Chief Justice Rebukes Trump
[guest post by Dana]
Chief Justice Roberts rebuked President Trump after he called for a judge to be impeached:
Chief Justice John Roberts is pushing back against President Donald Trump’s call to impeach judges who’ve ruled against the administration.
“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 Tuesday in a rare and brief statement issued just hours after Trump publicly joined demands by his supporters to remove judges he called “crooked.”
No matter how angry Trump is, or how justified he feels, he will never supersede the law or the Constitution:
Good for Justice Roberts. The judiciary does not answer to the president, and it is not required to bend to the president’s will. A presidential election is irrelevant to judicial reasoning, and Trump’s victory did not change the meaning of the Constitution or of American laws.
What Trump was angry about:
President Donald Trump on Tuesday called for the impeachment of the federal judge who ordered a two-week halt to his efforts to remove Venezuelan migrants using extraordinary war powers that haven’t been invoked for decades.
Trump’s call to remove U.S. District Judge James Boasberg — the chief judge of the federal district court in Washington, D.C. — is the first time since taking office for his second term that he’s asked Congress to seek a judge’s removal, joining increasingly pointed calls by his top donor and adviser Elon Musk and a segment of his MAGA base.
Here is what Trump posted in full:
This Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge, a troublemaker and agitator who was sadly appointed by Barack Hussein Obama, was not elected President – He didn’t WIN the popular VOTE (by a lot!), he didn’t WIN ALL SEVEN SWING STATES, he didn’t WIN 2,750 to 525 Counties, HE DIDN’T WIN ANYTHING! I WON FOR MANY REASONS, IN AN OVERWHELMING MANDATE, BUT FIGHTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION MAY HAVE BEEN THE NUMBER ONE REASON FOR THIS HISTORIC VICTORY. I’m just doing what the VOTERS wanted me to do. This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!! WE DON’T WANT VICIOUS, VIOLENT, AND DEMENTED CRIMINALS, MANY OF THEM DERANGED MURDERERS, IN OUR COUNTRY. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!
Trump had invoked the Alien Enemies Act, which allows an expedited removal process, thus 250 alleged aliens were deported to Honduras and El Salvador. According to reports, none had been given basic due process, as required by law. The administration claims that they were members of the Tren de Aragua prison gang and MS-13. Horribly, reports are now saying that many of the aliens who were deported pursuant to the Alien Enemies Act did not have criminal records in the United States. Additionally, the Trump administration argued that the deportation of the men was not in defiance of a court order:
The Trump administration has transferred hundreds of immigrants to El Salvador even as a federal judge issued an order temporarily barring the deportations under an 18th century wartime declaration targeting Venezuelan gang members, officials said Sunday. Flights were in the air at the time of the ruling.
U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg issued an order Saturday temporarily blocking the deportations, but lawyers told him there were already two planes with immigrants in the air — one headed for El Salvador, the other for Honduras. Boasberg verbally ordered the planes be turned around, but they apparently were not and he did not include the directive in his written order.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, in a statement Sunday, responded to speculation about whether the administration was flouting court orders: “The administration did not ‘refuse to comply’ with a court order. The order, which had no lawful basis, was issued after terrorist TdA aliens had already been removed from U.S. territory.”
—Dana
Hello.
Dana (e3f105) — 3/18/2025 @ 12:00 pmUh…
Impeachment is a political issue. Not sure it’s a smart thing for the Chief to wade into a political controversy.
Or, maybe, he should admonish the lower courts for be so political.
Pretty extraordinary imo.
Like when he admonished Schumer.
whembly (b7cc46) — 3/18/2025 @ 12:06 pmTrump and his supporters have no use for rule of law, the constitution, or anything else that would limit their power to do as they please. Roberts is rightly pointing out that their rhetoric isn’t in line with our constitutional form of government.
I doubt it will have any impact on Trump or his supporters.
Time (4a58b7) — 3/18/2025 @ 12:11 pmMore likely impeachment articles will be filed against Roberts. The House Judiciary Committee is going to be busy.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 3/18/2025 @ 12:21 pmI remember civics telling me that impeachment was a check on the judiciary.
Joe (584b3d) — 3/18/2025 @ 12:27 pmI remember Lawrence v. Texas overturning Bowers v. Hardwick. “It was wrong then and it is wrong now”, the Court said.
Keep it up, Cheato, and kiss your ephemeral Presidential immunity goodbye.
nk (7c9181) — 3/18/2025 @ 12:33 pmOnly fifteen federal judges have been impeached over the last 200+ years, of which seven were either acquitted or the charges dismissed. The remaining eight were removed from office for mental incapacity, malfeasance in office, or criminal conduct.
Rip Murdock (288dd2) — 3/18/2025 @ 12:39 pmTransnational gang banger terrorists are not Venezuelan migrants.
But the attempt at NewSpeak is noted.
NJRob (390907) — 3/18/2025 @ 12:52 pm@3 Time, impeachment is constitutional only when you like it. LOL
lloyd (392973) — 3/18/2025 @ 12:55 pmSo we are in agreement that it is normal, but rarely used?
Joe (584b3d) — 3/18/2025 @ 1:10 pm@Joe, Can you elaborate on what you meant by Nomal?
Also, it seems as if you’re arguing a point that’s different from the one Roberts made.
Time (4a58b7) — 3/18/2025 @ 1:15 pmWe’re seeing what the Save Democracy folks really think about democracy.
lloyd (392973) — 3/18/2025 @ 1:19 pmOnly for mental incapacity, malfeasance in office, or criminal conduct; not because the President disagrees with judicial rulings. That would be abnormal.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 3/18/2025 @ 1:23 pm@12, That sounds clever, but really just makes it apparent how little you understand about how the US constitution works.
I’d try to explain, but we both know that would be a waste of time.
Time (4a58b7) — 3/18/2025 @ 1:26 pmJoe,
Impeachment is a check on the judiciary and executive in cases involving “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” A judicial decision is not one of those bad acts just because Trump disagrees with it.
DRJ (f5a15e) — 3/18/2025 @ 1:32 pmNot sure what you mean, courts have affirmed, as well as overturned, presidential actions, regulations, and laws for the past 222 years (Marbury v. Madison, 1803).
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 3/18/2025 @ 1:32 pm@4
lol…no.
whembly (b7cc46) — 3/18/2025 @ 1:36 pm@15
Impeachment is uniquely a Congressional power.
Unfortunately, it’s up to Congress to determine if the maladministration warrants impeachment.
whembly (b7cc46) — 3/18/2025 @ 1:38 pmlmao
lloyd (392973) — 3/18/2025 @ 1:39 pmWhile any House member can file articles of impeachment; the proof in the pudding will be when the House votes to actually to impeach the judges and force the Senate to conduct a trial. This is just performance art and that there will be a lot of disappointed MAGAites (both in Congress and in the general public) when the House majority fails to do so.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 3/18/2025 @ 1:41 pmWhy do you say “unfortunately,” especially since the Republicans have the majority in the House?
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 3/18/2025 @ 1:42 pmThere is a difference between judicial review and judicial obstruction. This has been debated and re-balanced countless times in our history. The folks who want obstruction will always hide their intentions behind Marbury.
lloyd (392973) — 3/18/2025 @ 1:44 pmAs I said above, any House member can file articles of impeachment.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 3/18/2025 @ 1:45 pmI’m sure those who filed lawsuits against Biden’s student loan forgiveness efforts (and Dobbs, or Loper Bright) didn’t feel that way.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 3/18/2025 @ 1:48 pm@21
“Unfortunately” because they can make up any crap to justify impeachment.
It’s performative, since they don’t have the votes in the Senate.
If Republicans want to “check” the judiciary, particularly the DC district courts, they’re better off passing a law that gets rid of the DC circuit.
whembly (b7cc46) — 3/18/2025 @ 1:50 pmDidn’t stop the Democrats from impeaching Trump twice.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 3/18/2025 @ 1:52 pmJust wait until he leads a 5-4 decision against any one of the cases challenging Trump’s authority.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 3/18/2025 @ 1:55 pm@28
True.
If GOP, like Democrats did, want to use the impeachment process itself as the punishment, by all means go ahead.
It’s just that they’re not going to get much of anything done during impeachment hearings, that inevitably fail to do anything at all.
whembly (b7cc46) — 3/18/2025 @ 1:57 pm@28
Then he just might pull an Andrew Jackson.
whembly (b7cc46) — 3/18/2025 @ 1:58 pmThe Democrats wrote the playbook, now it’s time for the House Republicans to take the field.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 3/18/2025 @ 2:01 pmHere’s another judge to add to the impeachment list:
A federal judge on Tuesday found that Elon Musk and the White House’s Department of Government Efficiency likely violated the Constitution when they unilaterally acted to shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development.
