Court orders being ignored or disregarded by Trump

  • Thread starter Thread starter superrific
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 210
  • Views: 5K
  • Politics 
gtyellowjacket said:
Just pushing back on the chicken littles that said the justice department was not even going to show up for the hearing or that Trump was ignoring the courts.
Click to expand...
Gee, why did we think the DOJ wasn't going to show up? Oh yeah, because it told the court it wasn't planning to. Such chicken littles we are.

What the attorney did was functionally equivalent to not showing up, which is why Boasberg demanded real explanations by noon tomorrow and I expect there will be a contempt finding after that. That's when the rubber will really meet the road.
 
It can't be subject to national security concerns. That's why the statute requires there to be a war or an invasion -- you know, things that are easy to identify. It has to be publicly visible. Even then, the statute is probably unconstitutional (per the overturning of Korematsu), but at a minimum, they can't say "we have reasons that we can't tell you."
 
gtyellowjacket said:
Just pushing back on the chicken littles that said the justice department was not even going to show up for the hearing or that Trump was ignoring the courts.

I don't agree with what Trump's doing here but I don't think it rises to the level of constitutional crisis that we hear is just around the corner every other day.
Click to expand...
You must have missed the 5th grade Civics unit on checks and balances.
 
This is a trap.

My intuition/fear says:

They are provoking the situation on an issue they think is the most politically popular: Venezuelan gang members. Then they try to spin this deportation as a national security issue, which it plainly is not. So when the court predictably rules against them, they will declare that the judge is interfering with the prerogative of the executive branch, and that a national emergency must be declared to stop the invasion.

I hope I am too pessimistic but I fear I am not.
 
superrific said:
This is a trap.

My intuition/fear says:

They are provoking the situation on an issue they think is the most politically popular: Venezuelan gang members. Then they try to spin this deportation as a national security issue, which it plainly is not. So when the court predictably rules against them, they will declare that the judge is interfering with the prerogative of the executive branch, and that a national emergency must be declared to stop the invasion.

I hope I am too pessimistic but I fear I am not.
Click to expand...
Invoke war powers, suspend habeas corpus a la Lincoln?
 


“…The statements of Trump administration officials elsewhere make it even harder to take their actions as anything other than attempting to defy judges. Salvadoran President Bukele posteda screenshot of a New York Post story about the judge’s order on X with the commentary, “Oopsie … Too late” and a laughing-crying emoji. Chief Bureaucrat Elon Musk replied with the same emoji, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio shared Bukele’s post from his own account. “Border czar” Tom Homan appeared on Fox News this morning and said, “We’re not stopping. I don’t care what the judges think. I don’t care what the left thinks. We’re coming.”

These actions should be terrifying no matter who is involved. The fact that Tren de Aragua is indeed a vicious gang doesn’t nullify the law—the administration’s claim that the U.S. is contending with a wartime invasion is ridiculous on its face.

Even more important is whether the White House decided to snub a ruling by a federal judge. Nor do customs officials’ claims in court filings that they found “sympathetic photos and videos” of Hezbollah leaders on Alawieh’s phone, or that she told them she had attended the Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah’s funeral, mean the law doesn’t apply. For all we know, her actions may well justify her deportation. (Of course, we have little way of assessing any of these allegations clearly, because the administration has sidestepped the usual judicial proceedings in both cases. A lawyer for Alawieh’s family hasn’t commented on the allegations.) What matters is that the executive branch acted despite a judge’s order.

This is what we might call the Mahmoud Khalil test: No matter whether you think someone’s ideas or actions are deplorable, once the executive branch decides it doesn’t have to follow the law for one person, it has established that it doesn’t have to follow the law for anyone.

After Khalil was arrested, Trump said that he was “the first arrest of many to come.” No one should have any illusion that the list will stop with alleged Tren de Aragua members. Throughout his career, Trump has tested boundaries and, if allowed to do so, pushed further. His actions at the start of this term show that he is more emboldened than ever, and traditionally institutionalist figures such as Rubio seem eager to abet him.

… When Trump speaks about law and order, he means it very narrowly. He believes in swift justice for his adversaries, with or without due process of the law; meanwhile, he believes his actions should not be constrained by law, the Constitution, or anything else that might cause him problems, and he has used pardons prolifically to excuse the actions of his friends and allies, whether Paul Manafort and Roger Stone or January 6 rioters. …”
 
superrific said:
Says who?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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...
The money is still frozen. If it wasn't then people would have their jobs back. You have no idea what you're talking about, and are a very naive and simple minded person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top