Boasberg escalates contempt inquiry over Alien Enemies Act deportations

[WEATHER53]

It doesn't? In my view it sounds a hell of a lot more "right' than the notion that one branch of the government has the power to simply ignore an entire other branch.

It's of course also all bullshit. See, nobody is disputing the right for the executive branch to enact laws. Simply the right to enact those laws prior the judicial weighing in if those laws are properly enacted when disputes arise.

It's interesting how so many people on a political forum all of a sudden develop amnesia as to how the separation of powers work.

You don’t believe in the benefits of winning an election . Communist

 

[forkup]

So ONE unelected individual has more power than the duly-elected President of the U.S.?

And even if we are going with your logic, you’re giving more power to one branch - the one that wants to fight too keep illegal lowlifes in this country, causing harm to honest Americans.

No, one branch of the government is co-equal to the other one.

And it's not "my" logic, it's basic civics.

The executive branch has every right to avail themselves to the full remedies that the Constitution provides for getting rulings overturned. In this case they have once already. When Boasberg rules they will do so again all the way to the Supreme Court if they don't like that ruling.

They however don't have the right to ignore a ruling if they don't agree.

As for the rest. I'm explaining basic civics to you. If you want to appeal to emotion find a shrink.

 

[forkup]

You don’t believe in the benefits of winning an election . Communist

Not at all. I just reject the notion that winning an election offers a free pass to ignore laws you don't like.

In fact, that argument is much more what you'd see in "Communist" nations than mine.

 

[WEATHER53]

No one branch of the government is co-equal to the other one.

And it's not "my" logic, it's basic civics.

The executive branch has every right to avail themselves to the full remedies that the Constitution provides for getting rulings overturned. In this case they have once already. When Boasberg rules they will do so again all the way to the Supreme Court if they don't like that ruling.

They however don't have the right to ignore a ruling if they don't agree.

As for the rest. I'm explaining basic civics to you. If you want to appeal to emotion find a shrink.

The illicit and illegal decrees can be ignored
You lib loons feel soldiers can individually ignore orders thus most certainly an 80 million voted POTUS can ignore one unelected man’s decrees

 

[WEATHER53]

Not at all. I just reject the notion that winning an election offers a free pass to ignore laws you don't like.

In fact, that argument is much more what you'd see in "Communist" nations than mine.

They are not on the book laws. They are one judges wishes and opinion without even a trial occurring.
Comminusm

 

[Lisa558]

No one branch of the government is co-equal to the other one.

And it's not "my" logic, it's basic civics.

The executive branch has every right to avail themselves to the full remedies that the Constitution provides for getting rulings overturned. In this case they have once already. When Boasberg rules they will do so again all the way to the Supreme Court if they don't like that ruling.

They however don't have the right to ignore a ruling if they don't agree.

As for the rest. I'm explaining basic civics to you. If you want to appeal to emotion find a shrink.

Yes, and until the Supreme Court rules that Trump is violating the Constitution, no judge can override him.

And “co-equal branches” doesn’t mean that some leftist judge can overrule the president. You think he can, which means you are giving MORE power to the leftist anti-American judge that the patriotic president elected by the people.

 

[forkup]

Yes, and until the Supreme Court rules that Trump is violating the Constitution, no judge can override him.

And “co-equal branches” doesn’t mean that some leftist judge can overrule the president. You think he can, which means you are giving MORE power to the leftist anti-American judge that the patriotic president elected by the people.

Again no. The Supreme Court is not the only part of the judicial branch that can stop the executive branch from doing stuff. In fact, the Supreme Court doesn't rule in most cases.

And "leftist anti-American judge" is not an argument it's a scree. It does nothing for you.

 

[forkup]

They are not on the book laws. They are one judges wishes and opinion without even a trial occurring.
Comminusm

18 U.S. Code § 402 - Contempts constituting crimes

www.law.cornell.edu

This is what it says in the book you say doesn't exist. And what Boasberg is doing now is determining if this qualifies.

 

[forkup]

The illicit and illegal decrees can be ignored
You lib loons feel soldiers can individually ignore orders thus most certainly an 80 million voted POTUS can ignore one unelected man’s decrees

He isn't unelected. In fact he's an article 3 judge. This means he was elected by a president and confirmed by the Senate.

But you know... why let facts get in the way.

 

[Lisa558]

He isn't unelected. In fact he's an article 3 judge. This means he was elected by a president and confirmed by the Senate.

But you know... why let facts get in the way.

He wasn’t “elected” by a president. He was nominated.

That doesn’t give him override power of all future U.S. Presidents, who are indeed ELECTED by the people.

 

[forkup]

He wasn’t “elected” by a president. He was nominated.

That doesn’t give him override power of all future U.S. Presidents, who are indeed ELECTED by the people.

Pretty sure it does. You seem to be mixing up the President of the United States with the General Secretary of the Communist Party of China, one can ignore courts, the other can’t.

Being nominated means a President elected this person to serve on the bench. But if you want to make distinctions without a difference go right ahead.

In any case. I suggest you take a basic civics lesson and come back to me after you do.

