Just wait, Trump will eventually try that.
1 Like
Are lawyers in federal court not required to take an oath to the constitution and the law? How can these lawyers for the DOJ, in good conscience, continue to take actions on behalf of clients who are refusing to follow the law despite what they must be telling them as officers of the court? What are the consequences for an attorney who (essentially) keeps telling a judge “my client refuses to accomodate your coats orders and refuses to recognize your authority in this case” ? Are they not just asking for sanctions of their client at that point, and how can they even represent that client if the client refuses to fulfill their legal obligations? I would think a lawyer would say “I’m out” - but the DOJ attorneys can’t do this without resigning? Do they not realize that not resigning is going to destroy their long-term credibility and perhaps their ability to practice law in any capacity at some point in the future?
6 Likes
Your post assumes facts not in evidence; the idea that these people have a conscience.
1 Like
Nah. He’ll order Lickspittle Johnson and the rest of his lackeys and enablers in Congress to impeach 'em all.
1 Like
Nah, they’ll just go out to lunch. Nothing’s gonna happen. I suspect a contempt citation will be a finger wagging lecture from the bench and nothing more. No jail time. And trump is beyond the law. Hells bells the guy was convicted of 34 felonies… zero consequence
7 Likes
Since DOJ lawyers are acting in bad faith and clearly lying in court, what’s preventing the individual lawyers doing Diaper Don’s bidding from being sanctioned and/or disbarred? That ought to send a chill through the 3d year law students at Liberty Clown college who can’t wait to start taking down our legal system.
6 Likes
Seems to me that I’ve seen quite a few mentions of DOJ staffers doing exactly that, over I’ve-lost-count-how-many cases, since the patient and his accomplices took over.
Which means that we’re rapidly approaching the point where the only ones left are the ones who either don’t realize, don’t care, or think they’re gonna win.
4 Likes
‘Thwacked’? WTF?
How about you hold them in contempt, Your Honor? They’re refusing to comply with your orders.
As for this…
Don’t hold your breath.
GOP’s already looking to geld the courts.
2 Likes
Outside observers can sometimes get to the heart of what’s going on with a simplicity and objectivity that American insiders can’t or don’t. This from the Economist points out how Trumpworld abuses language to get what they want, just another form of alternative facts.
Without paywall:
4 Likes
Don’t be an idiot. “No security” does not mean “$1 security” is out of bounds. It just plays for the idiots.
This is so fucking stupid and tiresome and you should shame yourself for falling for it.
You’ve been played.
1 Like
And how much security’s been attached to the existing restraining orders?
Meanwhile judges are asking plaintiff’s counsel to do their job for them.
Frankly, the tiresome thing here is you continually insisting that all of the damage being done is really not a problem because a judge will wave their magic wand and the untouchable President won’t just find another willing minion to execute the cruelty.
3 Likes
None. And yet they retain authority to issue AMENDED restraining orders.
This is some developmentally disabled garbage, and you should not treat it as “CHECKMATE, LIBTARDS!”
2 Likes
I’m not. I’m treating it as a clear indicator that the GOP plans to change the law—and will continue change the law as they think necessary—to keep the courts from being able to actually enforce actions against the administration.
I’m basing my read on what’s actually happening, not on delusions of action that hasn’t materialized at all (but we keep getting told ‘WE’RE SO MUCH CLOSER TO THIS!!’) after just shy of 1/8th of this Presidential term.
How many illegal acts does the administration need to perform after being specifically ordered not to, before a single judge actually pulls the trigger on contempt? How many people will have to suffer while these judges keep taking ever-shortening steps to the new halfway mark?
5 Likes
Oh, well, yeah, they they want to do seriously illegal nonsense. This is not an insight. It approaches legal nihilism though.
1 Like
Preparedness, and looking for ‘what do we do then?’ isn’t nihilism. As I’ve repeatedly pointed out to you, nihilism is the belief that nothing matters. Looking for actionable responses is the diametric opposite: it is actively seeking the most important, more effective response.
Pollyannaism ain’t it. You’ve kept insisting that the Courts will be able to stop this crap.
When the little girl—a US citizen—with metastatic cancer that Trump deported w/out the chance to see her doctors… when she dies, what excuse will you give then? What platitude about the Courts will you have for her family? What can you offer all of the illegally-deported people, including legally-protected amnesty seekers, who are already suffering in unhumane conditions?
How many lives need to be ruined before it’s too many?
8 Likes
Lots of so-called thwacking, but no contempt findings and a long, drawn-out process while the wrongdoing continues. Thwackings are not victories and, perhaps, not even a good thing, when they substitute for accountability in the courts.
7 Likes
What should have happened was instead of another deadline she should found whatever lawyer was there in contempt and had then detained until Cristian was returned to the USA.
And if the marshal(s) in the courtroom didn’t she should have found them in contempt and gotten local police to do the detaining and put bondi on notice she was next.
3 Likes