this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2025
193 points (100.0% liked)

politics

23284 readers
3095 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
top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dhork@lemmy.world 33 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

This sounds more important than it actually is.

First, the judge didn't actually cite anyone for criminal contempt, he just said he could have.

Second, criminal contempt citations get forwarded to the DoJ for prosecution, and we all know this DoJ will find an excuse not to prosecute.

Third, they already have an excuse: this is in relation to his orders from a few weeks ago that the Supreme Court invalidated because it said the plainiffs raised the case in the wrong place. His argument is that the orders were in force right up to the point when the SC quashed it, so the government should have complied. But they are not going to investigate themselves over an order that didn't matter in the end.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 21 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

In a Wednesday order, Boasberg gave the government a deadline of April 23 either to comply with his initial order and thereby purge the contempt or, alternatively, identify members of the administration who should be subject to individual sanctions for their role.

Certainly sounds like an order to me.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Right, but they will not comply (because the initial order was eventually vacated), and the only members they will identify is DEEZ NUTS.

And whoever this judge decides to charge with contempt eventually will not be prosecuted.

[–] brandon@lemmy.ml 16 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

FWIW, the judge did say that if the DoJ declines to prosecute, he will appoint an outside attorney to prosecute instead.

[–] vinyl@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

Yea it seems like if you read the whole article, you might not make wrong assumptions about the judge

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

In a Wednesday order, Boasberg gave the government a deadline of April 23 either to comply with his initial order and thereby purge the contempt or, alternatively, identify members of the administration who should be subject to individual sanctions for their role.

I'll take progress any way I can get it, but I still don't see this amounting to a whole hell of a lot.

We already know that Trump isn't going to bring any of these people back. He's already made that abundantly clear. Bukele is running cover for him, and there's obviously not a thing that Boasburg could do to touch him. So the chances of any of these people being returned to the US are virtually nonexistent.

And is he seriously asking the Trump administration to self-identify who should be punished for all of this? Does he honestly think that the DOJ is going to hand over a list of names to be sanctioned? Because if so, I want a lifetime supply of whatever he's smoking.

All the DOJ lawyers have to do is say "The President has the final say in all matters regarding the deportation of these people. All others involved in the case are simply advisors with no decision-making authority.". And everybody else within Boasburg's reach can just testify that "Hey, we advised against this but Trump has refused to change his mind.". Now what? Trump can't be touched, he can simply pardon anyone facing criminal charges, and the DOJ can just release anyone that Boasburg holds in contempt since actual enforcement of the contempt charge falls under the DOJ.

Like I said, I'll take some progress any way I can get it and this is at least a step in the right direction. But it still seems like just more political theater. At least the "or else" bone is out there now, but I still don't see a whole lot of meat on it, and I see no meaningful method of actual enforcement. This, to me, just seems like another way to let the case spin its wheels for a while without having to concede that there's little to nothing that can be done and the courts actually have no real enforcement power.

Give me an "or else" that actually has a hard deadline, actual consequences, and a viable method of enforcement or it's just more political theater.

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 12 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

And is he seriously asking the Trump administration to self-identify who should be punished for all of this? Does he honestly think that the DOJ is going to hand over a list of names to be sanctioned? Because if so, I want a lifetime supply of whatever he’s smoking.

He's asking, and he almost certainly believes he's legally entitled to an answer. He almost certainly believes the DOJ will not cooperate, but potential noncompliance by defendants shouldn't influence rulings.

The only thing for the judge to do is issue rulings and orders as if things are normal.

[–] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago

Oh, there's a hell of a lot more these judges could do. They're just too chicken shit to actually do it.

[–] Freshparsnip@lemm.ee 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

So the consequences will be..........

[–] Atelopus-zeteki@fedia.io 5 points 2 weeks ago

Have you read the article?