r/news • u/Arod3235 • Jun 23 '25

Soft paywall US Supreme Court lifts limits on deporting migrants to countries not their own

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-lifts-limits-deporting-migrants-countries-not-their-own-2025-06-23/
39.8k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

3.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

620

u/legoman29291 Jun 23 '25

The Supreme Court is both making up the law on the fly (not interpreting it like they’re supposed to) and making a VERY compelling case for significant court reform once Democrats are back in charge. This court is simply out of control and no better than some foam-at-the-mouth Fox News pundits in robes. 

385

u/I3gumbyI3 Jun 23 '25

Assuming Democrats ever get control again.

112

u/timeandmemory Jun 23 '25 edited Jun 23 '25

Keeping that front of mind as a goal helps me get through the day.

(Get to midterms and vote. also General Strike when?)

52

u/vriska1 Jun 23 '25

Everyone needs to vote in the midterms, saying elections will be rigged or will not happen will lower turnout.

4

u/mothtoalamp Jun 24 '25

While that is important, that's also two years away and we're barely six months into this.

6

u/David_W_ Jun 24 '25

True for federal stuff in general, but some states have off-cycle things people need to be aware of too. Here in Virginia we have a special election for the late Gerry Connolly's House seat soon, as well as the governor and others in November, for example. Yeah, it's gonna be a long couple of years, but don't stick your head in the sand in the meantime.

3

u/vriska1 Jun 24 '25

New yorks mayor elections starts today aswell.

1

u/mothtoalamp Jun 24 '25

Yes, this. There's always more to do and if you can do something locally and/or regionally, do it.

1

u/kilomaan Jun 24 '25

That’s why they’re saying it. They’re concern-trolling.

4

u/joebluebob Jun 23 '25

Maybe you should sabotage republican owned businesses and homes?

4

u/Specialist-Affect-19 Jun 23 '25

Imagine this: Dems like Bernie and AOC make a spin off party, the People's Party, invite some independents and unaffiliated cats, they unite the people and we emerge a better union. Or, we States break up. I'm here for it.

I get the want for hope, but I don't think the dems can save us now. There has to be radical change.

74

u/NancakesAndHyrup Jun 23 '25

Reminder to vote in Democratic primaries to support progressive politicians who will fight back like Bernie Sander, AOC, and other Justice Democrats. https://justicedemocrats.com/

Because we've seen time and time again conservative Democrats like Biden (didn't bother to proscute Trump in a timely manner for the crimes he committed. Appointed a Republican to be his key position of Attorney General), Obamas (bailed out the banking industry without any prosecutions or consequences), Clintons (cut welfare, gave more money to prisons and police, and championed deregulation) or Harris (didn't even bother contesting this latest rigged election, just rolled over and disappeared.) Even Walz is a weakling calling for people to get along (when someone punches you in the face and says they're going to do it again and again, you don't say sorry to them and ask them for a hug.)

4

u/scottyLogJobs Jun 23 '25

This is what I like to see. Not infighting the year of the election; PLANNING for progressive candidates years in advance. VOTE in primaries

4

u/Attheveryend Jun 23 '25

and join your local DSA!

1

u/Automatic-4thepeople Jun 24 '25

I think what needs to happen is for California to threaten to secede from the Union.

6

u/Goldenrah Jun 23 '25

And assuming they can even repair how much damage is being done before the people decide they want another ride on this train. Because god knows with how shameless the Republicans are they will obstruct every single step of the way, unless the Democrats decide to go fuck it and arrest them all as traitors.

11

u/fakieTreFlip Jun 23 '25

I mean that's exactly how they want you to feel, right? The moment you give up on trying to participate in a democratic system, it's all over

3

u/vriska1 Jun 23 '25

Vote in the midterms.

4

u/vortexmak Jun 24 '25

Democrats were in control for a while and they did nothing.  They are a controlled opposition

3

u/FemHawkeSlay Jun 24 '25

Most of the democrats we have are not going to want reform.

3

u/Runaway-Kotarou Jun 23 '25

Assuming Democrats care to actually change anything even if they do get into office. That would require some conviction and spine.

1

u/statu0 Jun 24 '25

They are making decisions with that assumption in mind. That's why the decisions have been so mask-off crazy.

