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.”

  • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    77
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    ‘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.

    • kbotc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 days ago

      No, he can be questioned about official acts. The wording is that the judiciary decides what is an official act, so if they decide it is, he cannot be punished criminally for what is otherwise a criminal act. The Supreme Court did a bunch of power grabs for itself and effectively declared that Congress couldn’t do squat other than impeachment against the president and the only check on the president’s power was whether the judiciary agreed with him.

      Now Trump’s attacking the judiciary and has made the chief justice have to make a statement that his challenges to his legitimacy will not stand, so I would expect to see a bunch of cases go against Trump just as a judiciary show of force, much like his citizenship emergency challenge where they told him to fuck off and they’d slow walk his case.

      Trump could have ended democracy quite easily if he wasn’t in such a damn hurry to get shit done and snubbing all of the power brokers that he needs to implement his plans is forcing a bunch of needless shit. When the economy is fully in shambles in a few months and the ad spend slows down for media companies, I’d expect them to pounce on how much shit he fucked up. It’s wild seeing WSJ realizing the problem that’s coming down the pipeline and the Murdoch rag shitting on him in the editorials rather than WaPo.

      • justastranger@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        If something… Unfortunate… Were to happen to Roberts, I guarantee that the rest of the justices would rule in Trump’s favor for the rest of his term with a wide-eyed “fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck” smile plastered on their faces the entire time

    • ZK686@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      3 days ago

      It was disregarded because it was a vocal demand when the criminals were already halfway to their destination. If we allowed a federal judge to say “wait, don’t do that!” and express vocally their outrage, to the POTUS every time they disagreed, there would be no point in having a person voted as President.

      • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        3 days ago

        It was disregarded because it was a vocal demand when the criminals were already halfway to their destination. If we allowed a federal judge to say “wait, don’t do that!” and express vocally their outrage, to the POTUS every time they disagreed, there would be no point in having a person voted as President

        You do realize this happens all the time, right? Death row inmates can be granted clemency literally while they’re strapped to the gurney. It’s literally a case of the judge, governor, POTUS, whoever saying “WAIT, DON’T DO THAT!”. And yes, this includes the judge verbally giving instructions and holding off the proceedings until a written order can be drafted.

        There was nothing stopping them from turning that plane around.

      • TarantulaFudge@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        3 days ago

        The whole point of judiciary is to resolve damages and it’s actually really important that they can issue orders quickly to prevent “irreversible damages”, courts use injunctions all the time even before coming to any kind of decision in order to give time for due process to happen. Especially when there is possibility of harm coming to an individual.

    • torrentialgrain@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      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.

    • cultsuperstar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      4 days ago

      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.

      • meep_launcher@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 days ago

        Also didn’t the Supreme Court just rule that you can’t charge the president for crimes made in their official capacity? He can just say it was in his official capacity to ignore the orders so tough titties.

        • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          That doesn’t mean his actions would stand, it just means he can’t be prosecuted for it.

          If he fires someone and it’s ruled illegal, they get their job back or some very large settlement.

          Deported people would be able to return etc.

  • BackgrndNoize@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 days ago

    Did he suffer any serious consequences, No, then why the fuck wouldn’t he disregard it and will continue to do so in the future. Why are people in power in this country either evil and inept or simply inept against the evil ones

          • BackgrndNoize@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            Are they doing that thought?, I see news about the constitution being subverted everyday but I don’t see any concrete actions being taken to punish those doing so, and stop it from happening, this country is headed towards a dictatorship and politics are writing strongly worded letters and holding protest placards up as if that does anything

            • tacobellhop@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              The next step up from ignoring federal judges goes one of two ways. US marshals arrest the president or it plays out like Hans litten.

  • kibiz0r@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    4 days ago

    And if you put it in writing, it’ll be on the wrong letterhead.

    Or you didn’t sign it.

    Or you signed it with autopen.

  • Verdant Banana@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    4 days ago

    way more than about Trump

    legal precedents that uphold other legal precedents are being dismantled like they already were being done away with before Trump

    more precedents that go away the more personal freedoms and civil liberties goes away

    need a revolution

  • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    85
    ·
    3 days ago

    He shouldn’t be letting those attorneys leave the courtroom free men. Hold them in contempt and issue bench warrants for administration officials and anyone carrying out these illegal orders.

    • Fluffy Kitty Cat@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      59
      ·
      3 days ago

      This is the only correct response, any other response means that the federal government does not in practice have checks and balances

      • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        43
        ·
        3 days ago

        It also forces Trump’s hand. Either publicly reveal, right now that he is an all-out dictator instead of slow-rolling it, or fold and lose any momentum he has.

        If a violent revolution is needed to take him down, the sooner everyone knows about it, the better.

  • ZK686@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    3 days ago

    I’m just shocked that so many of you are okay with a judge deciding that all those criminals should remain in the US…I mean, this is why ya’ll lost the elections…

    • Psythik@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      How do you know for sure that they’re criminals, just because they’re not American? None of them have even been charged with anything. Innocent until proven guilty.

      You should be more concerned about the convicted rapist with 34 felonies who is currently in the oval office. Also quit being a racist piece of shit.

    • azuth@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 days ago

      Imagine that, judges decided on criminals’ fate. Next they will want to decide who is even a criminal.

      • ZK686@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 hours ago

        Oh brother… leave up to Liberals to want hardcore rapists and murderers to stay in the US… they’re only doing this because it’s Trump… and we both know it.

        • azuth@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          I ain’t your brother, what I do know is that right wingers hate foreigners, the alleged crimes being just an excuse.

  • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    4 days ago

    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!

      • P1k1e@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 days ago

        You guys literally got my overweight middle aged ass giggling like an imbecile in my office at work