lasting stain on our Federal judiciary, that we have a Supreme Court so supine and slavish to a president so unhinged as Trump.

The judgment of history on this Supreme Court in these days will not be kind. Chief Justice Roberts, your children and grandchildren will not be happy about the way you and your Court will be remembered.

Jeffrey Brill's avatar

Feeling insane today; if a lower court judge issues a TRO that gets lifted by the supreme courts shadow docket with no explanation, can the lower court simply reinstate the same TRO on the same basis and force the parties to go through the process again? Surely doing so would make them susceptible to all kinds of consequences, but is it technically possible, or would it be considered invalid immediately?

Jay Kuo's avatar

There are some things a court can do in the absence of clear guidance, such as presume that the court ruled the way it did because of X, take care of X, and then reissue the order. Some courts have done that in other circumstances. But it’s less clear that’s available here as a remedy, depending on the issues as presented to the Supreme Court.

Fred Krasner's avatar

If a shadow docket (emergency) case is decided without briefing or argument,and the order is bare bones without citing statutes or case law; then it seems that the only issues are whether the district court made clearly erroneous findings of fact or whether the appellate panel misinterpreted or misapplied applicable law. Without clear or any guidance from above it seems like the lower courts have license to just invent a suitable X for the occasion and then re-instate their original ruling. While such action might appear to be disrespectful of a higher court's order, it sends a message from the lower court judges that the methods the Supremes have adopted are intolerable...or, if you prefer, tyrannical.

Beth's avatar

Jay, I wish I was as confident as you are that this will all work out

Jay Kuo's avatar

I wouldn’t say I’m confident. I would say I am determined and hopeful.

Barbara A. Ginsberg's avatar

Here are questions that I don't see these comments addressing: 1) Who is in the National Guard? 2) How do they feel about being taken away from their regular, normal jobs and deployed for this nonsense? 3) When they see what nonsense it is, how will it effect them and, to the degree they are Republican, cause them to question their previous political opinions? In other words, can they be organized? Can we turn a bad thing into a good thing and make lemonade from the lemons? For the old folks (and history geeks), remember the coffee houses for G.I.s during the Vietnam War? And the degree to which discontent in the troops was a part of what got that disaster ended.

Jay Kuo's avatar

The Guard is pretty diverse, and those from the home state are less likely to turn on state residents, while those from a state farther away may have been more easily misled to believe these are “terrorists” who need suppressing. Where the Guard comes from will play a big part in what is to come.

Barbara A. Ginsberg's avatar

I'm not sure of that, Jay. It depends on where they are from, how long they stay, and whether they have an opportunity to observe & interact with the people who live there. I know someone who lives in Idaho and who is fairly right wing but his daughter convinced him to take her to New York City as a graduation present. His Facebook page is full of comments such as "I was surprised to find that the subway actually works and doesn't feel scary." It's possible that he may be slightly less of an uncritical believer the next time he is told what a hellhole Manhattan is.

Peter Dudley's avatar

This is why it's imperative an *extremely* high bar must be set for allowing the President to send troops from one state to "police" another state. Otherwise, it starts to look an awful lot like feudalism rather than a union of sovereign states.

Betsy L's avatar

That's a really good question.

Riversong Pond's avatar

Check this out. Some folks are already on this very question.

https://notwhatyousignedupfor.org/

Lady Emsworth's avatar

"Irony, ridicule and comedy, especially outside of ICE facilities, are diminishing the argument that the populace is somehow in open rebellion against federal authority."

Maybe so - but it's hard, very hard, when you see friends and companions being beaten and abused, neighbors dragged away and children in zip-ties.

Miller and the rest are pushing SO hard for a fight. I pray that we can deprive them of that twisted pleasure.

Jay Kuo's avatar

That is the very hard thing we must all witness, knowing that we can’t choose violence the way they have.

Christine Lee's avatar

Yes it's hard. I watched the Madison WI PD beat the cr*p out of student protesters in the 70s 😢 Years later I watched one of those students voted in as mayor.☺️Resistance is NOT futile!

Deb Lane's avatar

I want you to know Jay, that a year ago I didn't know who you were. Now, I can't imagine my life without your knowledge, wisdom, dedication, passion, humor .... and all the other adjectives. I am so grateful that you make the time and use your energy to write The Status Quo, Just for Skeets and Giggles, The Big Picture and also share your growing family. Thank you and all the people who help you everyday.

