Why would they impeach him for something the Republicans on the Supreme Court will declare perfectly legal?
ryper
joined 2 years ago
Influencers like Mike Cernovich and Charlie Kirk accused her of betraying conservative values despite past praise.
Just to be clear, this was after she voted to block some DOGE stuff; they're not claiming that wanting to keep people from being deported on flimsy justifications with no due process is a betrayal of "conservative values" (yet).
If he makes it 420% maybe Elon will get on board.
The without prejudice part is in the article:
The DOJ had asked Ho to toss the case “without prejudice,” which would have allowed charges to be refiled against the mayor in the future.
As for why that could be bad:
Ho, in his order on Wednesday, wrote that dismissing the case without prejudice “would create the unavoidable perception that the Mayor’s freedom depends on his ability to carry out the immigration enforcement priorities of the administration.
The judge also said it would create the perception that Adams, who is seeking re-election this year, “might be more beholden to the demands of the federal government than to the wishes of his own constituents.”
“That appearance is inevitable, and it counsels in favor of dismissal with prejudice,” Ho wrote.
CBC's coverage says his problem isn't with the law itself:
Blanchet's criticism follows Carney's remarks Monday that a government led by him would act as an intervenor at the Supreme Court of Canada should it ever hear a challenge to Bill 96.
Carney said he would do so not because he has a problem with the legislation, but because he opposes any province's pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause to pass laws.
CBC has English coverage, and the law is only described as a "trade irritant", not anything illegal, which is surprising given the insane claims the Trump admin likes to make:
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative released its annual list of global trade barriers Tuesday, and it includes Quebec's controversial language law Bill 96 as a trade irritant between the two countries.
The law isn't new but it has provisions that kick in in June that seem to be the main issue:
The changes impact the use of French in the judicial system, health care, schools, workplaces and businesses across the provincial economy, but the issue singled out as a trade barrier by the U.S. is how it impacts trademarks and labelling.
"U.S. businesses have expressed concerns about the impact that Bill 96 will have on their federally registered trademarks for products manufactured after June 1, 2025, which is when the relevant provisions of Bill 96 enter into force," the National Trade Estimate Report said.
When the new provisions kick in this summer, trademarks displayed on a product can only appear in English if there's no French version of the trademark registered. If the trademark or label contains generic terms or descriptions that are not in French, the trademark must be changed to include a French version of those terms and descriptions.
Companies found to have violated these changes to the law can face fines of up to $90,000 per day for their third offence, while individuals can be fined up to $42,000 a day for their third offence.
"Woke"? Didn't he get the memo on "DEI" being the new right-wing target?
Their environmental policies have shown that they're not worried about their children's future.
He loves free speech so much he wants it all to himself.
Legal analysts predict challenges, citing potential overreach and conflict with congressional authority.
So a standard Trump executive order then.
"Oops, we deported him at 4pm. Oh well."