Court orders being ignored or disregarded by Trump

  • Thread starter Thread starter superrific
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 208
  • Views: 4K
  • Politics 
nycfan said:
Musk retweet:

Click to expand...

Yeah, because Texas has contributed so much to world civilization. What a dipshit.

He opens his statement by saying, "civilization is a very fragile thing," which in normal times would be the stupidest saying of the year but nowadays it's just the GOP.

Do people actually buy this shit? Civilization withstood the Black Death, two World Wars, communism, fascism, and imperialism. But it's going to be destroyed by migrants?
 

Trump brushes aside courts’ attempts to limit his power​

Trump’s moves are the culmination of a decades-long conservative movement to expand the power of the executive branch.


“… But as courts challenge Trump’s drive for unilateral authority, the White House is increasingly circumventing unfavorable decisions with a tone of defiance. Administration officials have suggested this week that they are not bound to follow court orders to return Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego García, who the government has admitted was mistakenly sent to an El Salvador prison.

On Wednesday, a federal judge said he would launch proceedings to determine whether Trump administration officials should face criminal contempt charges for defying his order not to remove Venezuelan migrants from the United States based on the wartime Alien Enemies Act. …”
 

‘Breathtaking in its audacity’: Trump’s conflict with judges has escalated to new heights​



“Judge James Boasberg – who ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration showed “willful disregard” for his mid-March order halting deportation flights amid dispute over the legality of the removals – is the first judge to find “probable cause exists” to hold administration officials in criminal contempt.

But the legal fight over whether federal officials defied Boasberg’s orders is playing out on a larger tapestry of administration scorn and recalcitrance towards the judges that have curtailed President Donald Trump’s agenda, with the tone set at the top by Trump himself. …”
 
🎁 🔗 —> The Roman Way to Trash a Republic

“In about 80 years, roughly the same length of time between the end of World War II and now, the Roman Republic was transformed into a dictatorship. If you had told a Roman senator at the beginning of the first century B.C.E. that his grandchildren would willingly hand over governance to a monarch, he would not have believed you.

…Augustus was Rome’s first emperor. In so becoming, he dismantled the republic and founded a monarchy that would last for more than a millennium. In Rome, most aristocratic men were also senators and usually held that position for life. In the later republic, some of those men—notably, Julius Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus—grew so extraordinarily rich and influential that they began to ignore the constraints of the Senate and the law. In the first century B.C.E., decades of aristocratic overreach and the authoritarian violence of Augustus’s predecessors Sulla and Caesar brought Rome to the brink more than once, but Augustus pushed it over the edge.

He took control of the government gradually but completely, with the support of those wealthy aristocrats who valued fortune above principle and with the complaisance of a population exhausted by conflict and disillusioned by a system that favored the rich and connected. Perhaps most salient for us today, Augustus consolidated his power with the institutional blessing of the Senate.

At first, the Senate let Augustus bend rules and push boundaries. It allowed him to accumulate domestic powers and bring unqualified members of his family into government. The Senate stood by while Augustus removed enemies from his path, and supported him when he put a self-serving spin on recent actions. Even when elections were held under Augustus, he often handpicked state officials.

… The Framers of our Constitution drew on ancient Greek and Roman history when they established our republic and sought to protect it from the inevitable threat of dictatorship. When they discussed ways to avoid despotism, the Romans served as a cautionary tale.

The checks and balances in the U.S. Constitution look very much like those that were in place in Rome before Augustus.

There were none after him.

… Like the wealthy elites of ancient Rome who aligned themselves with a dictator so that they could increase their fortunes, the richest and most influential men in America seem willing to let our republic fall apart as long as they believe that its demise is in their interest. And they might prosper by it. Or not. That’s the thing about capricious one-man rule—no one, not even billionaires with spaceships, can be sure they won’t get on the bad side of the emperor and suffer as a result. Thanks to the Senate that enabled him, Augustus—and every Roman emperor who followed—was a brutal dictator.

… The United States, too, may endure as a great power for centuries to come. The ultimate lesson of the Roman Republic’s fate is that once you’ve allowed one man to rule as a monarch, even if you pretend he doesn’t, you are past the point of no return. When Augustus died in his bed at a ripe old age, the Roman Senate made him a god. This seems an honor that even the most sycophantic U.S. senators would be unlikely to suggest for our president. But as they cede ever more of their power to him, our own era of Roman-style imperial rule may be drawing closer than we think.“

Donald Trump Rnc GIF by PBS News
 
Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in the birthright citizenship case. Not sure what issue they are addressing (no cert question for an emergency order). It might just be the availability of nationwide relief. It is hopefully not the birthright citizenship issue itself.

