274
Court hearing goes 'exceptionally badly' for Trump DOJ as judge loses patience: reporter
(www.rawstory.com)
this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2025
274 points (98.2% liked)
politics
20468 readers
3086 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Anyone involved with the legal response or not releasing these funds can be arrested and held in contempt of court. This would obviously apply to Trump lackeys, and not himself. Do this a couple dozen times, and his entire cabinet has nobody to enforce their bullshit.
I'll believe it when one of them is in jail. More likely Trump would order US Marshalls not to arrest anyone working for the white house, and fire anyone that tried.
By who?
US Marshals...
...who are part of the executive branch under the President's authority... 👀
The local police who are deferential to the judicial. That's how and why they can arrest people. The executive does not decide this.
Am I living in a universe where people just aren't tought these things in school?
Welcome to the constitutional sherrifs movement where they are the law. The only law. Where they chose what is legal and right. They are above any federal law, system, etc.
Also, see: JD Vance saying trump can ignore the courts. And the numerous 'signs your gov is authoritarian/fascist' lists which include stacking/ignoring courts because, who is going to arrest the president? Especially when the supremacists/nationalists have been infiltrating police forces for well over a decade.
The way things ought are no longer applicable.
It sadly all comes down to who the police (and somewhere down the line the military) believe is right.
So the money in almost every case then.
What’s the answer to your riddle? I’m curious
It's not mine, it's a quote from the book "A Clash of Kings" and subsequently the Game of Thrones TV show.
Anyway the answer is just what I wrote. Power resides where men believe it resides. In the riddle, it's entirely up to the sellsword which kind of power they value most.
I don't know what universe you're living in, but it isn't the normal one because you're wrong.
The local police are part of the executive branch of the local government. Not judicial.
That fundamental lack of understanding goes a long way to explain why you keep delusionally insisting that judges can enforce the law.
They do.
Federal Court actions are enforced by the United States Marshals Service, which is part of the executive branch, which is under the President's Authority.
That's why we got the famous quote from President Andrew Jackson: "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it".
That sounds like a great way to go, but if the past four years have taught me anything it's that I shouldn't expect much of anything in the way of lasting consequences or impediments for Republicans from our courts.
I'll get excited when there are some arrests.
Have you noticed how stuck and stalled the Trump admin is right now? This is why. It's working. We're not even to the first court confrontation yet, which is due tomorrow. We need to see how far the judicitbranch is willing to go to issue punitive measures and enforce these things before we start crying that nothing is working.
This is the process in the US. It's worked pretty well against other bad actors, and we need to give it some time to play out as defined in due process before more drastic measures.
No, I have not.
Edited to add - https://www.project2025.observer/
Sorry to be skeptical bud but we got 4 years to prosecute Trump on his many many crimes when he was not protected by his King of America title and literally NOTHING happened to him...
You can sit and wait until the very last shred of the judicial systems shows you it has failed... by then 2 things would be true: 1) apparently you'll be convinced and 2) you won't have a country anymore
That's not the fault of the Judicial branch, they don't prosecute crimes.
Oh come on.. they delayed every step of the way until Trump won again and now claim they cannot impose any sentence
also, it absolutely is the judicial branch's responsibility to prosecute crimes... that is why gov attorneys are referred to as "prosecutors"
How the right will interpret this;
I'm ok with that, they are full of shit anyways, so no matter what they say it will still be shit
Arrested by whom? Isn't it the executive branch that controls the enforcement of laws and judicial decisions?
Serious question. What power does the judiciary have to enforce their rulings.
Judges can deputize if necessary
Thank you for the response.
No. Absolutely not.
You also don't have a fundamental understanding of how the constitution works.
Do you know what the three branches of government are and what they are responsible for? This is grade school stuff.
I am honestly asking how the ruling is supposed to be enforced and you insult me instead of answering the question? That was unnecessarily rude.
I am always happy to be educated if you would care to actually answer the question. How does the judiciary enforce their decisions, especially against another branch of the government that chooses to ignore the ruling?