U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang ruled in favor of a group of more than two dozen unnamed current and former USAID employees and contractors who had challenged the efforts to shutter USAID, which were mounted by DOGE and Musk, a senior White House adviser who President Trump has said is the leader of the task force.
Chuang granted in part their request for a preliminary injunction and said in a 68-page decision that DOGE and Musk likely violated the Constitution’s Appointments Clause and separation of powers.
He ordered Musk and task force employees to reinstate access to email, payment and other electronic systems to all current USAID employees and personal services contractors. The judge also prevented DOGE and Musk from taking any action relating to the shutdown of USAID, including placing employees on administrative leave, firing USAID workers, closing its buildings, bureaus or offices, and deleting the contents of its websites or collections.
DOGE and Musk are prohibited under the judge’s order from taking any other actions relating to USAID without the “express authorization” of an agency official with legal authority to take the action. The Trump administration is likely to appeal the decision.
“To deny plaintiffs’ Appointments Clause claim solely on the basis that, on paper, Musk has no formal legal authority relating to the decisions at issue, even if he is actually exercising significant authority on governmental matters, would open the door to an end-run around the Appointments Clause,” Chuang wrote.
He continued: “If a president could escape Appointments Clause scrutiny by having advisers go beyond the traditional role of White House advisors who communicate the president’s priority to agency heads and instead exercise significant authority throughout the federal government so as to bypass duly appointed officers, the Appointments Clause would be reduced to nothing more than a technical formality.”
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 3/18/2025 @ 2:05 pm……….
Everything below the title link should have been blockquoted. Sorry.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 3/18/2025 @ 2:06 pm@32
Impeachment is a wet noodle farce.
If Republicans wants to “check” the judiciary, use the power of the purse to destroy the DC Circuit, move those DC jurist to other circuits.
whembly (b7cc46) — 3/18/2025 @ 2:13 pmMore:
Overview of the Appointments Clause.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 3/18/2025 @ 2:17 pmChief Justice Roberts is just making a general point about court rulings. He was being deliberately neutral. There is almost no question the judge was right about the 1798 law. And the administration had no real reason for invoking it. They were also I think deliberately trying to escape jurisdiction and speeding things up.
They were sending people to prison conditions they would not send al Qaeda members to. And conditions at Guantanamo were not up to standards so they either deported them or took them back to United States mainland.
That said, one misleading point on the other side – the absence of criminal record in the United States is not an issue, They were accused of being members of a gang. Many can be recognized by their tattoos but nothing at all was invoked as evidence. Trump and his allies seem to expect people to accept their claims without needing to assert any kind of substantiation. That’s a formula for error or corruption,
Sammy Finkelman (4212b0) — 3/18/2025 @ 2:19 pm,
No guts, no glory.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 3/18/2025 @ 2:19 pmGiven the timing, it’s not hard to draw a connection.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 3/18/2025 @ 2:21 pmAnd there was nothing neutral about his statement.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 3/18/2025 @ 2:22 pm@37
I’m not open to the idea that impeachment, no matter how ineffective it is, should be deployed if a Judge makes a bad ruling. That’s why we have appellate and SCOTUS.
Now if the judge continually issues bad rules, one after another.
Congress should consider it.
In short, impeachment should only be deploy when both there’s a valid basis, and that there’s bipartisan concerns.
If, however, your mission to “check” or “reign in” the judiciary… to me, the best course of action is for the GOP to ram through a reconciliation bill that would fold the DC district/appellate courts into neighboring districts to indicate to the other judges in the nation that such actions can happen to them too.
whembly (b7cc46) — 3/18/2025 @ 2:44 pmNot what was argued to remove Trump multiple times. People here argued that the Congress could remove him for any reason and at and that they should.
NJRob (c2842a) — 3/18/2025 @ 2:59 pmMAGA world is treating the judge’s ruling as obviously wrong, and the call for impeachment is meant to make more credible the claim that it is obviously wrong. (it’s to get people to reason backwards)
Here’s today’s Wall Street Journal editorial about this:
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/trump-deportations-gang-members-james-boasberg-tom-homan-nayib-bukele-ms-13-tren-de-aragua-6e377106
Bluster, and he’s ben doing a lot of it.
Now listen to what Bukele did earlier that Trump purportedly regards as the worst thing a country can do
Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 3/18/2025 @ 3:12 pmRip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 3/18/2025 @ 2:22 pm
He didn’t say the judge was right or wrong.
Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 3/18/2025 @ 3:24 pmSammy, good comment.
Time123 (1998d0) — 3/18/2025 @ 3:33 pmTrump’s first impeachment alleged two articles of impeachment: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The second impeachment alleged incitement of insurrection. Those all allege crimes that meet the requirements for an impeachabke offense.
DRJ (a84ee2) — 3/18/2025 @ 3:51 pmWillfully obtuse. Roberts’ statement had nothing to do with any litigation but everything to do with Republican threats to impeach judges for any adverse rulings that challenge President Trump’s claims to authority.
Rip Murdock (288dd2) — 3/18/2025 @ 4:26 pmThose all allege crimes that meet the requirements for an impeachable offense.
What requirements are those?
The only requirement is one of “bad behavior” — judges “hold their Offices during good Behaviour” and misdemeanor also means “bad behavior” both literally and at the time of the Founding. Certain crimes were not called “misdemeanors” until later, and only our uber litigious society makes a fetish of it.
In 1828, Webster defined it as:
Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/18/2025 @ 4:51 pmReconciliation is only for tax and spending issues, not policy changes.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 3/18/2025 @ 4:54 pmOnly for mental incapacity, malfeasance in office, or criminal conduct; not because the President disagrees with judicial rulings. That would be abnormal.
Actually, the first and only Supreme Court jurist (Samuel Chase) to be impeached was at the wrong end of Thomas Jefferson’s ire.
It failed. Had it succeeded, John Marshall would have been next. To call this “abnormal” is revision. The issue that resulted in the impeachment is still with us today — using “judicial review” as a club in political matters. Trump’s motivations are no different that Jefferson’s.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/18/2025 @ 5:04 pmLink above: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Chase#Impeachment
Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/18/2025 @ 5:05 pmReconciliation is only for tax and spending issues, not policy changes.
Jefferson did abolish the inferior courts and fire all the judges when his party repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801, solving most of Jefferson’s issues with the Federalists that Adams had filled the courts with in his final days in office.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/18/2025 @ 5:10 pmOne of the best ways to rein in the judiciary is to not take indefensible legal positions that judges will reject. I have no idea if the ruling by judge Boasberg was correct but, even assuming it was wrong, there are several remedies such as asking the judge to reconsider or going up on appeal. And Congress can do things short of impeachment. Aphrael, or JVW if he’s still around (I hope!), probably will remember this better than I do, but a few years ago the Cal. Supreme Court angered the legislature by ruling that something like 19% of the operating budget for the legislature had been illegally appropriated. The legislature responded by cutting the court’s budget by 19%. So there are ways a legislative body can send signals to the judiciary without calling for impeachment, which is just an obvious attempt at intimidation. Roberts is right to push back.
One thing Trump supporters should remember is that Republicans will not be in power forever meaning the weapons Rs are using against Ds now can and will be used by Ds against Rs at some point. So just from a practical point of view, a little restraint is a good thing. I try to take it issue-by-issue and agree with Trump on a number of things but the way he’s gone about making changes has very often been way too harsh, almost as if causing intimidation was as much the point as making the actual policy change.
RL formerly in Glendale (c21ff9) — 3/18/2025 @ 5:15 pmI’m sure those who filed lawsuits against Biden’s student loan forgiveness efforts (and Dobbs, or Loper Bright) didn’t feel that way.
Oh, bollocks. Every case that is filed has political or social motivations. That’s why the courts won’t TAKE them if they don’t. There has to be an injured party and there has to be a conflict or controversy.
In the current cases, none of the lawyers are injured nor any of the groups paying for it. Yhey have political reasons for bring the cases on “behalf” of, well, this guy over here. It’s hard to see a motivation that is NOT about obstructing.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/18/2025 @ 5:20 pmRL,
There is fault on both sides. This judge gave a verbal order — perhaps in the heat of the moment — that was functionally unappealable and ill-considered. The order itself was was not even in the case record when he ordered the government to “turn those planes around!” That seems to be issuing orders to the armed forces, a power he does not have but wielded anyway.
A proper order would have been to halt all such flights, pending a hearing.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/18/2025 @ 5:26 pmI’m sure that Rip will mansplain this some more, but it is becoming apparent to me that Trump is self-destructing.
Part of that is his impatience with what he sees a righteous cause being attacked by all and sundry. Part of it is that his cause IS being attacked by all and sundry, and he sees coordination and conspiracy in the assault. It seems more like it’s an association of the willing, but it also seems like an organized resistance has found their footing. And they are now playing him like a bull in the arena.