In the past, I would have shrugged at the granting of oral argument. But then came Trump v. US. At first, we thought, Supreme will summary affirm. Oh, there are oral arguments? Well, surely those are a formality. It will be like the Moore case, where they granted cert to mostly yell at the plaintiffs' lawyers. The Supreme Court will surely not grant criminal immunity to the president.

I now take granting of oral argument seriously. They must be thinking about overruling the lower courts. Hopefully it's only about the injunction issue and not birthright citizenship itself.
 

Supreme Court to hear arguments over Trump's bid to partially enforce birthright citizenship executive order​


www.cbsnews.com

Supreme Court to hear arguments over Trump's bid to partially enforce birthright citizenship executive order

The Supreme Court will hear arguments on May 15 on a Trump administration request to partially enforce the president's executive order that seeks to end birthright citizenship.
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com

“The Supreme Court on Thursday said that it will hear oral arguments next month over whether the Trump administration can partially enforce an executive order that seeks to end birthright citizenship while proceedings in a challenge to the directive move forward.

The court said in an unsigned order that arguments on the Justice Department's request for emergency relief will take place during a special sitting on May 15. The administration has asked the Supreme Court to limit the scope of three separate injunctions that blocked implementation of President Trump's order nationwide. …”

——
Maybe, just maybe, not exactly rushing the argument is a bad sign for the Trump Admin … but obviously don’t trust SCOTUS on anything at this point.
 
nycfan said:

Supreme Court to hear arguments over Trump's bid to partially enforce birthright citizenship executive order​


www.cbsnews.com

Supreme Court to hear arguments over Trump's bid to partially enforce birthright citizenship executive order

The Supreme Court will hear arguments on May 15 on a Trump administration request to partially enforce the president's executive order that seeks to end birthright citizenship.
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com

“The Supreme Court on Thursday said that it will hear oral arguments next month over whether the Trump administration can partially enforce an executive order that seeks to end birthright citizenship while proceedings in a challenge to the directive move forward.

The court said in an unsigned order that arguments on the Justice Department's request for emergency relief will take place during a special sitting on May 15. The administration has asked the Supreme Court to limit the scope of three separate injunctions that blocked implementation of President Trump's order nationwide. …”

——
Maybe, just maybe, not exactly rushing the argument is a bad sign for the Trump Admin … but obviously don’t trust SCOTUS on anything at this point.
Click to expand...
But why is there even an argument? If this was just about the scope of injunctions, it could be resolved in orderly course. There's no reason SCOTUS even has to humor the president. The relief being asked for is supposedly "extraordinary." So why not let the order stand? That they are scheduling argument tells me they have something bigger planned.

It's possible that the liberals voted for this because they want a test case for a national injunction rule to feature something by the executive branch that is maliciously wrong and clearly illegal, so we are reminded that the issue isn't so simple. For every injunction-abusing judge like in Texas, there are also nationwide injunctions that pretty much have to enter for the law to work. We can't have every pregnant mom having to rush to court to get an injunction instructing the government to give her baby an SSN.

But on balance, this news disheartens me.
 
superrific said:
But why is there even an argument? If this was just about the scope of injunctions, it could be resolved in orderly course. There's no reason SCOTUS even has to humor the president. The relief being asked for is supposedly "extraordinary." So why not let the order stand? That they are scheduling argument tells me they have something bigger planned.

It's possible that the liberals voted for this because they want a test case for a national injunction rule to feature something by the executive branch that is maliciously wrong and clearly illegal, so we are reminded that the issue isn't so simple. For every injunction-abusing judge like in Texas, there are also nationwide injunctions that pretty much have to enter for the law to work. We can't have every pregnant mom having to rush to court to get an injunction instructing the government to give her baby an SSN.

But on balance, this news disheartens me.
Click to expand...
I agree, just resorting to wishful thinking as a defense mechanism, I guess.
 
Is there any world in which the judge can find some combination of Rubio , Bondi and NOEM in contempt of Court
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top