this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2025
597 points (99.7% 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
[–] collapse_already@lemmy.ml 5 points 19 minutes 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 2 points 13 minutes ago (2 children)

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

[–] phx@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 minutes ago

And the "just following orders" folks?

[–] collapse_already@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 minutes ago (1 children)

So the second amendment is our only option?

[–] blakenong@lemmings.world 1 points 7 minutes ago (1 children)

Unless you’ve got another option….

[–] witten@lemmy.world 1 points 3 minutes ago

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."

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 4 points 44 minutes ago* (last edited 43 minutes ago) (1 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.

[–] blakenong@lemmings.world 1 points 11 minutes ago

30% of us probably are okay with burning alive. It’s less work than living.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 51 points 3 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 31 points 3 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 20 points 2 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 1 points 1 hour ago

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

[–] bunnyjenkins@lemmy.world 1 points 50 minutes ago

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

[–] Professorozone@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

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

[–] WrenFeathers@lemmy.world 43 points 5 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 9 points 2 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 6 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 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 10 minutes ago

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

[–] Zzyzx@lemmy.blahaj.zone 66 points 6 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 1 points 1 hour 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.

[–] Freshparsnip@lemm.ee 37 points 7 hours ago (6 children)

So what is the judge going to do? Admonish them?

[–] barneypiccolo@lemm.ee 20 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] blakenong@lemmings.world 1 points 8 minutes ago

One one way to do that

[–] BlackSheep@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Asking respectively. What else can this judge do in the USA? Law is being blatantly ignored. This is dictatorship.

[–] witten@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

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.

[–] AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world 32 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] barneypiccolo@lemm.ee 7 points 3 hours ago

Sounds like a "well-ordered militia" is called for.

[–] laranis@lemmy.zip 10 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Could they deputize, say, the military?

[–] AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world 17 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

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

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.

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 15 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

He'll move up to SLAMS next

[–] RandoMcRanderton@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

If that doesn't work, the judge can throw him off Hell In A Cell, and plummet 16 ft through an announcer’s table.

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

don't let this man distract you

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 hours ago

Slamming the meat on the grill!

[–] WrenFeathers@lemmy.world 8 points 5 hours ago

Well, he criticized them… so. Lesson learned, right?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] candyman337@sh.itjust.works 26 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] tacosplease@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

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.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 63 points 9 hours ago (13 children)

They feel that they can ignore it because they can ignore it. Stop letting them!

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 70 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (3 children)

'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.

[–] torrentialgrain@lemm.ee 17 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›