The sad part of it is that a few of the things he wants to do are needed and popular (gutting the federal blob and dealing with a 40yo mistake on open borders). But Trump’s insurrection WILL be put down, and the same people who brought us Biden and Hillary will have power again.
They are no better.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/18/2025 @ 5:33 pmNot sure why you think I will “mansplain” anything, except I think that Trump has any resistance on the run. They may be winning in district courts, but when they reach the appellate level things will turn around.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 3/18/2025 @ 5:43 pmDon’t be so disappointed.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 3/18/2025 @ 5:44 pmThey may be winning in district courts, but when they reach the appellate level things will turn around.
I hope so, because the current situation will fracture otherwise. Some day very soon push will come to shove. My fear it will become an impeachment issue, and we all know that impeachment isn’t very viable. When this came up under Andy Jackson, the courts retreated to wait out the moment, being on the wrong side of the popular mood.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/18/2025 @ 6:08 pmFalse. It was written.
Paul Montagu (6e4595) — 3/18/2025 @ 6:14 pmAssumes facts not in evidence, which is why there shoulda been due process. The names will out eventually, and then we’ll know how many were actually Tren Whatever and how many were apprehended out of convenience.
Paul Montagu (6e4595) — 3/18/2025 @ 6:28 pmIndeed…
Paul Montagu (6e4595) — 3/18/2025 @ 6:31 pm“I’m here illegally, but I’m not a gang member” doesn’t sound like a great defense.
lloyd (c1e4f0) — 3/18/2025 @ 6:42 pmTrump has something Jackson didn’t have, which is a a compliant DOD civilian leadership and a professional Army to carry out his orders.
Rip Murdock (288dd2) — 3/18/2025 @ 6:43 pmThat’s what due process would’ve ascertained if it weren’t hijacked by Trump, hence the problem. In the case of the ABC link, they weren’t illegals, but they were Venezuelan.
Paul Montagu (6e4595) — 3/18/2025 @ 6:46 pmThere is a range of opinions on what are “high crimes and misdeamenors” for impeachment purposes, Kevin, but it is more than bad behavior in everyone’s definition:
DRJ (f5a15e) — 3/18/2025 @ 6:58 pmThe standard is “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” :
Treason
Bribery
Or
High crimes and misdemeanors
High modifies crimes and misdemeanors.
DRJ (f5a15e) — 3/18/2025 @ 7:01 pmFalse. It was written.
It was also different. From your Politico link:
Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/18/2025 @ 7:03 pmThere is a clear separation of powers issue in a judge ordering that military planes do things, or that the commander-in-chief obey the the judges commands and make his planes do things.
Now, after the fact, it can be discussed in a court but the judge’s only lawful action is to find people in contempt. Of course that’s hard to do with the President. Sucks all around.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/18/2025 @ 7:07 pmTrump has something Jackson didn’t have, which is a a compliant DOD civilian leadership and a professional Army to carry out his orders.
You are going to have to cite this assertion. After the election was stolen in 1824, Jackson’s followers made a lot of changes before the next election, beginning with expanding the voting base from 300K to 1.3 million. He won in 1828 by double digits and 68% of the electoral vote.
And he was a winning general, which had to give him some cred in the War Department.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/18/2025 @ 7:22 pmFederal Judge Orders Astronauts Be Returned To Space Station.
lloyd (91dbab) — 3/18/2025 @ 7:29 pmHigh modifies crimes and misdemeanors.
It modifies crimes, but not misdemeaors. “High crimes and misdemeanors” was a term of art at the time, where mis-demeanor was all forms of bad behavior. And, when talking about judges, it’s out in the open what they meant.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/18/2025 @ 7:29 pmI dare say the US military today is far better trained and equipped than Jackson’s ever was. I think it’s self-evident.
Rip Murdock (288dd2) — 3/18/2025 @ 7:30 pmWhy does everyone have to take sides? All for Trump or all against? Is nothing he does wrong? Is nothing he does right?
Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/18/2025 @ 7:31 pmI dare say the US military today is far better trained and equipped than Jackson’s ever was. I think it’s self-evident.
Well, the whole thing about “no standing army” was more in vogue. Until WW2, the peacetime US Army was mostly officers and sergeants.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/18/2025 @ 7:33 pmBut let’s say that the military is better trained and more professional today. How does this help Trump?
Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/18/2025 @ 7:34 pmThere is a range of opinions on what are “high crimes and misdeamenors” for impeachment purposes, Kevin, but it is more than bad behavior in everyone’s definition:
This would mean that judges have far less protection, but seldom used.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/18/2025 @ 7:39 pmBut what is a high misdemeanor?
This is where they go off the rails. The question never came up in Madison’s notes. It was developed in the Committee of Detail as they pieced together the decisions that had been reached to form a document. So they used the historic term of art that they had used in England. It is too bad that pedants, wanting to get their guy off the hook, always seize on it.
Here you see two experts who treat the phrase as the intended gestalt and point out that the term covers both crimes and other matters that “breach the public trust.” It is not illegal in any way for a politician to lie. But some lies may be impeachable as bad behavior or, if you insist, seriously bad behavior.
In the end, though, Gerald Ford had the actual limits.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/18/2025 @ 7:49 pmIf I have to explain it……..
Rip Murdock (288dd2) — 3/18/2025 @ 7:55 pmI disagree with your assertions, Kevin, and I quoted an article that explained the meaning of the impeachment terms at the time the Constitution was written.
DRJ (a84ee2) — 3/18/2025 @ 9:02 pmThe names will out, like Yamarte…
A court of law could’ve sorted this, but that was denied and now he’s in an El Salvadoran gulag.
Paul Montagu (6e4595) — 3/18/2025 @ 9:29 pm@66
Sure.
But Congress can agree to what constitute that.
The only think holding Congress back, is their credibility…and we know where that is at this point.
whembly (b7cc46) — 3/19/2025 @ 7:15 am@73
Are you new here?
whembly (b7cc46) — 3/19/2025 @ 7:16 amA photo and a statement from his family is all the evidence you need.
lloyd (5b775b) — 3/19/2025 @ 7:37 amKevin, your view about overreach Of judicial powers into military matters is interesting. I’m curious what you see as a limiting factor? I don’t think the fact that the president chooses to execute policy using military jets automatically makes the question one of national defense. Anyway, I’m not trying to argue with you more so understand what you’re thinking because it’s an interesting line of thought
Time123 (72d94e) — 3/19/2025 @ 8:03 amLloyd, I think you’ve misunderstood Paul’s point of view. I’m taking his assertion to be that the process for determining the validity of these claims was not followed. I didn’t see him asserting that these claims were valid.
Time123 (72d94e) — 3/19/2025 @ 8:04 am@84
In manner that is wholly in the Executive’s domain (ie, foreign policy, military matters), judges really shouldn’t have operational control.
The issue is the “turn the plane around” order.
The judge can still adjudicate the case, and hope that later at resolution things can be undone.
whembly (b7cc46) — 3/19/2025 @ 8:23 am@85
I think he’s wrong on that claim too.
The administration has made colorable case that:
a) this was invasion (as the gang is a legit Venezuelan government relationship).
b) the gang perpetuated “predatory incursion” as noted in the Alien Enemies Act.
c) current SCOTUS precedent is that such determination is non-judicious.
That way I read it, the strongest position is the whole “predatory incursion” language in the AEA.
In any case, this is going to be litigated.
whembly (b7cc46) — 3/19/2025 @ 8:30 amEven if those are non justiciable, the fifth amendment requirement of due process applies to all persons present in the country, meaning they had a right to a judicial determination that – for example – the person detained was actually the person he was alleged to be.
Trump *should* lose on this, because this goes to the essence of the right to be free from arbitrary seizure.
aphrael (705d3d) — 3/19/2025 @ 8:35 amWhembly, Any limiting principle?
Time123 (72d94e) — 3/19/2025 @ 8:45 amHere’s the law.
50 U.S. Code § 21 – Restraint, regulation, and removal
U.S. Code
So, a declaration of war isn’t a necessary prerequisite to invoke this act. It’s ONE of the rationale that can be used to invoke it.
whembly (b7cc46) — 3/19/2025 @ 8:52 am@89
In what regards? The Alien Enemies Act?
Congress can pass a law.
whembly (b7cc46) — 3/19/2025 @ 8:53 amOk.
Time123 (72d94e) — 3/19/2025 @ 8:55 amHandwringing :
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 3/19/2025 @ 8:57 amWhoosh. A big bad faith whoosh.
Paul Montagu (6e4595) — 3/19/2025 @ 8:58 amThere’s only a million or so asylum claims to sort through. One by one. Of course, that was always the plan.
lloyd (2f4074) — 3/19/2025 @ 9:01 amThe case is over after the first six words: “Whenever there is a declared war…” because there is no declared war and the two current AUMFs don’t apply to the situation.
