535
US federal judges consider creating own armed security force as threats mount
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 25 May 2025
535 points (99.3% liked)
politics
23719 readers
2532 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They can't. Congress has to do that.
You say that like you genuinely believe the law matters, consider reexamining that assumption
The mistake your making is looking at the subject. The courts won't do something unconstitutional. TRUMP will
So until the courts play the game of "no law" they HAVE to do that.
WE don't.
If they have a choice at all then no they do not have to, they are choosing to, that's just what the words mean
No. See the courts don't make law. They interpret it. But they can't ignore the constitution or they wouldn't be courts.
Cool story
better than yours
It bears no resemblance to reality, so no not really
No, child, you are being petulant and spoiled. You want more treason and chaos because you are upset at the president. And you not only have every right, I am as well
But the answer isn't to destroy our government even more
It's to remove the administration before they do more damage. A private army run by people who can make any law without answering to civilian?
You are giving the government what they want. Mire thugs, less accountability, and more cash.
It's a foolish, poorly thought out proposal that creates vastly more problems
Now I am through being reasonable Bout this subject. If you do not know how the government works and why we as citizens need to stand and fight instead of the courts, then you are one of the issues.
I truly do wish you the best. I will not waste more time on this.
Goddamn you're dumb and long-winded, reality will prove you wrong pretty soon now so just pay attention and you'll find out
To clarify, I don't think it would be a good thing necessarily if courts had their own security/military, I'm just not stupid enough to believe they'd magically stop being courts if that happened. The law doesn't matter if there are no consequences for breaking it, and Trump is busy demonstrating exactly that.
Why?
Are they stupid?
Because then, they wouldn't be the courts
As long as Trump gets to break the rules without consequences the Dems should get to do that as well.
The courts is not the same as the dems
Who fucking cares?
you do you want something done that the courts won't do
I don't care that they "wouldn't be the courts" - whatever that means. If they wouldn't be the courts, what would they be?
I do care that they act before we fucking die.
Kind of different.
That's a different statement. Yes they need to act before it's too late, no they cannot act alone
But if they act, they aren't courts.
I still have no idea what that means.
Courts uphold laws created by Congress. Not the other way around.
Without their function of upholding the law, they cease to function as courts and, instead become another dictatorial arm of the government merely giving out edicts with no authority.. There's the whole giving courts private army, problems.
The government needs less of this, not more
The actual real world function of courts has always been as another arm of the government's authority. In the real world the interpretation of legislation is also part of the creation and execution of legislation. It's a continuum, that's always been how it works.
Courts are part of the government, not some divine body that exists outside politics.
Liberals act like the separation of powers isn't just something they made up. Separation of powers isn't real and it never has been and it can't be.
Sure seems to.
For you maybe
Supreme court could just manifest the ability to fund a system of officers of the court from thin fucking air if they wanted to.
I understand and support your irritation and disgust at this administration
But this is not how the court works. They could , hire some contractors I guess, but they cannot unilateraly create a security service
The Supreme court manifested the entire concept of jurisprudence. I think they could do the same for a system of officers of the court.
Umm. I think you have your facts mistaken or are speaking of something other than jurisprudence.
Marshall laid out his arguments for judicial review in Marbury v Madison. At the time it was supported by Hamilton and others too. But it's not explicitly stated in the constitution. Jurisprudence is entirely an unconstitutional (though consistent with other sections of the constitution) power that the courts granted themselves. It's been a long time since my last us history class though.