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

politics

22932 readers
3321 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 weeks 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

[–] WrenFeathers@lemmy.world 1 points 4 weeks 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 0 points 4 weeks 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 1 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

And if there’s no one willing to stop them, it may as well be legal.

[–] kescusay@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (5 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 1 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Wouldn't Trump just pardon them?

[–] kescusay@lemmy.world 2 points 4 weeks ago (2 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 1 points 4 weeks 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 weeks 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 weeks 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?

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 0 points 4 weeks ago (1 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.

This would be at best a minor inconvenience that Trump would just sign with the auto-pen that he's going after Biden for using.

And we've seen literally dozens of Trump's high-profile lawyers watch their careers end in disgrace once Trump no longer has a use for them. And for every one that crashes and burns, there seems to be two more willing to take his place. Especially now that Trump is immune from prosecution, making it much less risky for them.

[–] Septimaeus@infosec.pub 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

The point isn’t really to inconvenience him though. It’s to cede no ground without documented abuse of power.

[–] felixthecat@fedia.io 1 points 4 weeks ago

Absolutely. Make them show outright that they are using authoritarian tactics. Make it known to all that they're fascists and that they don't care about democratic principles or the rule of law.

Make every Trump voters uncomfortable and understand they voted to end this democratic republic.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Nougat@fedia.io 1 points 1 month ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wahoo it's-a me Luigi

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 1 points 4 weeks 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.

[–] Montreal_Metro@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 weeks ago

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

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 0 points 4 weeks 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 1 points 4 weeks 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 1 points 4 weeks 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 4 weeks ago

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

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 0 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (5 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 0 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

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 (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] collapse_already@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 weeks 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 weeks 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.

[–] engene@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Enforce the law! Otherwise, there really is no turning back. US Democracy is dead. Fascism wins. 🇺🇸

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Freshparsnip@lemm.ee 0 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

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

[–] AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world 0 points 4 weeks ago (1 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 1 points 4 weeks ago

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

load more comments
view more: next ›