Boasberg escalates contempt inquiry over Alien Enemies Act deportations

[Lisa558]

I never let the democrats play the race card, the Jew card, or the muzzie card. Actions can be criticized for what they are.

Boasberg is a horrible human being as well as a horrible judge, I don't care what his religious beliefs are.

The Selective Outrage of Judge James Boasberg

Below is my column in The Hill on two controversies involving Chief Judge James Boasberg this week in Washington, D.C. Both involve claims that branches undermined or intruded on the authority of a…

jonathanturley.org

Who is Omar?

When you are right what do you care what morons call you?

Isn’t Omar the Muslim congresswoman who hates America and married her brother?

 

[forkup]

#1 Trump can't pardon a civil contempt ruling.

#2 Trump can't pardon state bar actions.

So there is that.

WW

It isn't a civil contempt charge Boasberg seems to be contemplating. But rather criminal contempt. At least that's my understanding.

 

[forkup]

The people doing Biden’s bidding didn’t lose theirs. Instead, the Autopen People issued blanket pardons to people who hadn’t even yet been charged with a crime.

The people doing Biden's bidding didn't say **** you judge. So there's that. Put go on try some more talking points.

 

[forkup]

Don't need an argument. The Congressional is easily the most powerful, they can Impeach an remove any member of the Federal Government, including the POTUS and any member of SCOTUS. They can declare war, levy taxes and make law. They can even start the process of changing the Constitution, in which the Executive and Judicial Branch has almost no part.

The Executive carries out the wishes of Congress through its Police Power and, if necessary, its Military power. The Executive controls the Police and the Military.

The Judicial Branch is supposed to mediate disagreements between Congress and the Executive, among other routine, mundane duties. But that doesn't aeem to be good enough for them. They are, and have been since 1804, trying to usurp power not awarded them in the Constitution.

They are not 'co-equal' (a juvenile term, at best), they serve an equally important function in government, but that is far from being 'co-equal'. Not even close.

And they have gotten out of control. Just like the executive branch did for jusr over 100 years. Abraham Lincoln was the first of the "Imperial" Presidents but FDR was the worst. Then, Nixon came along and got slapped down for doing what every president before him did. He just happened to be sitting in the Catbird Seat when Congress got tired of the Executive Branch's bullshit.

Now, it is past time, WAY past time, We The People slapped the Judicial Branch back into reality. They are over-reaching and that is what this thread is about.

Congress answers to its local constituents, POTUS answers to ALL The People and the Judicial answers to -- No one.

That needs to change or they need to start acting like adults and stop inserting their personal biases into their rulings.

I suspect it won't be easy. But it has to happen or our Republic (yes, we are a Republic, the Constitution says so) is doomed

I love how to you the only important role for the judiciary is mediation between the executive and the legislative branch. While things like preventing the government abusing it's citizens is described as “mundane,” when that’s literally one of the core reasons the Constitution exists. It’s the entire point of having checks and balances in the first place. The judicial branch it's not some passive referee. It's quite often the only thing standing in the way of the executive becoming "imperial", or the legislative branch making laws that are unconstitutional.

And your argument contradicts itself. You complain about “imperial” presidents, but then attack a branch that's capable of stopping a president from becoming imperial in the first place. You can’t call the executive overreaching and then get mad when the judiciary reins them in.

In the end that's what all the arguments here boil down to, not just from you but from every right-wing person on here . You want an "imperial" president. As long as the emperor shares your ideology.

 

[scruffy]

There's a process. A process that you, me and the government has the follow

Go tell Al Sharpton.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It isn't a civil contempt charge Boasberg seems to be contemplating. But rather criminal contempt. At least that's my understanding.

Correct. But game it out.

* * IF * *
Trump, at some point, issues a preemptive pardon for criminal contempt, that would look very bad and would weaken the position of the individuals involved - namely Bondi, Bove, and Blanche. However prior to said pardon, Chief Judge Boasberg is gathering evidence, witness statements, sword testimony from the principle actors, etc - which are public records meaning they would be available to Congress for impeachment proceedings. So Chief Judge Boasberg gets to have an criminal contempt trial, where it all comes out, or Congress may impeachment proceedings where the criminal activity all comes out.

In addition, all the evidence and sworn testimony can be referred to the Bar Association to the state where the individual holds their law license. Now true, some states would decide to take the matter up, some will wimp out and not take up the case.

* * IF * *
On the other hand Trump does not issue a preemptive pardon, Chief Judeg Boasberg still gets to gather the evidence. Then under Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure gets to refer the charges to the DOJ to prosecute. Being a clear conflict of interestg for the DOJ to prosecute itself, Chief Judge Boasberg appoints a special prosecutor and the criminal contempt charges proceed to a jury trial.

