this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2025
4 points (100.0% liked)

politics

24960 readers
2400 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
[–] BackgrndNoize@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

Did he suffer any serious consequences, No, then why the fuck wouldn't he disregard it and will continue to do so in the future. Why are people in power in this country either evil and inept or simply inept against the evil ones

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

☒ Soap box ☒ Ballot box ☒ Jury box ☐ Ammo box

[–] Allonzee@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Promises promises.

[–] kescusay@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] cotus@midwest.social 2 points 4 months ago (4 children)

Wouldn't Trump just pardon them?

[–] kescusay@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (4 children)

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.

[–] Ferrous@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] kescusay@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Nowhere did I say that was the "ultimate method." Every single thing the orange asshole tries to do should be obstructed and interfered with in every way possible.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 1 points 4 months ago

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 (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (3 children)

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

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Montreal_Metro@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago

US is fucked. Nobody in US cares anymore, because if they did they'd be out on the streets by the millions.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] samus12345@lemm.ee 0 points 4 months ago (7 children)

How do they do that? Their enforcers work for Trump.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Wahoo it's-a me Luigi

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 1 points 4 months ago

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."

Written orders probably won't carry any weight either since he probably can't read even if he attempted to.

[–] collapse_already@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 months 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 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] candyman337@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 months 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 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›