Why stop at the lieutenants?
this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2025
409 points (99.8% liked)
politics
23170 readers
3324 users here now
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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Because the court made him immune
The courts made him immune for official acts, but there is an interesting and relevant legal question of whether his actions here qualify as official. There's a reasonable argument that kidnapping people in direct violation of a court order is not an official act.
If you look at absolute immunity as it applies to judges, you do find edge cases that are somewhat similar to this one. Absolute immunity doesn't cover everything, and the only way to find out what it covers is to go to court.
And the SC determines what's an official act
The infamous immunity ruling gives the President a lot of immunity from criminal prosecution.
But besides that, there's an older precedent in civil litigation that no judge can write an injunction directly against the President in the performance of his official duties. So all of these TROs and injunctions, including the Friday SC order, either do not apply to the President himself, or they are illegally broad*.
Under this theory of law, the President could theoretically arrest and deport all the people he wants with no judicial intervention -- just as long he does all the arrests by himself, and flies the planes by himself, etc. In reality, the fat man is always going to have underlings doing the stuff for him, and they do not have this immunity from civil injunctions.
*This is one of the points raised in Alito's dissent: the SC order applies to "the Government", without saying whether the President is included or not.
They are the supreme court. They can change precedent for presidents for reasons.
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.
As long as it's a federal court holding them in contempt, Trump can just pardon them.
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."
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.
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
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.
Every level of government staffed by conservatives is compromised. They will only yield when they are met with direct force.
This time. This will be the time. I can feel it.
This time they will truly be slammed
Cowards. Unwilling to follow their duty as congress to impeach them.
Was it not this so-called Supreme Court that has already granted the president more rights than a king? How is that supposed to be constitutional in a democratic country?
It seems to me that the constitutional crisis has long since occurred.
I don't really understand why anyone should appeal to the corrupt judges who are responsible for this. It's a waste of time, because the outcome of all such attempts is already known in advance.
Or is the plan to buy Thomas & Co. another nice house - or maybe a new boat, or yet another luxurious vacation?