WW

 

[scruffy]

* * IF * *
On the other hand Trump does not issue a preemptive pardon, Chief Judeg Boasberg still gets to gather the evidence. Then under Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure gets to refer the charges to the DOJ to prosecute. Being a clear conflict of interestg for the DOJ to prosecute itself, Chief Judge Boasberg appoints a special prosecutor and the criminal contempt charges proceed to a jury trial.

And by that time we'll all be dead and warp drive will be a reality.

 

[forkup]

Correct. But game it out.

* * IF * *
Trump, at some point, issues a preemptive pardon for criminal contempt, that would look very bad and would weaken the position of the individuals involved - namely Bondi, Bove, and Blanche. However prior to said pardon, Chief Judge Boasberg is gathering evidence, witness statements, sword testimony from the principle actors, etc - which are public records meaning they would be available to Congress for impeachment proceedings. So Chief Judge Boasberg gets to have an criminal contempt trial, where it all comes out, or Congress may impeachment proceedings where the criminal activity all comes out.

In addition, all the evidence and sworn testimony can be referred to the Bar Association to the state where the individual holds their law license. Now true, some states would decide to take the matter up, some will wimp out and not take up the case.

* * IF * *
On the other hand Trump does not issue a preemptive pardon, Chief Judeg Boasberg still gets to gather the evidence. Then under Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure gets to refer the charges to the DOJ to prosecute. Being a clear conflict of interestg for the DOJ to prosecute itself, Chief Judge Boasberg appoints a special prosecutor and the criminal contempt charges proceed to a jury trial.

WW

It seems to me that you go by a fundamentally flawed assumption. Namely that Trump or for that matter the DOJ cares how a pardon may look. In fact I don't think they care if people get held in criminal contempt. In normal circumstances yes, but these aren't normal circumstances.

If I game this out the only thing that will happen is much the same thing as we see play out here. Namely that it will simply be claimed Boasberg acted out of partisanship so a pardon is simply justified.

I have some hope that this will actually end up in front of the bar. But an actual trial. Not very likely.

I wish it was different, but that's how I see it.

 

[SweetTea]

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.

I don’t pretend to know the intricacies of the law or how or the Constitution applies in this situation, but it seems to me that it would make much more sense for the Supreme Court to be the sole ruling authority when It comes to acts that are deemed as possibly illegal by the President. Lower courts shouldn’t have a say when it comes to the President, other than presenting a case to the Supreme Court hear. A singular federal judge out of 1500+ from around the country having the authority to impede the President of the US, even if temporarily, is very poor design. Political activist judges can have a field day preventing Presidents with which they don’t agree from getting anything done. It doesn’t make any sense.

 

[forkup]

I don’t pretend to know the intricacies of the law or how or the Constitution applies in this situation, but it seems to me that it would make much more sense for the Supreme Court to be the sole ruling authority when It comes to acts that are deemed as possibly illegal by the President. Lower courts shouldn’t have a say when it comes to the President, other than presenting a case to the Supreme Court hear. A singular federal judge out of 1500+ from around the country having the authority to impede the President of the US, even if temporarily, is very poor design. Political activist judges can have a field day preventing Presidents with which they don’t agree from getting anything done. It doesn’t make any sense.

I appreciate the lack of knowledge. Let me explain the problem here and see if it makes sense to you.

Here’s what happened:
The president invoked the Enemy Aliens Act and tried to deport people without due process. Some of those people challenged it in federal court and got a temporary injunction, basically a pause button, not a ruling on the merits just yet. This so the courts could decide whether what the government was doing was legal. The administration ignored that pause.

Now, the reason lower federal courts must be able to issue rulings in cases like this has nothing to do with the president personally. It’s a general principle that applies to the entire government, Congress, federal agencies, presidents, local officials, everyone. Lower courts exist specifically to prevent irreparable harm while a case moves through the system.

If the Supreme Court were the only body allowed to step in, then anyone harmed by the government would simply be out of luck until SCOTUS got around to hearing the case, which can take months or years. Providing they even want to take up the case. By then, the damage is done. That’s why district courts can issue temporary injunctions: to prevent the government from inflicting harm faster than the legal process can resolve the dispute.

So it isn’t about one judge “impeding” a president. It’s the same mechanism that prevents any part of the government, at any level, from violating constitutional rights while a case is being decided. It’s a core part of the checks and balances that the Constitution was designed around.

