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.”

  • BackgrndNoize@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    5 hours 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

  • ansiz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    22 hours ago

    Correct me if I’m wrong but what could the judge even do to these DoJ staff? Throw them in jail for a few days? Trump would just pardon them, wouldn’t he?

  • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    1 day 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.

  • kescusay@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    100
    ·
    2 days ago

    Throw. That. Lawyer. In. PRISON. There may be no way to enforce the law on Trump himself, but make lawyers afraid to do his dirty work.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      Throw everyone who implemented it in prison. Trump may have made himself an untouchable dictator but just himself.

      Remember that loyalty only goes one way, unless it’s in trumps personal interest such as profiting from it. Make him go on record as either pardoning the criminals or dropping them

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

        What about all the hardcore criminals he sent out, should we bring them all back and release them?

  • Wren@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    2 days ago

    A federal judge criticized a Trump administration Justice Department lawyer

    If this is the only consequence of having done it- I’d say they didn’t think they could, they knew they could.

  • NimdaQA@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

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

  • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    edit-2
    2 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
      2
      ·
      2 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.

    • ZK686@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day 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
        3
        ·
        1 day 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.

    • cultsuperstar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 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.

  • Verdant Banana@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 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