Paul Montagu (6e4595) — 3/19/2025 @ 9:02 amThey were to supposed to deport the criminals first, and then those with deportation orders. That’s what Homan told you.
Paul Montagu (6e4595) — 3/19/2025 @ 9:06 amThere are at least three cases where the deportees have no criminal record. For at least two of them, their “crime” was to show up as scheduled for an asylum hearing, which is easy pickings for the malevolent.
@96
Now who’s the lazy one?
Keep reading.
Let me fisk it for you:
(1) Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government,
(2)or any invasion
(3)or predatory incursion is perpetrated…
So, no a declared war doesn’t look like it’s the only pre-requisite.
whembly (b7cc46) — 3/19/2025 @ 9:11 amSo Whembly, your assertion is that the Venezuelan criminal gangs are an extension of the government?
Time123 (72d94e) — 3/19/2025 @ 9:20 am@99
That’s the government’s assertion.
whembly (b7cc46) — 3/19/2025 @ 9:23 amI don’t know that I’ve seen the government actually assert that. I think you could deduce it as necessarily being true based on some of the things I have seen them assert. Or I could’ve missed it. It seems like if we were saying that the Venezuelan government intentionally set criminal gangs into the United States in an effort to harm us that our response should be far stronger than merely departing the gangs
Regardless, that’s not what I asked you. I’m asking you what you think.
Time123 (72d94e) — 3/19/2025 @ 9:26 am@101 Time123 (72d94e) — 3/19/2025 @ 9:26 am
Yes, the government asserted that. It’s in the court’s transcript.
Yeah, I do believe the Venezuelan government purposely empty’ed out their prison systems in order to “offload” that mess to the US.
I believe deporting these gang members is the least that we should do.
But, not sure if there are other recourse to “punish” the Venezuelan government that we should clean up their mess.
whembly (b7cc46) — 3/19/2025 @ 9:34 amwhembly, there’s no “invasion” or “predatory incursion”. Your personal definitions of words don’t count.
Paul Montagu (6e4595) — 3/19/2025 @ 10:10 am> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Why does the fifth amendment not apply, whembly?
The people detained and removed by the US government count as persons. They have been deprived of liberty. They are entitled to due process of law.
The minimum process here is that the government *demonstrate to an independent third party that the people removed are the people they are alleged to be*.
Why is it ok for the government to remove someone on *allegation alone*?
aphrael (b4d920) — 3/19/2025 @ 10:18 amSource
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 3/19/2025 @ 10:26 amWhile the courts may have a limited role in “foreign policy (and) military matters”, they are not “wholly in the Executive’s domain.” Several clauses of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution enumerate Congress’s role in foreign and military affairs:
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 3/19/2025 @ 10:56 am@103
Sure, in your opinion.
The government asserted otherwise.
I agree that “invasion” is their weakest arguments… but ‘predatory incursion’, a freaking gang that’s labeled as a criminal organization setting up shop in the US is by definition a ‘predatory incursion’.
whembly (b7cc46) — 3/19/2025 @ 11:00 am@104
To be clear, I am sensitive to this argument
With respect to foreigners, they do NOT enjoy the same sort of robust constitutional rights (ie, the 5th).
Nothing is stopping them from asserting that and beseeching the courts. (the 5 named defendants of the case are still in the US).
It isn’t “allegation alone”, there’s a whole much more used in their justification.
whembly (b7cc46) — 3/19/2025 @ 11:04 am@106
Sure, Congress can pass laws governing AEA or INS acts as I mentioned previously.
But, within the confines of those Acts, there are limits to what the courts can do.
Look, guys, basically the argument is that the Trump DOJ is making the arguments that they’ve complied with the judge’s written order, and provide case laws to substantiate their arguments.
The judge and ACLU disagrees.
That disagreement is still being hashed out in courts.
whembly (b7cc46) — 3/19/2025 @ 11:07 amRead @ProfMJCleveland’s thread here.
You may think Trump’s a big meanie doofus, but the people in his DOJ are not.
There’s a lot more going on here than meets the eye, imho.
whembly (b7cc46) — 3/19/2025 @ 11:10 amThe call for impeachment is not serious. It is meant to make more credible the claim that the judge’s ruling is obviously wrong because people will reason backwards from the call for impeachment to the validity of its basis.
That is, that the judge’s ruling must have been obviously wrong or politically motivated because some people want to get the impeached.
Sammy Finkelman (27b4a5) — 3/19/2025 @ 11:13 amNo, in your opinion. Rip’s extended blockquote is apt.
Paul Montagu (6e4595) — 3/19/2025 @ 11:18 amTrump crafting a plausible basis by which he
obeyed illegalignored court orders.It is a principle of U.S. law that illegal court orders must also be obeyed.
Unless suspended by the judge or a higher one.
Sammy Finkelman (27b4a5) — 3/19/2025 @ 11:20 amSource Footnotes omitted.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 3/19/2025 @ 11:23 amCool guys.
They’re hashing it out in courts.
whembly (b7cc46) — 3/19/2025 @ 11:27 amAs noted in your quote from the US Code, the Alien Enemy Act requires a declared war, or “an invasion or predatory incursion……against the territory of the Untied States by any foreign nation or government……”
The question whether transnational criminal organizations are an extension of a foreign government or nation (which is a prerequisite for a “predatory incursion”) is a question only the Supreme Court (or Congress) can decide.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 3/19/2025 @ 11:33 amThat is, that the judge’s ruling must have been obviously wrong or politically motivated because some people want to get the impeached.
“Obviously wrong” won’t do it. Who was it, Reinhardt(?), who ruled the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because of “under God”? That’s as obviously wrong as it gets.
If one could PROVE that several judges had set a strategy for opposing Trump, whatever case they got, then sure and it would be in the interests of the judiciary that they were impeached. Although by the time we got there the issue would be so obfuscated by left-right grandstanding that maybe not even then.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/19/2025 @ 11:38 am“by definition a ‘predatory incursion’.”
No it’s not. It’s in the same boat as “invasion”. A predatory incursion is a military raid. The US bombing the Houthis was a predatory incursion.
Davethulhu (14e9e4) — 3/19/2025 @ 11:39 amwhembly, I can’t tell if you actually believe the arguments you are making or are just being a devil’s advocate and are trying to make arguments even if you don’t truly believe them. Can you clarify?
Nate (31ba48) — 3/19/2025 @ 11:55 am@119
Sure. What do you want me to clarify?
whembly (b7cc46) — 3/19/2025 @ 11:57 amThe question whether transnational criminal organizations are an extension of a foreign government or nation (which is a prerequisite for a “predatory incursion”) is a question only the Supreme Court (or Congress) can decide.
I think that the boss of the Army and foreign policy has a hand in that decision, too*.
Jefferson’s negotiations with the Barbary States operated in a less grey area, but it was still pretty grey. The concise history of the 20-year attempt to make our commerce safe in the Mediterranean against autonomous Ottoman satraps and their somewhat autonomous corsairs seems similar to the current situation with Mexico, it’s states, and the cartels.
In any event, President Jefferson directed negotiations and armed actions for several years before he even notified Congress, and not one injunction.
__________
Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/19/2025 @ 12:10 pm* Have we gone so far that only the Courts can make these decisions? As far back as Jefferson, presidents have thought Marbury went too far when it claimed exclusive powers of review. They tried to impeach Chase, and failed. But it is, it seems, still a dispute.
A predatory incursion is a military raid.
So, if you send men with guns, it’s predatory, but if you send men with fentanyl, it’s not?
Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/19/2025 @ 12:12 pmThere’s only a million or so asylum claims to sort through. One by one. Of course, that was always the plan.
This is, of course, the problem. “Doing nothing” which has been the game since the 90s, requires no approval, no due process, no effort. It can be done quickly, with a rubber stamp.
But if you want to do something, the opponents of that action have numerous ways to bog you down in red tape. To them “due process” is “as much delay as possible.” So, we are now on the road to the Deportation Process where the government must prove what everyone knows, subject to review by people also know but want to deny it, then appeals, lost records, etc.
All to show that some multiply-charged drug dealer with more tats than skin and came here last year, irregularly, to join his gang — to show that he should be kicked out on his ass — as every knew going in.
Or, maybe they can deport him with the same due process used to permit his temporary compassionate entry due to his (no doubt well-founded) fear of his home government. Which is to say, an identity check, review of his police record and an understanding of gang tats. And a rubber stamp.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/19/2025 @ 12:21 pm@122
Guns and illicit fentanyl goes hand to hand in almost all cases.
whembly (b7cc46) — 3/19/2025 @ 12:26 pmKevin, Jefferson had to get authorization from Congress for military action against the Barbary pirates, per your link, something that’s missing from the Tren Whatever “Invasion”.