 

[Lisa558]

The people doing Biden's bidding didn't say **** you judge. So there's that. Put go on try some more talking points.

No, they said **** you to all Americans and rushed in millions more illegal lowlifes before they knew the SCOTUS would stop it.

Biden KNEW it was unconstitutional and did it anyway - until he was stopped. Trump knows what he is doing IS constitutional - and will continue until the SCOTUS officially says so.

Why you leftists side with illegals over Americans is mind-boggling.

 

[Lisa558]

I appreciate the lack of knowledge. Let me explain the problem here and see if it makes sense to you.

Here’s what happened:
The president invoked the Enemy Aliens Act and tried to deport people without due process. Some of those people challenged it in federal court and got a temporary injunction, basically a pause button, not a ruling on the merits just yet. This so the courts could decide whether what the government was doing was legal. The administration ignored that pause.

Now, the reason lower federal courts must be able to issue rulings in cases like this has nothing to do with the president personally. It’s a general principle that applies to the entire government, Congress, federal agencies, presidents, local officials, everyone. Lower courts exist specifically to prevent irreparable harm while a case moves through the system.

If the Supreme Court were the only body allowed to step in, then anyone harmed by the government would simply be out of luck until SCOTUS got around to hearing the case, which can take months or years. Providing they even want to take up the case. By then, the damage is done. That’s why district courts can issue temporary injunctions: to prevent the government from inflicting harm faster than the legal process can resolve the dispute.

So it isn’t about one judge “impeding” a president. It’s the same mechanism that prevents any part of the government, at any level, from violating constitutional rights while a case is being decided. It’s a core part of the checks and balances that the Constitution was designed around.

So a judge can claim ANYTHING he doesn’t like is unconstitutional in order to throw a wrench into the works?

A leftist judge can claim its unconstitutional for Vance to run for president since his 2nd cousin once removed was born in Israel….and so he has to pause his campaign while awaiting a SCOTUS decision to say “ridiculous!” and thus give a major advantage to the Democrat?

 

[SeaMajor7]

Why doesn't the Trump administration just sue this pretend tyrant? Get this Marxist bullshit to the SCOTUS, and cram the Constitution UP HIS ASS.

 

[forkup]

So a judge can claim ANYTHING he doesn’t like is unconstitutional in order to throw a wrench into the works?

A leftist judge can claim its unconstitutional for Vance to run for president since his 2nd cousin once removed was born in Israel….and so he has to pause his campaign while awaiting a SCOTUS decision to say “ridiculous!” and thus give a major advantage to the Democrat?

Your hypothetical doesn’t work, and it actually proves that you keep on missing the point. Very much on purpose I suspect.

Yes, in theory a judge could issue a ruling that says Vance can’t run for president.
And here’s what would happen immediately after: that ruling would be stayed, very, very quickly, because in that situation Vance is the one who would suffer irreparable harm by being kept off the ballot.

That’s the key point you keep missing:
Courts don’t grant or deny injunctions based on whether a judge “likes” something. They decide based on who would be harmed, and whether that harm can be fixed later.

If the harm can be fixed later, the government almost always gets to proceed.
If the harm can’t be fixed later, the affected party gets temporary protection.

So no, a judge can’t “just make up anything” to sabotage a president or a campaign. The appellate process and the irreparable-harm standard prevent exactly the scenario you’re imagining.

 

[forkup]

No, they said **** you to all Americans and rushed in millions more illegal lowlifes before they knew the SCOTUS would stop it.

Biden KNEW it was unconstitutional and did it anyway - until he was stopped. Trump knows what he is doing IS constitutional - and will continue until the SCOTUS officially says so.

Why you leftists side with illegals over Americans is mind-boggling.

You’ve managed to build an entire worldview out of vibes, volume, and the word ‘illegals.’

It’s actually impressive.

Nothing you’ve said is legal reasoning, it’s just emotional soundtrack.
And that’s fine, everyone needs a hobby. Mine are, reading, good whiskey and soccer.

But maybe don’t confuse shouting for understanding. The Constitution doesn’t bend because you’re in all-caps.”.

 

[SweetTea]

I appreciate the lack of knowledge. Let me explain the problem here and see if it makes sense to you.

Here’s what happened:
The president invoked the Enemy Aliens Act and tried to deport people without due process. Some of those people challenged it in federal court and got a temporary injunction, basically a pause button, not a ruling on the merits just yet. This so the courts could decide whether what the government was doing was legal. The administration ignored that pause.

