LightNews LightNews
banner
mmas.bsky.social
@mmas.bsky.social
150 followers 1.2K following 1 posts
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted
rfrbrghs.bsky.social
#POLITKOLUMNE: There are 2 main strategies to counter the far-right: legal means & political responses

Courts alone won’t save democracy. What’s needed:
1️⃣firm stance against the far-right
2️⃣protest /civil soc. mobilization
3️⃣public institutions that guarantee equal public service access for everyone
May 12, 2025 at 6:36 AM
mmas.bsky.social
Toll, dass die Mieterin unterstützt wurde. Aber für die Zukunft: es kann selbstverständlich auch bei 2. fristloser Kündigung PKH geben. Entscheidend ist, ob die Erfolgsaussichten offen sind. Das kann es im Einzelfall - gerade wenn fehlendes Verschulden - auch bei der zweiten Kündigung.
July 26, 2025 at 10:58 AM
Reposted
mjsdc.bsky.social
In dissent, Sotomayor accuses the Trump administration of openly defying a lower court order, and says SCOTUS now "rewards" it.

"Each time this Court rewards noncompliance with discretionary relief, it further erodes respect for courts and for the rule of law." www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...
Here, in violation of an unambiguous TRO, the Government flew four noncitizens to Guantanamo Bay, and from there deported them to El Salvador. Then, in violation of the very preliminary injunction from which it now seeks relief, the Government removed six class members to South Sudan with less than 16 hours’ notice and no opportunity to be heard. The Government’s assertion that these deportations could be reconciled with the injunction is wholly without merit. Notice at 5:45 p.m. for a 9:35 a.m. deportation, provided to a detainee without access to an attorney, plainly does not “‘affor[d]’” that noncitizen with “‘a reasonable time’” to seek relief. A. A. R. P. v. Trump, 605 U. S. ___, ___ (2025) (per curiam) (slip op., at 4). Even if the Government’s overnight notice had been adequate, moreover, DHS also did not provide the required “meaningful opportunity . . . to raise a fear of return” under the Convention. ECF Doc. 64, at 46. The affected class members lacked any opportunity to research South Sudan, to determine whether they would face risks of torture or death there, or to speak to anyone about their concerns. Instead, they were left in their cells overnight with no chance to raise a claim and deported the next morning. The Government thus openly flouted two court orders, including the one from which it now seeks relief. Even if the orders in question had been mistaken, the Government had a duty to obey them until they were “‘reversed by orderly and proper proceedings.’” Maness, 419 U. S., at 459 (quoting United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258, 293 (1947)). That principle is a bedrock of the rule of law. The Government’s misconduct threatens it to its core. So too does this Court’s decision to grant the Government equitable relief. This is not the first time the Court closes its eyes to noncompliance, nor, I fear, will it be the last. See Trump v. J. G. G., 604 U. S. ___ (2025) (per curiam). Yet each time this Court rewards noncompliance with discretionary relief, it further erodes respect for courts and for the rule of law.
June 23, 2025 at 8:38 PM