Funny thing, though, how we’re still attacking Arabs in the Middle East to keep the sealanes clear, just like in the early 1800s, but at least today we have a War Powers Resolution that allows Trump 90 days to bomb the sh-t out of the Houthis.
Paul Montagu (6e4595) — 3/19/2025 @ 12:31 pmNone of these allow Congress to actively direct military activity. Congress can tax and spend, create and maintain the military and militia, establish rules for the behavior of the military and a corp to enforce them. After that, they can control activities only through the power of the purse.
Mostly irrelevant, but they have passed laws against smuggling drugs. Trump can defend against that. It is not unreasonable to view massive smuggling of drugs as a “predatory incursion.” Not sure what actions Texas can do, but up to now they’ve been in the absence of federal interest.
Congress has written countless laws. They been ignored for decades. If Trump now tries to solve the Gordian Knot that has resulted, well, Alexander figured out a way.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/19/2025 @ 12:40 pmNo, the Alien Enemy Act (and 50 USC 21) is pretty clear on that point.
Hat tip to whembly.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 3/19/2025 @ 12:42 pmGiven the clarity of 50 USC 21, a court decision is only required when a President ignores the plain text of the law.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 3/19/2025 @ 12:44 pmOr to quote one commenters observation: They can try to impeach.
I dislike Trump. I expect him to BE impeached for other reasons. But using this one? It’s popular, it’s why he won. It is the Leftist Party once again crushing the life out of the actual Democrats. Like the HFC, the AOC wing doesn’t care about winning. They’d rather be right.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/19/2025 @ 12:45 pma court decision is only required when a President ignores the plain text of the law.
Well, we are getting more than that. We are getting courts demanding everything stops until they are satisfied, in detail, which is unlikely to occur before February 2029.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/19/2025 @ 12:47 pmJefferson had to get authorization from Congress for military action against the Barbary pirates
Jefferson was taking some military action before he approached Congress. His problem was that needed more money, both for ships and for “gifts”, to escalate and/or end it. Since he was asking for money to continue, approval was coupled with the funds.
It helped that Tripoli declared war on us.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/19/2025 @ 12:54 pmAnd it is directed “against the territory of the United States by any foreign government or nation.” It would need to be established the governments of Venezuela, Mexico, China, etc. directed the “predatory invasion.” As James Madison put it in his Report of 1800:
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 3/19/2025 @ 12:57 pm……that the actions have conformed to laws passed by Congress or are contrary to the Constitution. Fixed i.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 3/19/2025 @ 1:00 pm@127:
I don’t think we are in disagreement here on this topic. My rant is more general about the entanglement of the judiciary with powers held by the other two branches. What is going on here is judicial micromanagement, under the actual direction of advocacy groups that can get a judge’s ear.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/19/2025 @ 1:02 pmI don’t expect him to be impeached for any reason as long as the Republican House majority exists. Why would they do so? There is no way a Republican Congress would crucify their own President.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 3/19/2025 @ 1:03 pmHard to tell.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 3/19/2025 @ 1:04 pmDo you think the courts should defer to the President, despite any actions that may be contrary to enacted laws or the Constitution?
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 3/19/2025 @ 1:06 pmAs a corollary to my question in post 137; should the President defy court orders that he disagrees with or restricts his authority?
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 3/19/2025 @ 1:09 pm……that the actions have conformed to laws passed by Congress or are contrary to the Constitution
It’s not their job to be checkists. Where were they when Biden, Trump, Obama, W and Clinton ignored federal immigration law in job lots?
They dismissed suits by half the states on standing, despite the obvious damage unfettered immigration was doing. We now have shanty towns in our major cities, wages have fallen due to under-the-table competitors (as have the businesses that refuse illegality), our schools are packed with needy kids while those who can escape that system, and then there’s the drugs. But no standing.
Now, however, someone sues because the deportees didn’t get “due process”? Is there a law that states what that process might be? Name, police record, immigration status, employment and deportment should be enough.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/19/2025 @ 1:11 pm“All to show that some multiply-charged drug dealer with more tats than skin and came here last year, irregularly, to join his gang — to show that he should be kicked out on his ass — as every knew going in.”
Facts not in evidence.
“To them “due process” is “as much delay as possible.””
Oh that pesky due process
Davethulhu (14e9e4) — 3/19/2025 @ 1:17 pmAs a corollary to my question in post 137; should the President defy court orders that he disagrees with or restricts his authority?
And he has not. Even those that are ludicrous. He has played fast and loose a couple of times, but he is not defying them. That does not mean he accepts them, but is willing to appeal.
The choice of whether it will become a crisis lies with the courts. If they allow partisans in robes to negate actions the disapprove of through increasingly wild injunctions and TROs they will indeed create a crisis and one that they will lose. That’s an end I don’t want to see.
But to hear them issue orders, you’d think people were being dropped from helicopters into the sea.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/19/2025 @ 1:17 pmCongressionally approved immigration laws (as we have seen) grants the Executive large amounts of discretionary authority. The rest is a diatribe.
A simple yes or no question: do you think courts should review executive actions to ensure they conform to laws passed by Congress or the Constitution?
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 3/19/2025 @ 1:18 pm“Is there a law that states what that process might be?”
Are you seriously asking this question? You don’t know what “due process” means?
Davethulhu (14e9e4) — 3/19/2025 @ 1:19 pmMy question was a general proposition, not related to this immediate issue.
But just wait.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 3/19/2025 @ 1:20 pmAre you saying that Trump its okay for him not to accept a court order as legitimate, because he is willing to appeal?
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 3/19/2025 @ 1:23 pmAgain, there has to be some limitation on TROs and injunctions, from local courts viewing national issues through local attitudes. For a Seattle or East Texas court to rule on a national issue will depend greatly on which of them you ask.
Gaming the judicial system only happens because there are no restraints against it, and a single judge from the extreme wing or either party has vast power. Yes, appeals, but that is weeks (and many news cycles) away. At the very least the orders should not take effect until an appeal is heard or not filed.
“Turn those planes around” is such a massive abuse of power that I understand the demand for impeachment.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/19/2025 @ 1:24 pmI call bullsh-t on that.
Paul Montagu (6e4595) — 3/19/2025 @ 1:26 pmThe primary objectives that Homan laid out were to (1) deport the criminals and (2) deport those with deportation orders. We have these things called databases to help achieve #1 and #2.
It’s highly probable that a computerized list of asylum seekers can be cross-referenced with databases of those convicted of felonies and serious misdemeanors.
If not, Elon has a battalion of 20-somethings who can solve this (and I’m sure are scads of techies in law enforcement), but it seems like this administration is taking the DOGE approach on illegals, which is to fire first, aim later and to hell with due process. This isn’t American, it’s banana republic.
Are you saying that Trump its okay for him not to accept a court order as legitimate, because he is willing to appeal?
Well, there’s a loaded word in there. Let’s say he does not have to accept it as correct, or even sensical. “Legitimate” means that it was on the right form, issued under the rules for that court, and the demands are clear enough to follow.
And maybe within the power of the court. If the court ordered him to dance a jig in a dunce hat, he probably would defy it. Are you saying he should dance the jig?
Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/19/2025 @ 1:28 pm@138
Just as the founders contemplated Congress’ impeachment of the President…
…they also contemplated a President refusing to abide by a court’s decision.
I don’t think we’re even close to that at the moment, but that is a “check” the executive can (and have had) employ against the judiciary.
The judiciary needs to police itself better, for sure but for now the Trump DOJ (at the moment) is not openly defying the courts, but passively aggressively interpreting their garbage rules and appealing everything.
I still think, that there are a larger perspective here by the Trump DOJ. They’re laying out the legal battleground NOW to set new precedents, such that in year 2, 3 and 4 of this current administration will be able to then do the things they wanted to do without going to courts everytime.
Just look at what happened with all the cases leading up to Remain in Mexico and CDC border policies in Trump’s 1st administration.
whembly (b7cc46) — 3/19/2025 @ 1:29 pm“a single judge”
How many judges are needed?
““Turn those planes around” is such a massive abuse of power that I understand the demand for impeachment.”
Considering where the planes were headed and the danger that involves, it absolutely was not.
Davethulhu (14e9e4) — 3/19/2025 @ 1:30 pmAsked and answered; see also here.
.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 3/19/2025 @ 1:32 pmNo, defying a court is an abuse of power, an abuse of our balance of power, an abuse of our constitutionally-ingrained checks and balances.
Paul Montagu (6e4595) — 3/19/2025 @ 1:32 pmwhembly (#110):
I could only see the last tweet in the x thread you posted. Since it was dedicated to the utter rightness of Trump and the forbearance and grace he was extending to illegal orders by leftist judges, I decided to pass. The better approach is to look at the actual DoL filing and the Boasberg response. These are the arguments in play.
