BoZeeker23
12d ago
I don't see any legal tangle, it is pretty clear that he is an american citizen. He even seems to be gainfully employed in the construction industry. Will he become President? That's a long shot, but not grounds for taking preemptive 'extralegal' actions against him. (What a darling you are.)
BoZeeker23
12d ago
I see nothing there aside from the District Court throwing a temper tantrum about being overruled.
You are wrong. If the Trump administration had not disobeyed the relevant TRO, then there would be no grounds for the contempt filing. The reason he is bringing contempt charges is that the defendants brazenly disobeyed a legal order. This has nothing to do with being overruled: Boasberg has the authority to issue TROs, which can be challenged and dismissed on appeal. Ignoring them is a criminal offense.
If we were to characterize some party as 'throwing a tantrum,' it would be the Trump admin who both 1. got their way on the decision in appeals and 2. called for Boasberg's impeachment, prompting the Chief Justice to make the statement:
[F]or more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.
No, the real matter here is that someone, likely multiple people, violated 18 U.S.C. § 401.
The court's complaint is that the Trump administration did not obey its -- unlawful -- order in the time between it being issued and it being vacated.
Yes. That is illegal and the filing is replete with evidence suggesting that it was deliberate. Moreover, the defendants do not even dispute that they did this deliberately.
which would be a good thing -- Walker v. City of Birmingham was a travesty
The long-established blackletter law settled by a case in which the most sympathetic of parties lost, if you knew the first thing about it, is hardly the false pretense suggested by the word 'travesty'. None of the exigencies and circumstances on which the minority's argument was based in that proceeding obtains in this one, in fact it is the opposite. The dissenting opinion grants that the petitioners would have no case at all if
[the] petitioners were presuming to act as judges in their own case, or ... had a disregard for the judicial process. https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/cases-that-shaped-the-federal-courts/pdf/Walker_0.pdf
Indeed, the exigencies that obtain in Walker v. City of Birmingham in favor of the petitioners work exactly against the Trump admin in the case at hand:
Defendants, moreover, nowhere identify a reason that the transfer had to occur early Sunday morning. If they considered waiting for appellate relief impracticable or unattractive given the speed at which events transpired, that circumstance was entirely of their own making, not the result of any bona-fide obstacle to effective review
If the Trump admin respected the authority of the courts and was confident in the constitutionality of their intended deportations, there is no reason why they could not wait for the appeal to resolve in their favor. Had they done this they would be protected from Boasberg's 'tantrum' as you put it, and as a bonus they may have not carried out any improper removals 'by accident.'
Far from being the sole case establishing that Americans are not entitled to ignore court orders, Walker v. City of Birmingham affirms that adherence to court procedure is so fundamental (the lower federal courts having been established in 1789 with exactly the power "to punish by fine or imprisonment, at the discretion of said courts, all contempts of authority in any cause or hearing before the same") that it indeed prevails even in some cases where circumstances make the contemnor's actions urgent. Again, not what we have here. There is no way in which it could have been decided which would have set a precedent for the current US administration's actions in disregarding the judiciary.
BoZeeker23
15d ago
The matter here is that one or more people in the Department of Justice have violated 18 U.S.C. § 401(3) by ignoring a lawful court order, and criminal contempt proceedings are ongoing to determine exactly who in the department is to be held responsible.
A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as— (1) Misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice; (2) Misbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions; (3) Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.
The defendants had a responsibility to carry out the court order. There is indeed evidence of intentional disobedience, as I welcome anyone interested in the facts of the matter at hand -- and not irrelevant, separate grievances -- to ascertain in the ruling[1] issued today.
[1]https://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/athena/files/2025/04/16/67ffdc21e4b0cc0115773511.pdf
BoZeeker23
15d ago
You were wrong and I pointed it out. It is not hard to predict the steady state of a forum where a mod thinks this is trolling.
BoZeeker23
16d ago
Their words:
ignorant or a liar
your words:
disingenuous or dishonest
Anyone who says these are the same is either mistaken or dissembling. My account is new but I am not an alt; I came in the wake of the new Scott post. Feel free to ban me, because I imagine it must happen sooner or later at the level of reading comprehension exhibited here.
BoZeeker23
16d ago
They said "ignorant or a liar" so the assumption is on your part.
BoZeeker23
16d ago
It's all play acting. Most of the American's that are "frightened" about this deportation don't actually think they are at risk for being deported.
"Do not weakman in order to show how bad a group is." No, I expect that if an American wanted to protest their local government investing its whole budget into 'Israel Bonds' that they would be at some risk of deportation. Or, if Israel wants a hand fighting Iran, America's lads might have to choose between the front and El Salvador.
BoZeeker23
16d ago
The resemblance is superficial. In this case, one or more people intentionally ignored a court order and can be held liable for that even if some of those involved in the deportation cannot. The planes were forbidden from taking the detained to El Salvador. If there is an example where the ATF is specifically instructed by a court order not to raid someone's house, and they do it anyway, and the recipient of that order is not held in contempt of court, in that case the comparison holds water. Not otherwise.
Your claim is that the contempt filing is underway because the TRO was found to be unconstitutional. This position is incoherent: Boasberg surely would still have filed these charges were the TRO found constitutional through the appellate process. The party that ignored legal procedure and is now calling for the impeachment of a judge is the one behaving petulantly, and the Chief Justice's statement supports this contention.
I have already anticipated and dismantled the shaky and non-pertinent argument that you now produce. You have ignored that work.
More options
Context Copy link