 

[Lisa558]

Pretty sure it does. You seem to be mixing up the President of the United States with the General Secretary of the Communist Party of China, one can ignore courts, the other can’t.

Being nominated means a President elected this person to serve on the bench. But if you want to make distinctions without a difference go right ahead.

In any case. I suggest you take a basic civics lesson and come back to me after you do.

Presidents don’t “elect” anyone. They nominate people, for Senate approval.

No offense, libbie, but someone who can’t distinguish between an election conducted by the voters and a nomination by a single individual should NOT be giving civic lessons. (They should be taking them.)

Neither should someone who thinks a judge holds more power than a U.S. President. So much for “co-equal” - you’re giving MORE power to a single individual than the duly elected representative of all Americans.

And for what? To side with illegals over Americans? You people are really sick in the head.

 

[WEATHER53]

He wasn’t “elected” by a president. He was nominated.

That doesn’t give him override power of all future U.S. Presidents, who are indeed ELECTED by the people.

Elected or nominated it’s all the same to feelings and wishes lib loons

 

[Lisa558]

Elected or nominated it’s all the same to feelings and wishes lib loons

Yeah, that lib I’ve been arguing with is another hopeless case. How did Americans get so stupid?

Oh, right…now I remember.…..the libs at the Dept of Education took over.

 

[Clipper]

"Boasberg escalates contempt inquiry over Alien Enemies Act deportations



The judge ordered testimony from two of the top DOJ lawyers involved in the March deportation operation.


A federal judge is escalating his inquiry into whether Trump administration officials deliberately flouted his March 15 order to prevent immigration officials from delivering more than 100 Venezuelan men to a notorious prison in El Salvador.

James Boasberg, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court in Washington, said Monday that it’s “premature” to recommend criminal prosecution of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who revealed last month that she gave the order to turn over the men to Salvadoran authorities on the advice of administration lawyers.

Boasberg is now demanding that two of the top Justice Department lawyers involved in the March deportation operation — including one who has since been fired for resisting some of the administration’s moves — appear for questioning next week."

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/08/judge-boasberg-alien-enemies-act-deportations-el-salvador-00681503

Boasberg appears to be heading the Democrats' shadow gov't. Now, he's his own executive branch investigating the democratically elected executive branch. Who elected Boasberg?

Holding the Trump criminal regime accountable is long overdue. Obey the law & orders handed down from the bench or go to jail for contempt. Ask Bannon & Navarro about the view looking out from a cell & how they liked it.

Enough is enough with that crowd.

 

[Edgetho]

No, one branch of the government is co-equal to the other one.

And it's not "my" logic, it's basic civics.

The executive branch has every right to avail themselves to the full remedies that the Constitution provides for getting rulings overturned. In this case they have once already. When Boasberg rules they will do so again all the way to the Supreme Court if they don't like that ruling.

They however don't have the right to ignore a ruling if they don't agree.

As for the rest. I'm explaining basic civics to you. If you want to appeal to emotion find a shrink.

That is false. There are no 'Co-Equal' Branches of government. The Constituion says no such thing. It is a myth and a lie.

Have somebody read this to you. It has lots of big words --

How the Myth of the Coequal Branches Became the Norm

The Constitution is not a system of coequal branches. Congress is the dominant branch of our government. How, then, did this idea become so embedded in our national consciousness?

www.aei.org

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Federal district judges ignore the separation of power.
The Executive branch should IGNORE FEDERAL DISTRICT JUDGES.

Everyone should ignore the Executive branch.

 

[22lcidw]

What do you imagine happened? Boasberg got out of bed and he just decided to take the case?

This is his lane. When Trump invoked the Enemy Aliens Act the case went to the federal level. If Trump wanted to deport people using the usual administrative route he could have just used the usual administrative procedure, and thereby getting rulings from immigration judges.

Pro-tip if you don't want the federal courts involved don't invoke war time powers.

He is a deep state shill. Trained for this using his frustration and anger in life. The power in our nation has guided us into this position. Eliminate the checks and benefits and we will see what we have wrought. In the deep state caused great depression people were hearty. With all of their flaws. Not so much this time around.

 

[Nostra]

The hack’s rulings on this case have been vacated by an appeals court.

He was told he isn’t President.

Ignore the Cuck.

 

[forkup]

That is false. There are no 'Co-Equal' Branches of government. The Constituion says no such thing. It is a myth and a lie.

Have somebody read this to you. It has lots of big words --

How the Myth of the Coequal Branches Became the Norm

The Constitution is not a system of coequal branches. Congress is the dominant branch of our government. How, then, did this idea become so embedded in our national consciousness?

www.aei.org

I fail to see what an Op-ed stating that the legislative branch is the most powerful. Has to do with a discussion wether or not the executive branch can ignore rulings by the judicial branch.

It's basically all those tier lists you find on YouTube. And just as useful. The fact of the matter is that the separate branches simply serve different functions.

The problem you seem to be having is that you somehow seem to believe that people using "big words" by definition have something relevant to say. While I believe that using "big words" don't mean that what you say is necessarily true or like in this case relevant.

But I appreciate the condescending tone..to bad it's not actually backed up by a decent argument.