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.
this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2025
563 points (99.8% liked)
politics
21970 readers
3794 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
This is the only correct response, any other response means that the federal government does not in practice have checks and balances
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.
Yeah, slow nibbling at fascism is how the world got Hitler. Out the despot now.
I believe they thought they could ignore the order because they could ignore the order.
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.
Note Rubio saying they aren't going to stop, when explicitly told to by a judge. That's called sedition last I knew.
And if there’s no one willing to stop them, it may as well be legal.
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.
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.
So what is the judge going to do? Admonish them?
At the end of Inglorious Basterds, Aldo Raines has his man kill Hans Landa's assistant. Landa screams "You'll be shot for that!" and Aldo says:
"Shot? I don't think so, more like chewed out. I been chewed out before."
During the first administration KellyAnne "SkankySkag" Conway received numerous fines for her near constant violations of the Hatch Act, eventually reaching $100,000, which she never paid. When asked about it, she casually dismissed it, saying "Let me know when they start talking about jail time."
Things like censure, polls, stern warnings, appeals to morality, etc. Mean less than nothing to these traitors. They are determined to destroy America, and nothing less than harsh imprisonment will get through to them. If we get through this, we need to viciously purge MAGA from society and prohibit it's existence.
Asking respectively. What else can this judge do in the USA? Law is being blatantly ignored. This is dictatorship.
He can have members of the Trump administration dragged into court by U.S. Marshalls. And then if necessary, held in contempt of court and imprisoned.
Well, he criticized them… so. Lesson learned, right?
Judge Boasberg does have one other card he can play, according to FRCJ Rule 4.1(b). If the US Marshal service is unable or unwilling to carry out a federal court order, the Judge who issued the order can deputize individuals to carry it out.
Sounds like a "well-ordered militia" is called for.
Could they deputize, say, the military?
Not just the military. I draw your attention to this, emphasis mine
(a) In General. Process—other than a summons under Rule 4 or a subpoena under Rule 45 —must be served by a United States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially appointed for that purpose.
Section (b) says:
Enforcing Orders: Committing for Civil Contempt. An order committing a person for civil contempt of a decree or injunction issued to enforce federal law may be served and enforced in any district. Any other order in a civil-contempt proceeding may be served only in the state where the issuing court is located or elsewhere in the United States within 100 miles from where the order was issued.
The line:
a person specially appointed for that purpose.
is interesting because it does not specify who is qualified to be appointed. Now, I am concerned that this language means that Judge Boasberg may only appoint one person, but if he seems it necessary, he could probably get away with appointing more.
Could he appoint one person who then assembles a "task force" of individuals who support them? Or do they have to be each appointed by the judge himself for that specific task?I think one guy isn't going to cut it, but if 500 guys show up on the WH lawn to enforce the court order it might have some weight.
He'll move up to SLAMS next
Slamming the meat on the grill!
If that doesn't work, the judge can throw him off Hell In A Cell, and plummet 16 ft through an announcer’s table.
don't let this man distract you
I'm expecting the Judicial will go as far as BASHED
Like at what point does everyone else in the government finally say "ok we have to treat them as treasonous" this is a madhouse full of complacent fools.
At this point I don't see the politicians being the people to save us. Honestly don't know what the military would do either. They'd probably fight internally until the MAGA component wins or gets squashed.
So much can change so quickly. That's usually how the big changes go, especially when they are unfavorable.
They feel that they can ignore it because they can ignore it. Stop letting them!
Well considering Republicans control every branch of government, they're assuming they can and will get away with it. Even if this goes up to SCOTUS, the conservative justices will let them do what they want. One of them will "dissent" though to try to make it seem like they don't agree. They're probably behind closed doors playing rock, paper, scissors to see who "dissents" each time a hot button topic gets up to them.
Also didn't the Supreme Court just rule that you can't charge the president for crimes made in their official capacity? He can just say it was in his official capacity to ignore the orders so tough titties.
That doesn't mean his actions would stand, it just means he can't be prosecuted for it.
If he fires someone and it's ruled illegal, they get their job back or some very large settlement.
Deported people would be able to return etc.
load more comments
(10 replies)
'You felt you could disregard it?'
Well, given that they disregarded it and are now standing before you arguing that they had the right to disregard it, I think it's safe to say that yes, they felt they could disregard it. And given that the migrants were deported anyway, your orders were not only completely ignored, but were also being openly mocked on Twitter by Marco Rubio, and they will receive no punishment for doing so, I think it's safe to say that they were right.
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.”
He's about to find out that his written orders carry even less. Remember, the Supreme Court ruled that he can't even be questioned about official acts, much less investigated. Trump could go on his Twitter knock-off tomorrow and tell this guy to go fuck himself with a chainsaw and there's fuck-all this judge can do about it.
This is kind of insane to witness unfold in real time. These fossils don’t understand that they’ve been stripped from their institutional powers. They are literally not able to understand what’s happening even if it’s totally transparent to anyone watching.
No, he can be questioned about official acts. The wording is that the judiciary decides what is an official act, so if they decide it is, he cannot be punished criminally for what is otherwise a criminal act. The Supreme Court did a bunch of power grabs for itself and effectively declared that Congress couldn’t do squat other than impeachment against the president and the only check on the president’s power was whether the judiciary agreed with him.
Now Trump’s attacking the judiciary and has made the chief justice have to make a statement that his challenges to his legitimacy will not stand, so I would expect to see a bunch of cases go against Trump just as a judiciary show of force, much like his citizenship emergency challenge where they told him to fuck off and they’d slow walk his case.
Trump could have ended democracy quite easily if he wasn’t in such a damn hurry to get shit done and snubbing all of the power brokers that he needs to implement his plans is forcing a bunch of needless shit. When the economy is fully in shambles in a few months and the ad spend slows down for media companies, I’d expect them to pounce on how much shit he fucked up. It’s wild seeing WSJ realizing the problem that’s coming down the pipeline and the Murdoch rag shitting on him in the editorials rather than WaPo.
Throw. That. Lawyer. In. PRISON. There may be no way to enforce the law on Trump himself, but make lawyers afraid to do his dirty work.
"A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one."
- Alexander Hamilton
Throw everyone who implemented it in prison. Trump may have made himself an untouchable dictator but just himself.
Remember that loyalty only goes one way, unless it’s in trumps personal interest such as profiting from it. Make him go on record as either pardoning the criminals or dropping them
load more comments
(12 replies)
view more: next ›