politics
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
view the rest of the comments
There's also not much point in going after the lieutenants. As long as it's a federal court holding them in contempt, Trump can just pardon them. It's happened before with Joe Arpaio. State level contempt would work if they could find a way to make that happen.
The only thing I can think of that SCOTUS to do right now to try and head this off would be to make a ruling defining what is or isn't an official act. SCOTUS needs to sack up rule solidly against Trump. They need to state that, per the Constitution, only congress can declare war. The President has no authority to declare war and no other nations are invading the USA. Therefore, all deportations under the Alien Enemies Act are NOT official acts and therefore they are high crimes and misdemeanors.
This alone would not solve the problem if Trump continues to flip them off and ignore them which seems likely. It would however put the issue squarely in the House's hands. If this conservative court plainly states that the president's actions are illegal, the pressure on the House to impeach and the Senate to convict would be huge. With the houses nearly evenly split, an impeachment in the house would only take a few Republicans to cross over. The Senate would be tougher but not impossible. It would take something like 20 Republican Senators to vote with the Dems to convict him.
If that fails to happen, if the House or Senate fails in their duty after such a court ruling, I think we might finally see enough impetus to get major resistance among the people; even more massive protests than we've already seen, a general strike, work slow downs, maybe even blue states taking steps to secede.
Criminal contempt has this problem, but civil contempt is not pardonable, because there is no crime to pardon.
Judge Boasberg is trying to proceed with criminal contempt on the "turn the planes around" order. Whatever happens there, it is unlikely to end in convictions that stick.
Judge Xinis is proceeding towards civil contempt. If she finds someone in willful contempt, she can imprison them until they choose to comply. And the evidence standard in civil contempt is "clear and convincing," not "beyond a reasonable doubt."
I did not know this. I hope that works.
Couldn’t they reverse the ruling on his immunity? They reversed Roe v Wade with the flimsiest of justification. They could do the same here. I realize I’m being hopeful.
I guess so. I just don't see them doing that. They will want the next Republican President to benefit from it.