this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2025
782 points (99.5% liked)

politics

21970 readers
4172 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."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Freshparsnip@lemm.ee 39 points 20 hours ago (6 children)

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

[–] barneypiccolo@lemm.ee 30 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

At the end of Inglorious Basterds, Aldo Raines has his man kill Hans Landa's assistant. Landa screams "You'll be shot for that!" and Aldo says:

"Shot? I don't think so, more like chewed out. I been chewed out before."

During the first administration KellyAnne "SkankySkag" Conway received numerous fines for her near constant violations of the Hatch Act, eventually reaching $100,000, which she never paid. When asked about it, she casually dismissed it, saying "Let me know when they start talking about jail time."

Things like censure, polls, stern warnings, appeals to morality, etc. Mean less than nothing to these traitors. They are determined to destroy America, and nothing less than harsh imprisonment will get through to them. If we get through this, we need to viciously purge MAGA from society and prohibit it's existence.

[–] blakenong@lemmings.world 1 points 13 hours ago

One one way to do that

[–] AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world 37 points 20 hours ago (2 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 11 points 16 hours ago

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

[–] laranis@lemmy.zip 11 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Could they deputize, say, the military?

[–] AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world 22 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

Not just the military. I draw your attention to this, emphasis mine

(a) In General. Process—other than a summons under Rule 4 or a subpoena under Rule 45 —must be served by a United States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially appointed for that purpose.

Section (b) says:

Enforcing Orders: Committing for Civil Contempt. An order committing a person for civil contempt of a decree or injunction issued to enforce federal law may be served and enforced in any district. Any other order in a civil-contempt proceeding may be served only in the state where the issuing court is located or elsewhere in the United States within 100 miles from where the order was issued.

The line:

a person specially appointed for that purpose.

is interesting because it does not specify who is qualified to be appointed. Now, I am concerned that this language means that Judge Boasberg may only appoint one person, but if he seems it necessary, he could probably get away with appointing more.

[–] Furbag@lemmy.world 5 points 16 hours ago

Could he appoint one person who then assembles a "task force" of individuals who support them? Or do they have to be each appointed by the judge himself for that specific task?I think one guy isn't going to cut it, but if 500 guys show up on the WH lawn to enforce the court order it might have some weight.

[–] BlackSheep@lemmy.ca 5 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Asking respectively. What else can this judge do in the USA? Law is being blatantly ignored. This is dictatorship.

[–] witten@lemmy.world 3 points 14 hours ago

He can have members of the Trump administration dragged into court by U.S. Marshalls. And then if necessary, held in contempt of court and imprisoned.

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 15 points 19 hours ago (2 children)
[–] RandoMcRanderton@lemmy.world 2 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

If that doesn't work, the judge can throw him off Hell In A Cell, and plummet 16 ft through an announcer’s table.

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago

don't let this man distract you

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 1 points 16 hours ago

Slamming the meat on the grill!

[–] WrenFeathers@lemmy.world 8 points 18 hours ago

Well, he criticized them… so. Lesson learned, right?

[–] Infinite@lemmy.zip 6 points 20 hours ago

I'm expecting the Judicial will go as far as BASHED