Trump: "I'm gonna do it anyway."
Supremes: "Okay daddy"
this post was submitted on 19 Apr 2025
347 points (99.7% liked)
News
28966 readers
4512 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
They got SCOTUS working at 1am on a Saturday. This is reassuring news.
No it’s not. The judiciary doesn’t have an enforcement arm. It’s troubling
It's interesting that the one judge who was going to conduct his own contempt hearings also claimed the right to appoint a prosecutor if the Justice Department chooses not to. That process is on hold while the appeals court considers it. (Which is not surprising, it's quite a big step and deserves some review). But if the appeals court allows it to go forward with an Independant prosecutor, then we might be getting somewhere.
Why do I keep hearing this?
Three branches all have enforment. In contempt of Congress or contempt of Court, the branches can deputize as many people as necessary to make arrears.
Because it’s not an arm of enforcement and has rarely been attempted
It's not just about having armed men to throw people in jail, that's not how things work. It's about legitimacy.
Yes - the rules at the top of the federal government are different. No, that's not new. Representatives and the president aren't generally held personally responsible for things they do as part of their job (voting on laws for example). It would be too easy to abuse such a system. Many decisions made, no matter how small or well intentioned, will cause harm in some way. So they are insulated from that.
But when the scotus rules that a branch has violated law then things change. A president who ignores the court will lose legitimacy. Legislators should act to correct that (yes yes, I know) and the voters have a clear indication that they should also correct itn as well. Civil servants are also at risk personally if they violate a court order (yes, it's unfair) which makes it harder for the executive to continue to do so.
That’s not correct. Courts can appoint attorneys for enforcement, or issue a writ directly to law enforcement. In more extreme cases, they can deputize a citizen for enforcement. Boasberg has already preemptively stated that he would do so if the DoJ refuses to enforce a court order.
According to the link you posted, it is correct. The usual enforcement arm for the courts is the US Marshalls under the DOJ. However, they have other options that have never been tried.
So what’s stopping the President from ordering the FBI/Marshalls/etc from actively preventing the arrest of the person in contempt?
It’s in that same article. A judge may deputize someone to enforce a court order. That’s assuming the DoJ refuses, then the judge issues a writ that is ignored.
Rule 4.1 specifies how certain types of “process” — the legal term for orders that command someone to appear in court — are to be served on the party to which they are directed. The rule begins in section (a) by instructing that, as a general matter, process “must be served by a United States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially appointed for that purpose.”
The US Marshalls of the DOJ is usually the enforcement arm for the judiciary.
Deputizing someone is an enforcement mechanism and not the enforcement arm.
Fair enough. You are technically correct. That’s not a roadblock, it’s just an additional step.
I think you read that wrong, they (Alito/Thomas) specifically dissented.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/041925zr_c18e.pdf
I read it at 5am. My mistake. Edited for accuracy. Thanks for the correction.
No they weren't. These emergency decisions are unsigned, so normally we don't really know who advocated for what, all we know is that a majority of the Court was in favor. Since the press is now reporting that Alito and Thomas dissented, though, they must have made some separate statement to that effect later.
But we don't really know whether there are 7 justices in favor, we just know there are at least 5.
It's in the article and the ruling. They are explicitly listed as dissenting.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/041925zr_c18e.pdf
I read it at 5am. My mistake. Edited for accuracy. Thanks for the correction.
Interesting. Is it normal, for dissenting opinions to be made explicit on an unsigned order like this?
If not, for me it's immediately a red flag. Why is it so important for these two to publicize that they dissented on an otherwise unsigned order? Is there another RV shipment coming soon? I guess we'll find out soon enough because the order says Alito will publish a written dissent later....
Two conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, disagreed with the decision, the order noted.
Were they though??
I read it at 5am. My mistake. Edited for accuracy. Thanks for the correction.
There are major questions about whether the government has the authority to apply the Alien Enemies Act to gang members outside of a war situation and whether adjudications about gang membership are accurate.
Come on NBC, this is bullshit. They have no authority because there is no declared war. This is not a question. The law in question states, "in time of war". This is a fact. Congress has not declared war, therefore this is not wartime. The only question is why the courts and congress are not doing their jobs and putting an end to it.
More embarrassing for NBC, is the use of the word adjudications in this passage. What adjudications about gang membership? There have been no adjudications stating that any of these people are gang members because they have not been afforded due process and the courts have made no such rulings at all.
load more comments
(4 replies)
None of these people would do anything unless they had run it by their advisors.
It's going to be an interesting time coming up.
Nothing will meaningfully improve until the rich fear for their lives
view more: next ›