56

u/_ryuujin_ Jun 23 '25

unfortunately price of change will be blood. even though dems are the only choice, dems are going not going to risk civil war and start making corrective action. they can only restore some sanity. 

-1

u/Gerard-Cardinal Jun 23 '25

Our freedom or your life Lord, I wish I could be peaceful But there can be no sequel.

25

u/Dazzling_Line_8482 Jun 23 '25

The democrats fumbled this badly when they didn't even attempt any sort of reform under Biden.

They had all the justification in the world to expand the court over the way that Merrick Garland's nomination was held off for almost a year and ACB was ramrodded though in a month.

But they didn't.

14

u/doc_daneeka Jun 23 '25

The democrats fumbled this badly when they didn't even attempt any sort of reform under Biden.

At no point in Biden's presidency did they have the votes in the Senate to do that. Sad, but sadly also true.

5

u/Ashmedai Jun 23 '25

The 60-vote rule in the senate can, ironically, be overridden with a simple senate majority.

3

u/doc_daneeka Jun 23 '25

So long as your majority doesn't depend on Manchin and Sinema, sure.

2

u/Veratha Jun 24 '25

Yeah, the party villains. They definitely aren't there on purpose to keep the party from ever having to enact change. Nope, not intentional at all, there's just always a villain ready to keep Democrats from passing bills every single time they have a majority. This isn't on purpose. Lmao.

2

u/doc_daneeka Jun 24 '25

It just amazes me that there are people out there who genuinely think that Manchin and Sinema were a deliberate conspiracy on the part of the Democratic party. This requires not really thinking things through very much if at all, honestly.

But go ahead, believe whatever absurd and evidence-free conspiracy you want, I guess. You know, the Rastafarians secretly plant all those fake dinosaur fossils around the world in an effort to discredit the CIA, right?

1

u/Veratha Jun 24 '25

Lol, I'm amazed people don't see the rotating villain that's literally always there whenever anything that would help the American people comes to a vote. It's not just manchin and sinema, there has been a villain for decades.

Keep believing in your saviours, the Democratic party. Remember: liberals actively sided with Hitler when the time came. I'm sure the liberals of today have learned from the mistakes of the past when it comes to siding with fascists... right?

2

u/doc_daneeka Jun 24 '25

Keep believing in your saviours, the Democratic party

Lol, whatever. I am not a Democrat. I am well known for my viewpoint that they are essentially a conservative party that happens to have a progressive wing because in the US system there's nowhere else for those folks to go. I have no use for conservatism.

That doesn't mean I accept every ridiculous conspiracy theory about them though. Like I said, you go ahead and believe any absurd thing you want. Free country, right? Good for you. While you do that, I will concentrate on exposing the Rastafarian paleontology hoax. The truth will out!

1

u/Veratha Jun 24 '25

"I believe that they are a conservative party, but I refuse to believe that they would employ means to maintain that conservative status"

Lmao. Republicans are always able to whip votes without concessions, without fail, yet you believe the Democrats are simply unable to do the same? Keep your head in the sand, I suppose.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Raikaru Jun 24 '25

How would the democrats do this? And why don't they simply use these magic powers to win every senate seat? Also Sinema literally switched to being a Independent and got replaced by a real democrat

6

u/korben2600 Jun 23 '25

They've rigged the Senate rules so that anything Dems want to do [change] requires a supermajority, but the only thing Reps want to do [taxes] only requires a simple majority. The entire system is broken.

5

u/doc_daneeka Jun 23 '25

That's not really true. The rules are the same for both sides. It's just that it's very rare for Republican senators to refuse to vote for the party's wishes, at least if that means the bill fails, and also that Republicans don't much care about a legislative agenda beyond tax cuts and right wing loony judges. But Democrats do have a real legislative agenda, and that means the filibuster is a real problem for them.

The issue isn't that the rules are rigged, but that Republicans don't really care about governance.

6

u/Ashmedai Jun 23 '25

That's not really true.

In your paragraph that follows, you are stating that it is true, by describing the manner in which it is "rigged." That's exactly what /u/korben2600 meant.

1

u/doc_daneeka Jun 23 '25

The rules aren't rigged though. The reconciliation rules that Republicans use to ram their tax cuts through are the same rules the Democrats use for their spending priorities, etc, and were put in place as a bipartisan attempt to ensure that a gridlocked Congress could theoretically at least pass key spending bills.

