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

politics

22011 readers
4326 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
[–] witten@lemmy.world 3 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

You guys are maybe being a little hasty... Many other members of the Trump administration can get forcibly hauled into court even if Trump has "immunity."

[–] blakenong@lemmings.world 4 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Let me know when that happens.

[–] witten@lemmy.world 0 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

And let me know when you second amendment types actually do something. 👍

[–] blakenong@lemmings.world 2 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

You mean the people who wish death on people who are absolutely destroying humanity? Or, gun people? Because, I don’t own a gun. 🤷‍♂️

[–] witten@lemmy.world 1 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

Both. I just think the "oh well we must immediately escalate to bloodshed" people are only serving to worsen the situation because it skips over all the other legitimate ways we have of fighting back, like protest and the courts. Ways that a bigger portion of the populace is willing to participate in (currently). And right now we need everyone who's reasonable resisting in any way they can.

[–] blakenong@lemmings.world 2 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I seriously hope you’re right. I’d rather not see a bunch of people die. But I haven’t seen anything at all to suggest the usual ways are gonna work, and by the time we realize that it will be too late (if it’s not already).

Give me hope, tell me something that is actually going to stop them and is likely to work.

[–] witten@lemmy.world 2 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

No single thing is going to fix this. It's going to take a concerted effort of protests and economic boycotts and judges doing their job and elected officials doing their job and the fucking media doing their job and public sentiment souring further on Trump and people refusing to follow unlawful orders and yes maybe even a little direct action. Not all of it is going to work and not all of it has to work. My only point here is we can't just think there's a single silver bullet (pun intended) because that breeds inaction for all other forms of resistance. We each need to find a way to resist and do that instead of waiting for somebody who isn't coming to save the day.

[–] blakenong@lemmings.world 3 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Okay so literally nothing. Just lots of “resist” with no actual directions or suggestions. You can see we’re fucked, you just don’t want to admit it because you’re not the violent kind (not a bad thing under normal circumstances, I’m not insulting).

But you’ve really just outlined my whole problem. If the pacifists can’t actually announce a believable plan, this time they need to step aside.

[–] witten@lemmy.world 2 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

If you think that list of ways to resist are "nothing," then there's nothing more I can tell you. Good luck with your sitting around and waiting for violent revolution.

And I never said I was a pacifist. I said it takes multiple types of resistance to effectively counter fascism.

[–] blakenong@lemmings.world 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Your vague “protest” suggestions are not a list. You’re just as unhelpful as everyone else. Yeah, me included.

We are fucked haha.

[–] witten@lemmy.world 1 points 41 minutes ago

Do you need me to hand-hold you all the way to a protest? Okay, here's how it works:

  1. Find a local protest organization in your area. If you have trouble doing that, check out https://indivisible.org/ which lists events from local groups around the country.
  2. Find an event that sounds like something you might want to attend.
  3. Make a sign. Go to the event. Protest.

Don't like that idea? Fine. Then find a way to resist that better suits you. But whining on the internet that "there's nothing that can be done, we are fucked" doesn't accomplish anything. Part of the goal of this administration is to create an air of inevitability around their gathering power so that people obey in advance. It makes it a whole lot easier for them to be fascists if they don't have to fight for every scrap of fascism along the way. Don't let them do that. Don't obey in advance.