I responded, and asked a question of you. I didn't degrade or insult you. You obviously just don't have an understanding of how the three branches of government are intended to work. We don't have an executive branch that decides everything as you asked, so you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the constitution works.
There is clearly a breakdown of communication here. I never claimed that the executive branch decided things. I said that the executive branch enforces laws (those laws being made by the legislative branch) and enforces the decisions passed by the judicial branch in their capacity to interpret the laws. Perhaps I could have been more clear in my wording.
The perceived insulting behavior was your decision to draw attention to out my lack of knowledge on the topic. Especially when comparing time and effort of that part of your response to the three words you used to respond to my questions.
I appreciate that you do not believe that your response was insulting, and maybe most people would agree that it was not, but at the minimum it was disparaging and could discourage others from asking questions.
You edited your comment to reflect what you're saying, and thanks for that.
Your misunderstanding is that there are THREE branches of government, and the separation of powers is starkly and explicitly stated. The executive has nothing to do with law enforcement as you continue to state it does. It does not.
My grade schoole knowledge of how that works is not "calling you out" for being uninformed and responding to comments. What in the hell universe are we living in?
You made an uninformed comment.
You got corrected.
You come back for seconds and got corrected.
Now you're complaining I made you feel bad about it?
Wrong place and time for that.
Is there any particular reason you’re being so inflammatory? OP comes off as asking genuine questions in the interest of developing a better understanding and sharing it with readers. To back what they’re saying, ‘at the minimum it’s disparaging and could discourage others from asking questions.’
Please, pray tell, which branch of the government do you think police officers belong to?
You obviously found the answer by a simple search and don't want to say it. Your laziness is abhorrent.
I don't think you fucking know. Prove me wrong.
By the way, in case you didn't notice, I'm not the same user from upthread. So you can fuck all the way off with bullshit personal attacks when we've literally never interacted before.
Your the same user following me around to every thread. Lol. You're sad.
LOL, you've got an inflated sense of self-importance if you think that.
That said, Lemmy is small and I comment a lot, so maybe we have interacted before. If that's the case, I'm sorry I misspoke. I searched my inbox going back two weeks and haven't found any messages from you to me, but I don't know of a good way to search for comments from me to you without going through my history and clicking on the "show context" link for every single one.
But regardless of that, this was our first interaction in this thread, so don't try to pretend your attack wasn't out of line.
I edited none of my comments in this conversation. Maybe you misread the original?
I appreciate you pointing out what you think that I am getting wrong, but you have yet to provide any information or resources that would refute my current understanding. As a result, I regret to say that I have not considered any of your replies to be a correction.
You say that my "misunderstanding is that there are THREE branches of government, and the separation of powers is starkly and explicitly stated". Are there not 3 branches? If not how many are there? Are their roles and powers not defined?
Again, I am not trying to argumentative. These are honest questions. If I have incorrect information then I would like to correct it.
I would also like to apologize if you feel like I am complaining. The part of my responses address your behavior has been an attempt to correct what I see as hostile behavior that is an impediment to an open discourse. I am attempting to address this behavior by patiently explaining why I think it is wrong, how it can improved on, and by providing an example of civil discourse to the best of my ability. I understand this may have been misinterpreted and could be taken in a manner that you find upsetting. Please know that this is not nor has it ever been my intent to upset anybody and I hope that we can move forward in a more amicable and productive manner.
My guy, you are right that this is taught in grade school civics class. But that isn't the zing you think it is.
The legislative makes the law The judicial interprets the law The executive enforces the law
Judges can't enforce anything. They need people from the executive side to do the enforcing.
You keep repeating the same misinformation throughout this post and are getting the down votes for it.
Exactly why I qualified my statement with "enforce the law".
Never said they make the law.
Its pathetic that people are even commenting on very basic things regarding the constitution here.
The executive is not there to enforce anything except what Congress has already passed. You can't make shit up and decide that up is down and yellow is green at your leisure.
One more time
The judicial interprets, not "enforces".
The executive doing their job wrong doesn't change this.
lol