Now, the reason lower federal courts must be able to issue rulings in cases like this has nothing to do with the president personally. It’s a general principle that applies to the entire government, Congress, federal agencies, presidents, local officials, everyone. Lower courts exist specifically to prevent irreparable harm while a case moves through the system.

If the Supreme Court were the only body allowed to step in, then anyone harmed by the government would simply be out of luck until SCOTUS got around to hearing the case, which can take months or years. Providing they even want to take up the case. By then, the damage is done. That’s why district courts can issue temporary injunctions: to prevent the government from inflicting harm faster than the legal process can resolve the dispute.

So it isn’t about one judge “impeding” a president. It’s the same mechanism that prevents any part of the government, at any level, from violating constitutional rights while a case is being decided. It’s a core part of the checks and balances that the Constitution was designed around.

Where is the check on the federal judges? Injunctions prevent action. What prevents a federal judge from issuing an injunction that is based on a politically skewed interpretation of the law? Even if overturned later, the damage may have been done. What repercussions does the judge face? My guess is nothing. Rulings are overturned all the time.

 

[forkup]

Where is the check on the federal judges? Injunctions prevent action. What prevents a federal judge from issuing an injunction that is based on a politically skewed interpretation of the law? Even if overturned later, the damage may have been done. What repercussions does the judge face? My guess is nothing. Rulings are overturned all the time.

The check on a federal judge is the appeals process, including, if needed, the Supreme Court. That’s the mechanism the system relies on to correct a ruling that’s wrong or too politically skewed.

And the standard for injunctions is actually pretty simple:

If any harm to a party can be fixed later, the government usually gets to keep going.

If the harm can’t be fixed later, the party asking for protection usually gets it. Works both ways by the way. So the government is protected from harm too.


That’s the general rule, not a partisan trick.

As for repercussions: beyond being overturned, there usually aren’t any unless you can prove outright corruption, which is a very high bar. That’s intentional. The founders chose lifetime appointments precisely so judges wouldn’t fear losing their job every time they angered a president or a political party or for that matter fear making decisions that are unpopular but legally correct. The trade-off is fewer ways to punish them when they make a bad call, but the upside is more independence from political pressure.

If any part of that didn’t make sense, tell me, happy to go into more detail rather than talk past each other.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Where is the check on the federal judges?

Impeachment by Congress.

Three primary checks:

• Congress checks on the Executive Branch through the passage of laws and the budget.
• Congress checks the Judicial Branch through the power of impeachment.
• The Judicial branch checks illegal actions of the Executive Branch by applying the law based on the laws Congress passes and stare decisis of higher court rulings.
• Lower courts are "checked" via the review and appeal process by higher courts.
• The Executive Branch, to some extent, checks the Judicial Branch via it's nominations for Senate confirmation as Article III judges.

So Congress (the most powerful branch) checks the Executive and Judicial Branches (when they do their jobs).

WW

(Note: OK, that was 5 not three - shoot me.)

 

[Lisa558]

Impeachment by Congress.

Three primary checks:

• Congress checks on the Executive Branch through the passage of laws and the budget.
• Congress checks the Judicial Branch through the power of impeachment.
• The Judicial branch checks illegal actions of the Executive Branch by applying the law based on the laws Congress passes and stare decisis of higher court rulings.
• Lower courts are "checked" via the review and appeal process by higher courts.
• The Executive Branch, to some extent, checks the Judicial Branch via it's nominations for Senate confirmation as Article III judges.

So Congress (the most powerful branch) checks the Executive and Judicial Branches (when they do their jobs).

WW

(Note: OK, that was 5 not three - shoot me.)

So until the Congress “checks” the rulings of a rogue, leftist judge trying to undermine the president’s wishes (and the people who elected him), the default position is to allow the judge to cancel orders of the U.S. president?

More weight is being given to an unelected radical judge who is putting the interests of illegals ahead of the president who is putting the interests of Americans first.

Something isn’t adding up.

 

[WorldWatcher]

So until the Congress “checks” the rulings of a rogue, leftist judge trying to undermine the president’s wishes (and the people who elected him), the default position is to allow the judge to cancel orders of the U.S. president?

More weight is being given to an unelected radical judge who is putting the interests of illegals ahead of the president who is putting the interests of Americans first.

Something isn’t adding up.

Correct, something didn't add up because you skipped:

• The Judicial branch checks illegal actions of the Executive Branch by applying the law based on the laws Congress passes and stare decisis of higher court rulings.

The appeals process checks a "rogue, leftist judge" because no individual judge will make the final call. An emergency appeal can be filed when needed so that the judges order can be reviewed and "checked" if needed.

WW