DoJ: What began as a dispute between litigants over the President’s authority to protect the national security and manage the foreign relations of the United States pursuant to both a longstanding Congressional authorization and the President’s core constitutional authorities has devolved into a picayune dispute over the micromanagement of immaterial factfinding.
Boasberg: The Court seeks this information to determine if the Government deliberately flouted its orders issued on March 15, 2025 and, if so, what the consequences should be.
DoJ: There is no serious dispute that the Government complied with the minute order, and the pending questions are grave encroachments on core aspects of absolute and unreviewable
Executive Branch authority relating to national security, foreign relations, and foreign policy. Even addressing the questions in an ex parte submission would result in an immediate flood of media inquiries and demands for the information, subjecting the diplomatic relationships at issue to unacceptable uncertainty about how the Court will address those demands.
Boasberg: Defendants make that claim despite their own extensive promotion of the particulars of the flights. For example, the Secretary of State has revealed many operational details of the flights, including the number of people involved in the flights, many of their identities, the facility to which they were brought, their manner of treatment, and the time window during which these events occurred. See Secretary Marco Rubio (@SecRubio), X (Mar. 16, 2025, 8:39 a.m.), https://x.com/SecRubio/status/190125204351743 2213 (sharing post and video revealing these details). The Court is therefore unsure at this time how compliance with its Minute Order would jeopardize state secrets.
DoJ: A stay is warranted because a decision by the D.C. Circuit on the Government’s request for a stay pending appeal is likely imminent…As the government has explained in its motion to dissolve the TRO, this case is not even justiciable.
Boasberg: the Government reiterates its arguments that the TROs were lawfully defective. See id. at 4–5. But, as explained above, the Court seeks the factual information at issue in order to determine whether the Governmentcomplied with the TROs. Whether those TROs were legally defective or legally sound does not govern the compliance inquiry. As the Supreme Court has made crystal clear, the proper recourse for a party subject to an injunction it believes is legally flawed — and is indeed later shown to be so flawed — is appellate review, not disobedience.
Look — it seems like DoJ defied a judicial order that they didn’t like. In their words:
Thing is — the administration cannot do that under the law — not without upsetting the constitutional order. That’s true, no matter how vituperative their legal filing is.
Appalled (2e3820) — 3/19/2025 @ 1:34 pmIt’s highly probable that a computerized list of asylum seekers can be cross-referenced with databases of those convicted of felonies and serious misdemeanors.
And maybe that has been done, but the database is garbage, particularly addresses and names. In the end you have individuals. You may not know which is which in some cases. Does that mean they all stay, or all go? If you have to be selective, how selective? Suppose you know that all are deportable, but you aren’t sure for how many reasons.
This is a problem that was created by people who knew how to cluster-f the system and they did a good job. Again, the Gordian Knot. “Of course, that was always the plan.”
Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/19/2025 @ 1:35 pmAnother nonsensical hypothetical.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 3/19/2025 @ 1:36 pmThe underlying premise of these orders, including the most recent one requiring the production of these facts ex parte today at noon, is that the Judicial Branch is superior to the Executive Branch, particularly on non-legal matters involving foreign affairs and national security. The Government disagrees. The two branches are coequal, and the Court’s continued intrusions into the prerogatives of the Executive Branch, especially on a non-legal and factually irrelevant matter, should end.
That is a statement of disagreement. I look there for a FU and I don’t see it. Maybe it’s Contempt of Court, but that wouldn’t really do here, would it.
All the DoJ is saying is that this partisan judicial harassment needs to stop.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/19/2025 @ 1:37 pmAnother nonsensical hypothetical.
It’s called “reducio ad absurdum” and it is normal everyday debate stuff. Where did you learn logic?
You asked a categorical assertion/question about whether Trump could refuse to obey an order, and all I am doing is demanding you find a way to limit the question. Because your assertions up to now lead to this absurdity.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/19/2025 @ 1:40 pmIf a federal law or the Constitution mandated the President to dance a jig, then yes.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 3/19/2025 @ 1:42 pm#149
I am sure Trump is hoping to get his extreme interpretations in front of the Supremes, presuming that they will ratify them. We’ll get a hint on how that’s going to go once the emergency hearing on birthright citizenship is held in April.
Thing is, open defiance of TROs will not help Trump/DoL’s cause. This particular gambit was all about getting a cruelty video out to show everyone how tough Trump is on immigration before the courts could do anything about it.
Appalled (2e3820) — 3/19/2025 @ 1:46 pmIf you want more “war stories” there’s this:
A Canadian maybe thought she could apply for a visa at the Mexican border where she was. This was the wrong visa for the purpose of the visit, which was employment.
Instead of just being turned back and told to apply at an embassy or consulate she was arrested (for fraud?) and held for 12 days:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/18/us/mooney-canadian-american-pie-actress-ice.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/19/canadian-detained-us-immigration-jasmine-mooney
Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 3/19/2025 @ 1:50 pm#156 — Bluntly, the Court is trying to fact find whether the government should be held in contempt. And the government is saying the court does not have the power to do it. This is a version of JD Vance’s “Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive branch’s legitimate power”.
Appalled (2e3820) — 3/19/2025 @ 1:56 pmKevin M (a9545f) — 3/19/2025 @ 11:38
They really want people to reason “malicious” but of something is obviously wrong presumably it is so to the judge also.
Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 3/19/2025 @ 1:57 pmI’m sure we will see more of this:
Justice Dept. may invoke state secrets privilege in Alien Enemies Act deportation case
………..
In a filing excoriating D.C. District Chief Judge James Boasberg for demanding detailed information about the flights, the Justice Department said, “Continuing to beat a dead horse solely for the sake of prying from the Government legally immaterial facts and wholly within a sphere of core functions of the Executive Branch is both purposeless and frustrating to the consideration of the actual legal issues at stake in this case.” The filing was signed by Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, as well as top Justice Department officials Emil Bove and Chad Mizelle.
……….
In an order granting the government an additional day to comply with his order, Boasberg also criticized the Justice Department’s claim that their responses to his questions would compromise sensitive information, writing that “the Secretary of State has revealed many operational details of the flights, including the number of people involved in the flights, many of their identities, the facility to which they were brought, their manner of treatment, and the time window during which these events occurred.”
………..
More on the state secrets privilege. Invoking the privilege will allow the court to “determine whether the circumstances are appropriate for the claim of privilege, and yet do so without forcing a disclosure of the very thing the privilege is designed to protect” (US v. Reynolds (1953).
Footnotes omitted.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 3/19/2025 @ 1:59 pmAppalled (2e3820) — 3/19/2025 @ 1:46 pm
The cruelty only works if he can get the public at large to endorse it.
Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 3/19/2025 @ 2:02 pmKevin, what you’re doing is giving everyone a reason for the planes to be turned around, so that the courts can apply due process and factually determine which of those detained individuals actually qualify for an El Salvadoran penal colony, which should be sent to their home country, and which should be released.
Paul Montagu (6e4595) — 3/19/2025 @ 2:02 pm@163
If that’s not a FU (to steal Kevin’s parlance here)… I don’t know what it is.
Extraordinary times for sure.
whembly (b7cc46) — 3/19/2025 @ 2:12 pmI see your absurd hypotheticals when your arguments run out of facts.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 3/19/2025 @ 2:37 pmLink to “More on the state secrets privilege” paragraph in post 163.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 3/19/2025 @ 3:08 pmWhembly, I meant could you clarify if you were making arguments you actually believed or were just playing devil’s advocate.
I sometimes will play around with arguments that I find somewhat interesting, even if I’m not fully convinced by them. I was just trying to figure out where you were at.
Nate (31ba48) — 3/19/2025 @ 4:13 pmThe President is in charge of our defense as we saw when the last President deliberately betrayed his oath of office and allowed an invasion of our nation.
It is repulsive to see how many of you are so broken by your hatred of Trump that you don’t even care about our laws or defense of our nation.
I expect it from the mobys as they don’t desire our nation to exist. The rest of you need to realize the end result of your hatred.
NJRob (eb56c3) — 3/19/2025 @ 4:18 pmGranted, it takes one to know one, but we only have the word of an ADJUDICATED pervert and CONVICTED criminal that the human beings, born of man and woman, he is sending to foreign prisons in the name of the United States of America are themselves perverts and criminals.
Wouldn’t it be nice, for the sake of what the words United States of America may stand for, if those people were first DULY adjudicated to be perverts or criminals?
nk (480052) — 3/19/2025 @ 4:28 pm“you don’t even care about our laws”
oh dang, there goes another irony meter
Davethulhu (14e9e4) — 3/19/2025 @ 4:39 pmThulu,
your silence over the terrorism being perpetuated against Tesla dealerships and owners as well as your support for antifa and their black bloc speaks volumes.
