this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2025
660 points (99.4% liked)

politics

21970 readers
3827 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
[–] [email protected] 26 points 2 hours 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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 hours 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.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (2 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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 hour 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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 55 minutes ago (1 children)

Hmmm… what color are you? Could be a matter of months… (hopefully not)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 54 minutes ago (1 children)

I think I count as 'swarthy' and white depending on the century.

but also I'm visibly queer and very loud about lefty politics.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 23 minutes ago (1 children)

Hmm. Do you live in a blue state? I hope so. You might be able to blend. Can you—is this the fucking 90s?—“butch up” for the gestapo long enough to slip away? I’m having flashbacks of the Midwest.

For me, I’m a man married to a man. I’m on a list. I’m somewhat nervous about that, but I’m white like milk an own a lot of polos and chinos, so I will have some warning before the shit hits me. Fingers crossed.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 16 minutes ago* (last edited 16 minutes ago) (1 children)

butch up

well I have tits, so I'm not sure that would help.

I'm more worried about a neighbor reporting me.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 minutes ago

Oh, you’re fine. They love girl on girl. (Joke)

It’s always the fucking neighbors.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 39 minutes ago (1 children)

The more they let them act without any consequences for their actions shows us that the constitution means nothing nowadays. Throw him or the enablers in jail, but doing nothing means checks and balances are useless. I fear for the regular people. Power has gone to the fascists and oligarchs.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 37 minutes ago

...nowadays?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

And the "just following orders" folks?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 hour ago

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

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

So the second amendment is our only option?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Unless you’ve got another option….

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 hours 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."

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Let me know when that happens.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 57 minutes ago (1 children)

You mean the people who wish death on people who are absolutely destroying humanity? Or, gun people? Because, I don’t own a gun. 🤷‍♂️

[–] [email protected] 1 points 42 minutes ago* (last edited 40 minutes ago) (1 children)

Both. I just think the "oh well we must immediately escalate to bloodshed" people are only serving to worsen the situation because it skips over all the other legitimate ways we have of fighting back, like protest and the courts. Ways that a bigger portion of the populace is willing to participate in (currently). And right now we need everyone who's reasonable resisting in any way they can.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 minutes ago

I seriously hope you’re right. I’d rather not see a bunch of people die. But I haven’t seen anything at all to suggest the usual ways are gonna work, and by the time we realize that it will be too late (if it’s not already).

Give me hope, tell me something that is actually going to stop them and is likely to work.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 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.

[–] [email protected] 66 points 5 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.

[–] [email protected] 44 points 5 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

[–] [email protected] 31 points 4 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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 hours ago

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

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 hours ago

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

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 hours ago

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

[–] [email protected] 46 points 7 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.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 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.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago

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

load more comments
view more: next ›