this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2025
804 points (99.5% liked)

politics

22011 readers
4316 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 67 points 1 day ago (2 children)

They feel that they can ignore it because they can ignore it. Stop letting them!

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Also didn't the Supreme Court just rule that you can't charge the president for crimes made in their official capacity? He can just say it was in his official capacity to ignore the orders so tough titties.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

That doesn't mean his actions would stand, it just means he can't be prosecuted for it.

If he fires someone and it's ruled illegal, they get their job back or some very large settlement.

Deported people would be able to return etc.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 day ago (3 children)

How do they do that? Their enforcers work for Trump.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They can deputize citizens to carry out the orders too

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Then if the deputies fail you start sheriffizing people.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Sheriffs are usually elected, not appointed. It’s one of the big reasons decriminalization is so difficult; No elected cop wants to look soft on crime, because their opponents can use it against them in smear campaigns during the next election.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 23 hours ago

Nah, you just start deputizing more effective people. Like ex special forces

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 day ago

Wahoo it's-a me Luigi

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

The US Marshalls don't, I thought.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day ago

US Marshals are under DoJ.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 21 hours ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 21 hours ago

You're right, thank you.