NJRob (eb56c3) — 3/19/2025 @ 4:59 pmHere’s an example of your last point, to be buried alive.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 3/19/2025 @ 5:53 pm“Partisan judicial harassment” is absurd. It’s gross blame-shifting. The offending party—the ones who are usurping the power of the other branch—is the DOJ for flouting a court order and for obstructing the judge’s request on the deportees.
Paul Montagu (9f38d7) — 3/19/2025 @ 6:58 pmNJRob – your silence about the government rounding people up and shipping them to abusive prison camps abroad without having to prove to *anyone* that either (a) they have the people they think they have, or (b) the people they have are guilty of the claims the bad acts the government accuses them of … speaks volumes for your concern, or lack thereof, about the rule of law and the freedom of people from arbitrary seizure.
If the government’s *word* is enough, then none of us are safe should the government decide it is angry at us.
This has been a bedrock principle of anglo-american law since the Glorious Revolution. Why do you want to abandon it?
aphrael (512c60) — 3/19/2025 @ 8:35 pm> It is repulsive to see how many of you are so broken by your hatred of Trump that you don’t even care about our laws or defense of our nation.
I care about both, and I care that we preserve the right of people to be free from arbitrary seizure and detention — a right which is only protected by the requirement that the identity of the seized and the grounds for seizure be disclosed to a court and that the court approve the detention.
> The rest of you need to realize the end result of your hatred.
*You*, sir, need to realize the end result of *your* hatred — a country where the President can disappear anyone he wants, with no judicial oversight, based merely on his claims about the person.
aphrael (512c60) — 3/19/2025 @ 8:38 pmIndeed.Yup.
Similarly, the violence by the J6 criminals at the Capitol was a form of domestic terrorism and was dealt with accordingly, until Trump pardoned them en masse in a betrayal of law and justice and America.
Paul Montagu (f93fe0) — 3/19/2025 @ 9:14 pmA word about Judge Boasberg…
Paul Montagu (f93fe0) — 3/19/2025 @ 9:53 pmAphrael,
I’m not silent at all. I’m cheering deporting gang bangers and other violent illegal aliens. They deserve what they get in a South American prison as they have tried to destroy our nation.
That clear enough for you?
NJRob (cd9941) — 3/20/2025 @ 5:20 amBut your whataboutism is noted and you’re silent on the violent leftists engaging in terrorism here.
That’s noted as well.
NJRob (cd9941) — 3/20/2025 @ 5:22 am@169
Honestly, a little bit of both.
I think this legal battle isn’t as clear cut as both sides are making it to be.
whembly (b7cc46) — 3/20/2025 @ 6:03 amIt’s a hypocrisy check, Rob, and you failed in your denial that your fellow MAGA zealots were domestic terrorists on J6.
You also failed because you keep asserting facts that aren’t in evidence, specifically about who the deported really are, because Trump flouted a court ruling which bypassed due process, which are essential elements of the 4th and 5th Amendments.
You also failed in your complete ignorance about the Alien Enemies Act. We’re not in a war against a foreign nation or government. Your hypocrisy is you wrapping yourself in the flag of the rule of law, while sh-tting on the rule of law. But I already know you won’t you listen, you’re too busy goosestepping for Trump and calling people who disagree with you “mobys”.
Paul Montagu (f93fe0) — 3/20/2025 @ 6:45 amThey weren’t Paul. But you’re fellow leftists certainly are.
NJRob (eb56c3) — 3/20/2025 @ 6:48 amSo now you appreciate rubber-stamping Republican congresspeople?
I am confused…
BuDuh (4214e4) — 3/20/2025 @ 6:53 amI agree, BuDuh, you’re confused.
Paul Montagu (f93fe0) — 3/20/2025 @ 7:11 amThere’s a good probability that both Republicans and Democrats were convinced that he was easily qualified for the job.
Paul Montagu (f93fe0) — 3/20/2025 @ 7:13 amThey were domestic terrorists on J6, Rob, by the very definition under the US Code, which is why you’re a hypocrite.
Your fellow MAGA zealots were indeed intimidating through your rioting and violence and property destruction.
Paul Montagu (f93fe0) — 3/20/2025 @ 7:23 amYour fellow MAGA zealots influenced a constitutional proceeding by disrupting it with your storming the Capitol.
Your fellow MAGA zealots affected the conduct of our government by your violence and related attempts on Pence and Pelosi. It was all categorically unpatriotic and un-American.
NJRob:
Here’s the fruits of failing at due process:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436.44.5_3.pdf
tl;dr — Jerce Reyes Barrios, deported to an El Salvador dungeon, has a tattoo on his arm of a crown sitting atop a soccer ball with a rosary and the word “Dios”. DHS alleges the tatoo is proof of gang membership. In reality, he chose this tatoo because it is similar to the logo for his favorite soccer team, Real Madrid.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436.44.6_3.pdf
tl;dr — “EV” is accused of ICE of gang membership because he has a tatoo of a crown. However, this crown is not related to Tren de Aragua but rather, a tribute to his grandmother whose date of death appears at the base of the crown.
Appalled (e7d5f2) — 3/20/2025 @ 7:25 amNJ Rob:
If you are interested, there are a number of similar assertions here:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69741724/jgg-v-trump/
Scroll down to Item 44 — the declarations containing the stories of some deportees are below. Some are possibly phony. None were reviewed before these folks were summarily hauled off to prison camp (and likely are part of that lovely cruelty video Little Marco decided to share with the nation).
You’ve lost your way. I don’t believe being opposed to terrorism or immigration or even denying asylum cases is being pro-cruelty. Summarily sending people to a prison camp in a foreign country is.
Appalled (e7d5f2) — 3/20/2025 @ 7:38 amAppalled,
nah. You’re the one that’s lost the plot. Just like Trayvon Martin was portrayed as a good little boy out for a stroll or George Floyd was a gentle giant, you’ve bought the leftist BS hook, line and sinker.
NJRob (e3d648) — 3/20/2025 @ 10:11 am> I’m not silent at all. I’m cheering deporting gang bangers and other violent illegal aliens. They deserve what they get in a South American prison as they have tried to destroy our nation.
So you just trust that the administration makes no mistakes in who it apprehends and that it has evidence to back up its beliefs, and because you trust them, you don’t see any need for them to actually present that evidence to independent third parties.
That’s an incredible amount of faith to have in a bureaucracy made of humans.
> That clear enough for you?
Yes. You have become a fascist, full stop. That’s abundantly clear.
> But your whataboutism is noted and you’re silent on the violent leftists engaging in terrorism here.
I’m much more concerned with the abuse of power by the government, in violation of both the fifth amendment and the very principles on which this nation was founded. That is a threat to the life, liberty, and property of *every person in the country*.
The fact that you — or any self-described conservative — are ok with this is utterly astounding to me. From where I stand, you’ve abandoned your integrity and your core beliefs to become the worshipful slaves of an autocratic strongman.
aphrael (4b5942) — 3/20/2025 @ 11:05 amNJRob,
I am curious whether you clicked on my links. Probably not. Just remember that what you are ok with is a person being sent to an authoritarian country’s jails without a judge clapping eyes on their case. And you are certain that a mere eyeball of their tatoos was sufficient to determine their gang status.
Using your logic, Sheriff Appalled would have clapped Pete Hegseth in irons because his tats suggest biker gang or white nationalist.
Appalled (e7d5f2) — 3/20/2025 @ 11:14 am> Using your logic, Sheriff Appalled would have clapped Pete Hegseth in irons because his tats suggest biker gang or white nationalist.
Exactly. This is a power our government is not supposed to have, because it is a threat to *everyone* for our government to have it.
aphrael (4b5942) — 3/20/2025 @ 11:16 amOf course you are because it’s someone you’re against being victimized. If it was someone in the leftist hierarchy being attacked you’d scream bloody murder.
Or a criminal invader. Oh wait, you are doing that.
NJRob (eb56c3) — 3/20/2025 @ 12:09 pmIf only any of you cared one iota about the invasion taking place on our southern border for the last 40 years. Your crocodile tears are telling. You don’t care about the American lives destroyed by these evil people, about those destroyed by the drugs they bring in.
It’s just because Trump is for it that you’re against it. It’s all a political game to you.
NJRob (eb56c3) — 3/20/2025 @ 12:12 pm@192
I’m okay with ACLU bringing this fight to Courts.
But, aphreal, I can’t recall the last time you made these kinds of arguments when it was Joe Biden’s administration.
Can you help me remember?
whembly (b7cc46) — 3/20/2025 @ 12:19 pm>Of course you are because it’s someone you’re against being victimized.
I am against *anyone* being apprehended and sent to a prison camp without the government proving that (a) it has the right person and (b) the allegations it is lodging against the person are justified.
That’s one of the fundamental underpinning requirements for a free society.