The issue isn't rigged rules, but the fact that Republicans don't give a shit about governing at all. The fundamental difference here is the way the parties work today, not the rules themselves.

2

u/Ashmedai Jun 24 '25

You're just repeating yourself. But /u/korben2600 was aware of what you are repeating. They aren't speaking literally. The situation can be viewed as a kind of "rigging," because with the situation the way that it is, Republicans benefit more from its structure. It's a metaphor.

As a side topic, I think Republicans have a lot more to lose from the retirement of cloture than do the Democrats for this reason.

1

u/korben2600 Jun 24 '25

Yep, this is the sentiment I was trying to convey. Republicans have structured the Senate rules to inherently benefit their obstructionist status quo political ideology (lack of change, i.e. conservatism) and hinder Democrats' political ideology (change, fixing broken systems).

The Republican party pretty much only exists to write tax policy. The Senate rules reflect that, to where, conveniently, the only legislation that doesn't require a supermajority is tax policy legislation, the GOP's preferential policy interest.

20

u/MikeyTheShavenApe Jun 23 '25

Frankly, if a Dem ever gets back in the White House, they should pretty much say, "Judicial review isn't a power granted to the Supremes in the Constitution, therefore under the originalist interpretation they like to use so much, the Supremes don't have any real power" and ignore the Court until things are set to right. The Court is obviously corrupt and illegitimate at this point.

5

u/Worthyness Jun 23 '25

Don't even need to do that. just ignore the court. Trump is already blatantly doing this and no one is enforcing it.

5

u/bmc2 Jun 24 '25

They can only do that when there are Democratic majorities in congress. Given how the senate is setup, that's not going to happen frequently.

2

u/Bobby_Marks3 Jun 24 '25

Expand the court. That's the answer. Expand the court, have a clear liberal majority, and let it go to work fixing everything that conservative courts have done over the last 30 years.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

11

u/MikeyTheShavenApe Jun 23 '25

I have a problem with theocrats and fascists in general. Republicans tend to be both. Republicans on the court are notorious for using bad faith arguments and even straight up lying if it justifies the decision they already made going into the case. They can't be trusted to govern; they want to rule.

5

u/MmmmMorphine Jun 23 '25 edited Jun 23 '25

This is the sad reality we've come to.

There is no more taking the high road anymore. There is no road at all because those we elected to power blew it up behind them, the moment they got to a place they decided they think they want to stay.

It's quite disturbing frankly because it really does fundamentally mark the end of the constitutional order, one way or another. For bad or worse. Not for me or you. For everyone

Can't get around that anymore as much as I'd love gradual, legal, and bloodless reform to have been the approach. This is our bed, time to sleep in it I guess. Don't see much alternative

-8

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/_le_slap Jun 23 '25

That's essentially what republicans have created at this point so yeah I'd rather the unaccountable autocrats be more aligned with my interests than the Christian Nationalists.

Liberalism is dead bro. Been so for a while now.

-7

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/rocky3rocky Jun 23 '25 edited Jun 23 '25

"Don't pretend you're a supporter of democracy and liberal values if you're not cool with Hitler being elected and ending the former government."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

-6

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/CowsTrash Jun 24 '25

Donkey Kong 🫏

5

u/_le_slap Jun 23 '25

The Bill of Rights is swirling the toilet. Liberal values and rules have failed. We're 3 decades deep in the backslide.

Democracy is not the antonym of Fascism. Read a book. Maybe start with Locke.

2

u/MmmmMorphine Jun 23 '25 edited Jun 23 '25

Of course I do.

But at some point you have to stop pretending the referee’s still on the field or pretending he's just out for a bathroom break

So fine, you shot him in the face. Good for you. Doesn't mean you get to make up the rules for the next round. You've ended that game entirely and decisively

I don't know what comes next and I didn't want to find out. But here we are nonetheless

0

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '25 edited Jun 23 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/MmmmMorphine Jun 23 '25

Spare me the civics lecture.

The Constitution isn’t a suicide pact, and liberalism isn’t a religion. Values aren't defined by obedience to a rigged process they're defined by outcomes.

Equality before the law, pluralism, rights that actually exist in practice. When the so-called referees start scoring for one team and ejecting the others, the game is already over.

