Do you disagree with him?
Also posted in deportation thread.
Bottom line: no court, up to and including the Supreme Court of the US, can make trump do anything. “Contempt of court” to him is just so much white (excuse the expression) noise. He might throw an underling or two under the bus, but there will be no tire tracks on him.
The Atlantic today (gift link):
Lots of blahblahblah, ending here:
Ultimately, asking what would happen in such a circumstance is like consulting the Monopoly rulebook for instructions about what to do if somebody flips over the board. At that point, we are playing a different game.
This metaphor was thrown around on this very board during trump 1.0, along the lines of, “trump doesn’t play by the rules–he just flips the table over and all the cards and chips go flying.”
The article - and my perception of these 2 cases - seems to support what I have tried to convey several times around here. These cases seem to be the point at which this game of chicken truly gets real.
I think Trump enough of a chicken, that I imagine him to take action at the last minute to avoid contempt (or discovery.) Send Garcia home. Not sure exactly what in the other case. Thinking the countless more reasonable folk around him will convince him that he does not want to completely trash our judicial system. Or make this battle the main point of his presidency. But the dumbfuck seems pointed at accomplishing exactly that…
I have ZERO respect for Supremes such as Alito and Thomas. But the one consistent thing I have experienced across the many (hundreds?) of federal judges I have appeared before is that THEY DO NOT APPRECIATE BEING DEFIED/DISRESPECTED. (I remember one DCt judge who took exception at me using the word “Golly” during oral argument.) I’m not sure even troglodytes such as Alito and Thomas would continue to prop up a president who tells them to pound sand.
Which is exactly what the Foundners, with their 18th Century version of Liberalism, were counting on. Each branch of government should jealously guard its own power.
I’m not sure how they’d account for Congress neutering itself, though.
Yeah - that one I just don’t understand.
But SCOTUS does not have any way to enforce their decision if they find anyone has committed criminal contempt. We’ve been over this elsewhere where a certain poster was insisting SCOTUS can dispatch US Marshals to enforce compliance. The reality is the Marshals report to the AG/Justice Department for anything other than court security.
So at the end of the day DJT and his cronies will not suffer any legal penalties if they ignore the courts.
Pretty sure that comes no where close to the definition of treason
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
DJT won’t suffer any penalties at all, for now. The cronies may face consequences other than being jailed - it’s very unlikely that those people are all or even mostly wealthy enough to never need to work again once their time in this administration is over.
And the reason I say “for now” is that DJT doesn’t seem to understand the precedent he seems to be trying to set and/or he’s relying on other people not being quite as corrupt as he is. The reason a lot of the things he does haven’t been tried before is because sane people of any political persuasion realize that whatever they can do, the other party can do when they are in power. So let’s say he gets away with ignoring the courts. He doesn’t give anyone a hearing before shipping them to a prison in a foreign country. He isn’t forced to fix his admitted mistake. What stops whoever gets elected in 2028 from disappearing Trump to a foreign prison and saying “oops, can’t get him back”?
What will stop whoever follows DJT from doing what you suggest is that they will more than likely prefer to do what they can to restore the rule of law. If they can charge him and bring him to trial then maybe he would be sent to prison. But the “immunity” ruling by SCOTUS could make that impossible.
The above assumes whoever follows DJT won’t be a GOP candidate. If that is what happens then it is a guarantee nothing will happen and things will get even worse.
I do agree with what you are saying about precedent, etc and his lack of understanding about it.
Just as he pulled back on the tariffs at the last minute. He doesn’t have the guts to go all the way through it. He really does care about public opinion (probably way too much) and if it gets too much blowback he’ll back down.
Then again, actually trying to predict the man seems impossible. The only really consistent thing about him is how erratic he is.
My guess? It’s that odd phenomenon where Congress – as a whole – gets abysmal approval ratings, but most Americans give their Congress Critters pretty darned high marks.
That leaves the current crop of Republicans free to focus on job retention rather than job performance.
[Even more than the R’s in many prior Congresses, that is]
ETA: Sorry. That didn’t address what the Framers would have thought. Carry on 
Well, that happened in their own time. When France invoked the terms of its defensive pact with the U.S., Congress had to make the decision to declare war or not, to issue embargoes or not, etc. These are clearly policy decisions within Congress’s domain, per the Constitution. But there was a deep division in Congress as to whether the “France” who invoked the pact was the same “France” the United States had an alliance with. Many wanted to support Britain. In the absence of Congressional initiative, President Washington declared that the policy of the United States was to remain neutral. Congress rolled over before the ink on the Constitution had dried, and so the foreign policy initiative rubbed off onto the executive branch, where it has remained ever since.
~Max
A lot of things happened in the Founders’ own time, that they hadn’t anticipated. Like political parties.
Well his cronies likely won’t, because Trump can just pardon them. So Trump simply finds some lackey to take the fall, then pardons him. If Judge Boasberg has the strength of will to force the issue (not many judges do), I suppose he could find the orange felon in contempt, but I’d be really shocked if that happens and even more shocked if the Supreme Court doesn’t give him immunity again.
The rhetoric of Trump acting as a tinpot dictator, abusing the law, and wiping his ass with checks and balances catching on is about the best case scenario. But even that would require a great deal of judicial fortitude.
The same holds true for so many of his actions. Illegally firing federal workers, illegally deporting US citizens, and the retaliation against any institution that doesn’t buy into his enforcing white supremacy will all require members of the judiciary to grow a fucking spine and hold this administration to account.
I’m not sure there are enough judges with that kind of gumption. God knows Congress isnt going to do their parr.
Not to defend Trump or what he did here, but if the idea that an official act of the POTUS is immune to criminality doesn’t apply to this, I don’t know what it would apply to. This is a case where Trump’s administration made a policy decision to send a guy to El Salvador. They initially claimed it was a simple mistake, but the refusal to make any attempt to bring him back shows a willful decision. If the SCOTUS didn’t grant him immunity here, then it’s basically saying their previous decision is meaningless (in my opinion).
I mean, I wouldn’t be sad about that. The fact that this sort of action should be immune to criminality due to the previous ruling just demonstrates how insanely terrible that ruling was. It’s exactly the sort of thing former president Joe Biden warned could happen. If the SCOTUS ends up saying that in theory the president is immune, but in practice we can’t just let this stuff happens, then it’s sort of academic, and I’d be just as shocked as you if they did that. Not only is that showing a morality that I wouldn’t expect, they’re making it look like their rulings might be ineffective.
Again, just my opinion, I’m not a lawyer or a legal expert of any kind, etc.
So what happened to this Trump mess. I’m guessing nothing and the judge is a paper tiger.
Have to research and see but: A lot of these decisions get appealed and then go into a kind of limbo until they’re heard by the next court. And then often the Supreme Court (say) doesn’t mind slow-playing some of these.
Delay 4 years until it’s a moot point.
…
Justice!
Nothing about the contempt of court thing, but this is hot ifff the press. Sure to be appealed to SCOTUS, I’m sure:
Another ruling guided by American constitutional requirements that Republicans will wipe their asses with.