Court orders being ignored or disregarded by Trump

ZenMode said:
Well, when there has been a delay in unfreezing funding, it has been reported. Those situations have been very few.

There is also the matter of Vance's tweet about the courts constantly ruining against the Trump administration. The tweets was basically a subtle threat to simply ignore the courts if they continued to rule against Trump. If they were ignoring the court rulings, that tweets is unnecessary.
Click to expand...
So you're concluding that something isn't happening because you don't see reporting on it? Seriously? What makes it to your TV is a measure of what exists?

And I'd like to live in a world where people stop talking about the evil things they are doing when they start doing them. Unfortunately that's not our world -- and it's certainly not our administration. Trump still tweets about shit that happened years ago. That Vance is railing against the courts isn't a sign of anything but propaganda. Propaganda comes before, during and after the evildoers do their evil.
 
superrific said:
So you're concluding that something isn't happening because you don't see reporting on it? Seriously? What makes it to your TV is a measure of what exists?

And I'd like to live in a world where people stop talking about the evil things they are doing when they start doing them. Unfortunately that's not our world -- and it's certainly not our administration. Trump still tweets about shit that happened years ago. That Vance is railing against the courts isn't a sign of anything but propaganda. Propaganda comes before, during and after the evildoers do their evil.
Click to expand...
There has to be something that our opinions, right? If you believe that funding has not been unfrozen, what are you basing that belief on?
 
ZenMode said:
There has to be something that our opinions, right? If you believe that funding has not been unfrozen, what are you basing that belief on?
Click to expand...
1. The fact that the parties have been continuing to litigate the issue, and haven't dropped their cases.
2. What the DOJ has told the courts (that the cutting and freezing is still happening pending "review") and hasn't told the courts (who is in charge of DOGE, who is making the decisions, etc.)
3. People who are affected by the cuts.
4. The claim by Rubio and company that they can't process the payments as ordered because they laid off the whole staff.
 
superrific said:
1. The fact that the parties have been continuing to litigate the issue, and haven't dropped their cases.
2. What the DOJ has told the courts (that the cutting and freezing is still happening pending "review") and hasn't told the courts (who is in charge of DOGE, who is making the decisions, etc.)
3. People who are affected by the cuts.
4. The claim by Rubio and company that they can't process the payments as ordered because they laid off the whole staff.
Click to expand...
If you're talking about delayed unfreezing of funds due to ongoing litigation or questions about rulings, I agree that funds aren't being unfrozen in some cases. Is that uncommon in a case when there is ongoing litigation?

I read the claim as the Trump admin blatantly ignoring court orders for no reason, as has been implied in the flights to Venezuela.
 
ZenMode said:
If you're talking about delayed unfreezing of funds due to ongoing litigation or questions about rulings, I agree that funds aren't being unfrozen in some cases. Is that uncommon in a case when there is ongoing litigation?
Click to expand...
Yes, it is extremely uncommon for judges' orders to be disobeyed. If a judge says, "unfreeze the money immediately" a private party would do exactly that. Now that particular situation doesn't come up very much in private litigation, because "freezing" is a government thing.

Note that the judges heard the government's point about being unable to make all the payments immediately, and they adjusted their compliance schedules. The order for US Aid, for instance, gave the government a week. That was a month ago.
 
nycfan said:


“… "For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose," Roberts said in a statement.
Click to expand...

I encourage Zenmode and GTjacket to please explain why they disagree with the current Republican Chief Justice with respect to this statement (if they do).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top