Robin's avatar

I wholeheartedly agree with you Deb and I too only discovered Jay about a year or so ago. I love his writing even if in this case it’s sobering.

Michela A. C.'s avatar

This part: "While the Supreme Court may permit these National Guard deployments, this does not mean Trump has the right to use them as if they were a law enforcement force. The limits imposed by the Posse Comitatus Act still apply, as long as the forces are acting inside a state rather than a federal district or territory. That means that if the National Guard begins acting like the police by arresting and detaining people, the White House could get knocked back by a civil lawsuit under the Posse Comitatus Act, just like what happened in California" Jay, it looks like this is where are headed. A big question mark is the military. Under drunkseth, will they honor their oaths? Last thing, we may want to stop referring to the WH as the trump WH. It's the vought/miller WH. It would rub cheeto's skin raw if the media referred to vought/miller as the presidents. Recall how he flipped out when the media was saying musk was the real president? Yeah, we need to do that again and "shit" all over the vought/miller WH.

Jay Kuo's avatar

There is a growing question whether the military will choose to honor their oaths or follow illegal orders. We’re seeing that play out in the Caribbean currently. The resignation of Alvin Holsey is a huge flare across the bow of the regime.

LHS's avatar

I know he won't do it, but I would love to hear what Admiral Holsey is thinking and what prompted his "retirement".

Nicholas Pretzel's avatar

I thought the military, like the POTUS, took an oath to defend the constitution, not the presidency? If Trump's orders are unconstitutional, doesn't that mean they're illegal and that the military is obliged to disobey them?

Neita Oates's avatar

Thank you Jay - you are always so clear in your writing which is so helpful in understanding where we are in the battle for democracy . It’s disconcerting to see the way the sc has often been so accommodating and I’m glad you’re not skirting around this .

Lance Khrome's avatar

One of the two tRump-appointed judges selected for the three-judge panel staying the district court's TRO in Portland, Ryan Nelson, is even outdoing the ineffable James Ho of the Fifth CA in trying to audition for the next Scotus opening. His opinion was cringy at best, and woefully ignorant of the "facts on the ground" at worst as enumerated by district Judge Karin Immergut.

Welcome aboard, Ryan, your black robe awaits you!

Jay Kuo's avatar

Yes, that concurrence was something else.

Cathy R's avatar

Thank you so much for this great summary and the hope that no matter what SCOTUS does we can prevail

cassandra@brownhale.com's avatar

In solidarity with you all from Scotland 💙🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿💙

Robert Israel's avatar

If we are ever lucky enough to get back the senate and get a democratic president ( which I highly doubt-due to voter suppression etc. ) the first thing that needs to happen is EXPAND THE COURT-the next democratic nominee needs to make this his number one priority-

Jay Kuo's avatar

Voter suppression through things like gerrymandering tend to affect primarily the House, and not the senate and presidential races, thank goodness.

Robert Israel's avatar

I agree about gerrymandering affecting the house , but with republicans trying to pass so many voter suppression bills at the state level etc they definitely would affect senate and even presidential races

GeorgeC's avatar

Exactly. Massive and repeated purging of the voter rolls (targeted at likely Dem voters) as well as shenanigans like reducing/eliminating polling places & ballot drop boxes have a huge effect on voter turnout.

noeire's avatar

HR=investigations and impeachment

Betsy L's avatar

Expand the court to 13, pass an ethics code with big, sharp teeth that is non-negotiable, and rotate them through a 26-year term.

Lee's avatar

I like the idea of 21 justices that take cases in groups of 7 and meet en banc for decision reviews. More things would be heard with less chance of political stacking if the groups of 7 draw lots on what assignments they get so they don’t hang together as solid groups and form voting blocks. Mix it up regularly!!

18 year term limit. Or maybe even 12.

Betsy L's avatar

Sure. That would work too. I was just thinking thinking mathematically: 13 = 6 MAGA justices + 6 liberal justices + 1 liberal justice to overrule the Roberts 6. 26-year terms so that one justice would retire every two years and each president could appoint 2 justices during his (OR HER!) 4-year term. But a larger court would be great and, as you point out, mitigate the chances of a conservative or liberal majority on the court.

Jeanne Ivancic's avatar

Thank you so much for your frightening yet honest assessment, Jay. We are powerful together as the NO KINGS protests illustrate. I will not give up the peaceful fight against this dictatorship.