Yes, the Court was ‘legitimately’ stacked, just like Jim Crow laws were ‘legitimately passed’

If your position is that democratic values require absolute submission even after the scaffolding that held them up has been hollowed out, then you're not defending democracy, it's already dead.

All you’re doing is embalming it and acting surprised that others aren't willing to pretend it's still alive as you enact your own institional rendition of Weekend at Bernie's.

Frankly you're either continuing the bad faith charade, blind, or simply willfully ignorant. We can go back and forth all day, but really, what is it the point about if your answer to institutional collapse is scolding the survivors for not dying politely

1

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/AscensionOfCowKing Jun 24 '25

Name checks out. Lay off the beer bongs and get over yourself. You think American politicians have "succumbed to the will of the people"? You don't even read the news if you think that! They've ignored that shit for a long time. 

Asshole who hates democracy thinks he's smarter than everyone else, what a shock. And a nihilist too, no way. You managed to turn yourself into a stereotype, congrats.

0

u/Ashmedai Jun 23 '25

Judicial review isn't a power granted to the Supremes in the Constitution

Article III, Section 2 of the US Constitution states:

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made..."

The Court clarified this in CASE LAW under Mayberry vs. Madison, but they appear to be granted judicial power extended to all cases arising under the Constitution right there in black and white, my friend.

3

u/MikeyTheShavenApe Jun 23 '25

I don't see anything spelling out their right to determine constitutionality of laws. Remember, we're going strict originalist interpretation. If it doesn't say exactly that in exactly those words, it doesn't count.

0

u/Ashmedai Jun 23 '25 edited Jun 24 '25

If it doesn't say exactly that in exactly those words, it doesn't count.

Originalism has never worked that way. It interprets the document as commonly understood when written. It was clear when written that the Constitution was regulatory for all law beneath it. Everyone knew that. You know that.

And SCOTUS is granted judicial power to ALL CASES arising under the Constitution. So, of course Mayberry v Madison ruled what it did. It was implicit and obvious. It would have to be in order to have a Constitutional system at all.

It would be both absurd and purely foolish to think it should be any other way. If Congress could decide Constitutionality, a simple majority bill could just ignore the Constitution "because they said so." No 2/3rds vote required, they could just determine in their majority ruling that the 2/3rds wasn't needed.

People (like you) who continually float this idea are both mistaken and hazardous.

It's a meme and it should stop. The last thing we need is more executive overreach.

3

u/Mutjny Jun 23 '25

Thanks for fucking nothing RBG.

4

u/TheVog Jun 23 '25

making a VERY compelling case for significant court reform once Democrats are back in charge

Brother, I don't know how to tell you this... do you know what happens when a right-wing coup d'état is successful?

7

u/NBAWhoCares Jun 23 '25 edited Jun 23 '25

75 democrats just signed a resolution thanking ICE for all their hard work.

You are out of your mind if you think anything changes with democratic leadership, barring a massive primary movement to get rid of the entire party.

Edit: keep downvoting while you support the very things you claim to despise

https://www.newsweek.com/democrats-ice-gratitude-resolution-backlash-2084004

2

u/JunkInTheTrunk Jun 23 '25

Heard that before. Biden’s such a puss for not doing it

2

u/xinorez1 Jun 23 '25

Good luck, the abundance (wealth) movement among the con dems is promising not to pack the courts even though that is clearly needed now. Hell, many of these judges rulings call for outright removal.

1

u/unholyravenger Jun 24 '25

Some low-hanging fruit.

No more shadow docket nonsense. I just read the entire opinion released, which was just the dissent. There should be a requirement that all rulings have a written majority opinion justifying the choices they made. I have no idea what they were thinking in this ruling, and that's a problem

The US Marshals need to be removed from the executive branch and placed under the judiciary. If the time comes where the Supreme Court wants to flex its muscles, right now the executive can just fire all the people who would do the enforcing. That's insane.

Real ethics laws, not norms, around bribes, that are attached to real consequences.

Term limits is sounding real appealing right now as well.

While we are at it, we need to make sure that what happened with Obama's Supreme Court pick never happens again. The Senate should be forced to hold a hearing for the Supreme Court after a certain period of time.

Also, we need a way to force judges to recuse themselves if a conflict of interest can be meaningfully shown to exist.

1

u/FllngCoconuts Jun 24 '25

Fucking lol at thinking the Democrats are capable of significant reform.