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

politics

21970 readers
4373 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."

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] foggy@lemmy.world 174 points 1 day ago

He didn't feel he could disregard it.

He successfully disregarded it.

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 76 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (7 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 21 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours 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 (6 replies)
[–] Freshparsnip@lemm.ee 39 points 23 hours ago (7 children)

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

[–] AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world 37 points 22 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 19 hours ago

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

[–] laranis@lemmy.zip 11 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Could they deputize, say, the military?

[–] AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world 22 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 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 19 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.

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 15 points 22 hours ago (3 children)

He'll move up to SLAMS next

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] BlackSheep@lemmy.ca 5 points 18 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 17 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.

[–] WrenFeathers@lemmy.world 8 points 21 hours ago

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

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 67 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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

[–] cultsuperstar@lemmy.world 12 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

Well considering Republicans control every branch of government, they're assuming they can and will get away with it. Even if this goes up to SCOTUS, the conservative justices will let them do what they want. One of them will "dissent" though to try to make it seem like they don't agree. They're probably behind closed doors playing rock, paper, scissors to see who "dissents" each time a hot button topic gets up to them.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] samus12345@lemm.ee 15 points 1 day ago (6 children)

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

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 28 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They can deputize citizens to carry out the orders too

[–] CluckN@lemmy.world 12 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

Then if the deputies fail you start sheriffizing people.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago

Wahoo it's-a me Luigi

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Professorozone@lemmy.world 7 points 17 hours ago

I believe they thought they could ignore the order because they could ignore the order.

[–] NimdaQA@lemmy.world 117 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

His written orders won’t do anything either. Who knew the constitution can be so easily ripped to shreds by simply ignoring it.

[–] arrow74@lemm.ee 65 points 1 day ago

This should have been fixed in the 1800s when Andrew Jackson defied the Supreme Court, but it was ignored and here we are

[–] candyman337@sh.itjust.works 28 points 23 hours ago (3 children)

Like at what point does everyone else in the government finally say "ok we have to treat them as treasonous" this is a madhouse full of complacent fools.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Nougat@fedia.io 87 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] engene@lemmy.ca 64 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] bunnyjenkins@lemmy.world 4 points 16 hours ago

The same laws that make him President, are the same law in which we allow it

[–] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 47 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Uh oh! This Judge sounds PISSED! SOON Trump is going to get a STERNLY WRITTEN LETTER! And if they DEFY that? OH Boy! ANOTHER letter will be on the way!

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Flamekebab@piefed.social 44 points 1 day ago

Well if the order wasn't enforced... yes?

These psychos aren't stopped by words.

[–] Shawdow194@fedia.io 32 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What a strongly worded condemnation!

Anyway

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›