Boasberg escalates contempt inquiry over Alien Enemies Act deportations

[WorldWatcher]

I thought the SCOTUS had already ruled that these judges were to mind their own districts?

You may be confusing this was Trump v. CASA, Inc. - that curtailed national injunctions.

This is about possible criminal contempt for not complying with a courts order.

Two different things.

Someone needs to grow a pair and announce that further interference from lower courts will not be allowed and all further violators will be prosecuted and removed from their positions. Congress has the power to remove these judges, where is Johnson at???

Go for it.

But watch what you ask for you just might get it (also called the law of unintended consequences). Do you really want the DEM head of the Executive Branch to be able to operate outside the law and not have to comply with the courts?

I don't.

WW

 

[WEATHER53]

Here they go again. This is not the purview of the Judiciary. They are becoming Activists and that flies in the face of their purpose in our government

Federal judge orders Kilmar Abrego Garcia released from ICE custody

U.S. District Court Judge Paula Xinis has ordered the U.S. to release Kilmar Abrego Garcia from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody.

www.foxnews.com

When one demented judge that looks like a cadaver wannabe “escalates” what he is really doing is Instigate

 

[WEATHER53]

I thought the SCOTUS had already ruled that these judges were to mind their own districts?


Someone needs to grow a pair and announce that further interference from lower courts will not be allowed and all further violators will be prosecuted and removed from their positions. Congress has the power to remove these judges, where is Johnson at???

They did and all Birdburg and his ilk are interested in is the front page smear. They already know they have no authority nor enforcement

 

[g5000]

MAGA: We're just going to deport the violent illegals. Murderers and rapists and such.

AMERICA: Okay, we're totally cool with that.


MAGA: Just kidding. We're going to deport all the illegals, even the ones who pick the crops which put food on your table.

AMERICA: Hmmmm...


MAGA: We are not stopping there. Sorry. We're also going to grab legal immigrant college kids off the street who use their free speech to speak out against the genocide in Gaza.

AMERICA: Not cool, man.


MAGA: Oh, yeah? Well, we're removing those who are here under protected status, too!

AMERICA: What the hell is going on here?


MAGA: We're also going to violate the Constitution and revoke birthright citizenship.

AMERICA: Looks like its time for a nationwide record-setting No Kings protest.


MAGA: Vee vill also henzzzfort ban zee immigraztion of peoplez fr-r-r-rom zhitzhole countreez!

AMERICA: We disapprove in record numbers.



MAGA: Unt now, vee are remoofing citizenzhip of peoplez who pizz us off vit der vords!

 

[forkup]

The idea that a single district judge can, in effect, override the elected President nationwide, even if only temporarily, is ludicrous to me. That’s an enormous amount of power for one unelected official at the lowest level of the federal judiciary, and it can effectively paralyze and/or influence national policy based on the views of one person, who is not the President.

I’m not saying presidents should be above the law or beyond judicial review. But if we’re talking about blocking or delaying the actions of a nationally elected executive, I believe that should require the Supreme Court, or at minimum a multi-judge appellate panel, not a single, appointed trial judge.

You’re free to prefer a different system, but that simply isn’t how American law works.

There’s a practical problem with your proposal: judicial review doesn’t mean much if the action being challenged is allowed to go forward first and only gets examined after the fact. If the harm is already done, there’s nothing left for the courts to protect.

That’s why district judges can issue temporary pauses. It’s not about “overriding” an elected president, it’s about preventing irreversible consequences while the courts decide whether the action is legal.
And the president being elected doesn’t change that. The Constitution gives every person the right to petition the courts for relief. That right wouldn’t mean much if presidential actions could never be paused long enough for a court to even hear the case.

So the system isn’t saying the president is unimportant; it’s saying no one’s authority is so important that it cancels basic constitutional protections.

Out of curiosity, why do you think presidential actions should skip an entire level of judicial review? What makes a president’s priorities so uniquely important that, if the choice is between proceeding now or protecting constitutional rights, we should simply proceed? Is there some special constitutional status you believe executive actions have that congressional laws don’t? Members of Congress are elected too.

And a small point: calling Article III judges “unelected” is misleading. They’re nominated by an elected president and confirmed by elected senators. That’s the system the Constitution sets up. It’s strange to insist the president has sweeping, unchecked authority, while also dismissing the authority of people that are put in place under one of the clearest checks the Constitution explicitly gives presidents and the Senate, the power to appoint and confirm federal judges.

 

[DonGlock26]