this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2025
640 points (99.5% liked)

politics

21970 readers
3870 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

A federal judge criticized a Trump administration Justice Department lawyer who claimed they didn't have to follow the judge's oral order blocking deportations to El Salvador because it wasn't in writing.

Judge Boasberg questioned why the administration ignored his directive to return immigrants to the US. The DOJ lawyer repeatedly refused to provide information about the deportations, citing "national security concerns."

Frustrated, Boasberg ordered sworn declarations explaining what happened, quipping that he would issue a written order "since apparently my verbal orders don't seem to carry much weight."

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] collapse_already@lemmy.ml 22 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Show cause why I shouldn't throw your ass in the klink. That's what happens to the rest of us if we ignore a court order.

[–] blakenong@lemmings.world 6 points 1 hour ago (3 children)

He can’t be charged with a crime while in office or for anything he does in office. So, that’s why.

[–] melpomenesclevage@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 38 minutes ago* (last edited 36 minutes ago) (1 children)

so arrest everyone in the department that did it. EVERYONE. secretary of [thing], and everyone who might have so much as seen the command moving down the chain.

that's what a law that wasn't just an excuse to punish poor people would do.

or just fucking arrest him anyway, fuck it, if laws don't mean things, laws don't mean things. that includes his special protection.

[–] blakenong@lemmings.world 4 points 22 minutes ago (1 children)

I don’t disagree with you, but I think we both know how this will play out. Get ready to hide in the attic.

[–] melpomenesclevage@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 18 minutes ago

yeah. fuck my life. taking bets on how long I last before they kill me. ill have betting tables up in the morning.

[–] phx@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

And the "just following orders" folks?

[–] blakenong@lemmings.world 2 points 20 minutes ago

I’m in the guillotine crowd, so I say “everyone,” but I’m not holding my breath there will be any.

[–] collapse_already@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

So the second amendment is our only option?

[–] blakenong@lemmings.world 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Unless you’ve got another option….

[–] witten@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

You guys are maybe being a little hasty... Many other members of the Trump administration can get forcibly hauled into court even if Trump has "immunity."

[–] blakenong@lemmings.world 2 points 20 minutes ago (1 children)

Let me know when that happens.

[–] witten@lemmy.world 1 points 7 minutes ago

And let me know when you second amendment types actually do something. 👍

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 16 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (2 children)

So just to be clear, this is within the domain of “constitutional crisis” that the vast majority of Americans who graduated from high school will have certainly been taught about at some point. But precisely zero major news networks or newspapers are calling it as such.

Evidently a comically dismaying proportion of us unitedstatesians need to be told when our own fucking house is on fire. And even then, 30ish% of us will deny it as the flesh melts off their own bones.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 62 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

He shouldn't be letting those attorneys leave the courtroom free men. Hold them in contempt and issue bench warrants for administration officials and anyone carrying out these illegal orders.

[–] fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 40 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

This is the only correct response, any other response means that the federal government does not in practice have checks and balances

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 27 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

It also forces Trump's hand. Either publicly reveal, right now that he is an all-out dictator instead of slow-rolling it, or fold and lose any momentum he has.

If a violent revolution is needed to take him down, the sooner everyone knows about it, the better.

[–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 5 points 2 hours ago

Yeah, slow nibbling at fascism is how the world got Hitler. Out the despot now.

[–] bunnyjenkins@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago

The same laws that make him President, are the same law in which we allow it

[–] Professorozone@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago

I believe they thought they could ignore the order because they could ignore the order.

[–] WrenFeathers@lemmy.world 45 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

A federal judge criticized a Trump administration Justice Department lawyer

If this is the only consequence of having done it- I’d say they didn’t think they could, they knew they could.

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Note Rubio saying they aren't going to stop, when explicitly told to by a judge. That's called sedition last I knew.

[–] WrenFeathers@lemmy.world 7 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

And if there’s no one willing to stop them, it may as well be legal.

[–] blakenong@lemmings.world 1 points 1 hour ago

people would be willing if they could ever get the message out.

[–] Zzyzx@lemmy.blahaj.zone 69 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

The US is in a constitutional crisis with situations like this, and so many people just don't seem to care or want to acknowledge that it's at that point.

[–] JacksonLamb@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago

I think the seeds for this were sown in the post 9/11 secret court system, in which the US govt authorized itself to break national and international law.

load more comments
view more: next ›