If the administration has evidence to back up its claims that the people it is ejecting to foreign prison camps are rightly ejected — if it has evidence to back up the claims that these people are terrorists — it should *present that evidence* rather than simply asserting its truth and disappearing the people.
if it can’t present evidence to back up its claims, why should i believe what it is saying?
aphrael (4b5942) — 3/20/2025 @ 12:22 pm> I can’t recall the last time you made these kinds of arguments when it was Joe Biden’s administration.
I’m not aware that the Biden administration was rounding up people off the streets of the US and dispatching them to foreign prison camps. Can you present me with evidence that they did so?
Otherwise, you’re trying to make a false equivalency and use that false equivalency as an inept demonstration that i’m being partisan.
What the Trump administration is doing here is … unique in the history of modern America. I think you’d have to go back to FDR to find anything remotely equivalent.
aphrael (4b5942) — 3/20/2025 @ 12:23 pm@199 aphrael (4b5942) — 3/20/2025 @ 12:23 pm
I was mentioning abuses of power, of which there were plenty during the Biden administration.
These foreigners ARE getting their day in court, mind you.
whembly (b7cc46) — 3/20/2025 @ 12:37 pmThe Khalil case, I think the Trump DOJ is fine so far.
The Venezuelan seems problematic, but I think most critics are stuck on the whole alleged “Trump DOJ” ignored a verbal order to not deport these aliens. Here, it looks like the Trump DOJ is purpose “picking a fight” for some reason…which is why I mentioned in the past posts, there’s more here than meets the eye.
whembly (b7cc46) — 3/20/2025 @ 12:40 pm#200
Not currently — and given the acerbic briefs the DoJ is sending in, there is still a big chance that Trump’s team will out and out defy the courts.
Appalled (e7d5f2) — 3/20/2025 @ 12:41 pmaphrael (4b5942) — 3/20/2025 @ 12:23 pm
The Trump Administration is not rounding people “off the streets” and dispatching them to foreign prison camps. That’s too difficult for them. They want to get them from prisons, make the occasional raid in a home (getting them out of the home maybe with tear gas because they have no right to barge in without an arrest warrant) and mostly waiting for people to come into their offices for a scheduled appointment.
Who are mostly not gang members. Because the gang members learn. They just try to hide They’ve even stopped getting tattoos in the last year. (that is something that would weaken them, though) But there are plenty of older gang members who may have them.
Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 3/20/2025 @ 1:12 pmMaybe some members of al Qaeda were held in foreign prisons. But the United States does not now send any of them to terrible conditions. The Trump Administration had to stop its plans to use Guantanamo because conditions were not up to snuff.
Now I have a question: If the prison conditions (and deportation is not supposed to be punishment anyway) are not supposed to be an American responsibility (and that seems to be the current legal status with deportation to Haiti) then what if the deportees were summarily executed?
Would that be legal? If not, then shouldn’t whatever is preventing that also prevent people from being sent to a Salvadorian prison camp where the government of El Salvador is being paid by the USA to confine them?
Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 3/20/2025 @ 1:12 pmwhembly (b7cc46) — 3/20/2025 @ 12:40 pm
They may potentially have a case, but they were not prepared. But they assert the right not to need to make a case. Now I think Khalil is obviously part and parcel of a Hamas supporting group. But he’s claiming no connection with anything that broke the law. If he is released and it goes into along proceeding he’ll be watched very carefully. I don’t know if he’s the real leader They ought to have gotten *and maybe did) a FISA warrant on him..
Precedent: Fritz Kuhn:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Julius_Kuhn
Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 3/20/2025 @ 1:23 pmwhembly,
Looks like the Trump folks continue to play games with Boasberg. Here is a new order from a frustrated judge.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69741724/47/jgg-v-trump/
The meat of the ruling:
I’m sure the death threats will be flowing to the judge’s wife, siblings, children and second cousins. Because MAGA.
Appalled (e7d5f2) — 3/20/2025 @ 1:32 pm>These foreigners ARE getting their day in court, mind you.
*after* they’ve been removed from the country, because *their legal representatives brought legal process* … with absolutely no reason to believe the government of el salvador will comply with any orders the courts give.
they were entitled to have the government’s claims against them adjudicated before they were dispatched to an abusive prison in a foreign country.
aphrael (4b5942) — 3/20/2025 @ 2:02 pm> The Trump Administration had to stop its plans to use Guantanamo because conditions were not up to snuff.
Last weekend it put a bunch of people on a plane to El Salvador, where they were immediately placed in an El Salvadoran prison.
aphrael (4b5942) — 3/20/2025 @ 2:03 pm>The meat of the ruling:
Given the behavior of the government’s attorneys in this case so far, that meat is meaningless unless it is backed up by the threat of detention for contempt of court.
aphrael (4b5942) — 3/20/2025 @ 2:05 pmOne question is who is in charge of the prisoners the United States government sent to El Salvador and to whom it is paying it money to take. By one theory, they might still be in U.S. custody. Except that they conspire with El Salvador to ignore an order to return them.
I think the thing stopping people from being sent to their deaths might be a potential prosecution later for murder.
Sammy Finkelman (5aee2e) — 3/20/2025 @ 3:36 pm> Except that they conspire with El Salvador to ignore an order to return them.
I’m fairly certain at this point that if a district court judge ordered the administration to ask El Salvador to return these people, the administration would say that’s an unconstitutional interference in the conduct of foreign policy and refuse to do it.
aphrael (4b5942) — 3/20/2025 @ 3:42 pmThe judge has no jurisdiction and the individuals aren’t a party to the case.
It’s a big joke and the fraud has blatantly overstepped his authority.
NJRob (70545d) — 3/20/2025 @ 4:17 pmIt’s not 1943.
El Salvador is a signatory to the International Criminal Court, and all the Totenkopfen involved, down to the most junior DOJ attorney or BCIS clerk, might find that they can never travel outside the United States because of Interpol warrants against them for crimes against humanity.
nk (287a75) — 3/20/2025 @ 4:32 pm> It’s a big joke and the fraud has blatantly overstepped his authority.
It’s quite clear at this point that you believe that no judge has the authority to enforce the fourth and fifth amendment against an administration which does not respect them.
Take off the mask, man. You are fooling *nobody*.
aphrael (4b5942) — 3/20/2025 @ 4:33 pmIt’s because there isn’t an “invasion”. It’s delusion, seen through MAGA beer goggles.
Paul Montagu (f93fe0) — 3/20/2025 @ 4:45 pmThe southern border is a problem to be managed, and it’s been mismanaged for quite some time.
Since an article of impeachment has been filed against Judge Boasberg, I am looking forward to the impeachment hearing and trial.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 3/20/2025 @ 4:47 pmNah,
you’re just moving goalposts as usual. You don’t care what you need to do to destroy this President. You will do whatever it takes to do so.
NJRob (eb56c3) — 3/20/2025 @ 5:37 pmI’m pointing to a clear principle that is basic to American law (and has always been) which the administration is violating wantonly.
You can’t defend the violation and you aren’t even engaging with it, instead choosing to assert that the reason people are concerned with *the government shipping people off to prison camps in foreign countries without the slightest bit of judicial oversight* in blatant violation of the constitution is … that they hate the President.
I want fundamental things like _freedom from unreasonable seizure_ and _availability of legal process before you are shipped off to a foreign prison camp_ to be enforced and available for all people, because I think that these are fundamental basic requirements for political freedom to exist.
You don’t care as long as the administration claims to only be seizing (and shipping to foreign prisons) people you dislike.
> > > > “So, now, you give the Devil the benefit of law?”
> > > “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
> > “Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!”
> “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”
This *used* to be a bedrock principle of conservatism, a principle even a liberal like me could love.
Those days are gone.
aphrael (c9b8af) — 3/20/2025 @ 5:45 pmhttps://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/failed-candidate-solomon-pena-shooting-plot-new-mexico-guilty-rcna196796?link_source=ta_bluesky_link&taid=67db84b4f1cba7000108434d&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=bluesky
Why do you support terrorists, NJRob?
Davethulhu (339330) — 3/20/2025 @ 6:46 pmIllegal alien gang banger terrorists who exist to destroy society.
You’re providing aid and comfort to them.
NJRob (eb56c3) — 3/20/2025 @ 7:39 pmThe administration isn’t even really claiming that’s who they sent off too El Salvador.
They couldn’t send them to Venezuela because Venezuela would not accept them because they were alleged to be gang members,
Sammy Finkelman (8b778d) — 3/21/2025 @ 3:09 amhttps://hotair.com/john-s-2/2025/03/20/new-yorks-top-court-puts-an-end-to-non-citizen-voting-n3800992
Shocking. Even leftist NY acknowledged that their are rights reserved to citizens and not illegal aliens.
NJRob (eb56c3) — 3/21/2025 @ 4:21 am