I'm just shocked that so many of you are okay with a judge deciding that all those criminals should remain in the US...I mean, this is why ya'll lost the elections...
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:
- 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
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
So what is the judge going to do? Admonish them?
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.
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
He'll move up to SLAMS next
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
Slamming the meat on the grill!
Well, he criticized them… so. Lesson learned, right?
load more comments
(5 replies)
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.
Save you from what? Is your life ruined? Are we all losing our rights in the US? Are we all being deported? How bad is your life right now, that you need "saving?"
load more comments
(1 replies)
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
What about all the hardcore criminals he sent out, should we bring them all back and release them?
Wouldn't Trump just pardon them?
Make him do it. Make him do it over and over. New contempt charges every time one of these asshat lawyers refuses a lawful court order. Take up all of Trump's time with having to continuously pardon his own lawyers.
It literally takes trump 20 seconds to tell an aid to start paperwork for a pardon.
After 8 years of watching the legal system completely and utterly fumble any semblance of justice against Trump, it is bizarre to see you hail legal action as the ultimate method of dismantling the Trump regime. Big "I think Mueller is still going to bring Trump down!" energy.
Nothing will change until the ruling class have fear in their hearts, and if the most obstructive and radical thing you can imagine is "waste trumps time by making him pardon an extra 15 people" also happens to be the prevalent mindset of other liberals, then yall are mega doomed.
Nothing will change until the ruling class have fear in their hearts, and if the most obstructive and radical thing you can imagine is “waste trumps time by making him pardon an extra 15 people” also happens to be the prevalent mindset of other liberals, then yall are mega doomed.
Did anyone say it was the only method on the table?
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
He can't pardon a disbarment, though!
I don't think he can. Courts have the power to hold people until they comply with a court order.
Technically so does congress although it's never done.
US Marshalls, however, are a real thing and work for the judiciary.
Edit: ugh, they are responsible for carrying out what the judiciary needs, but it's still part of the executive (DoJ).
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
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.
How do they do that? Their enforcers work for Trump.
They can deputize citizens to carry out the orders too
Then if the deputies fail you start sheriffizing people.
Nah, you just start deputizing more effective people. Like ex special forces
Sheriffs are usually elected, not appointed. It’s one of the big reasons decriminalization is so difficult; No elected cop wants to look soft on crime, because their opponents can use it against them in smear campaigns during the next election.
Wahoo it's-a me Luigi
load more comments
(4 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.
It was disregarded because it was a vocal demand when the criminals were already halfway to their destination. If we allowed a federal judge to say "wait, don't do that!" and express vocally their outrage, to the POTUS every time they disagreed, there would be no point in having a person voted as President.
load more comments
(3 replies)
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.
Oh brother..
load more comments
(2 replies)
He didn't feel he could disregard it.
He successfully disregarded it.
His written orders won’t do anything either. Who knew the constitution can be so easily ripped to shreds by simply ignoring it.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Enforce the law! Otherwise, there really is no turning back. US Democracy is dead. Fascism wins. 🇺🇸
Oh brother... here we go again...