The basis for basically all turmoil in the USA is that our TV and news media champions it, for ratings, thinking of politics as just another sport in the lineup like football and hockey.
They seem to announce everything in what I call the “Now we interrupt this program for a News Bulletin” tone of voice and attitude, on the order of the 1960s era of Big News about Vietnam or Somebody Important Has Been Assassinated. It is confusing to just an above average person such as myself. I don’t know if they are just doing all that for affect bc it increases ratings or if there really is a serious serious issue. To be clear, I am not at all downplaying what is currently happening, but if social media and 24-7 news cycles had existed in the past, I often wonder if the events of the day. would have the same constant feeling of overwroughtness – even during Watergate, many hours and days might pass before you had bulletins interrupting the programming, and that was a situation that could have been a constitutional crisis (many held their breath through it, as I recall). The nightly news would delve further, but if you really wanted extra info, the print media did that job, and many people read a daily newspaper and they might discuss all of that at the bowling alley or local tavern (just social conversation, no social media). Not too much drama, really, or certainly not as we seem to have now. I know, it was a different era, but the current time scrambles my thinking. I fully realize that is its purpose, and so, I am trying hard not to panic. I am not succeeding, though.
This is embarrassing to admit, but I didn’t know this. I thought the US Marshals Service was part of the judiciary. They are responsible for securing federal courts, executing federal court orders, and getting people to trial. By all appearances, US Marshals work for the courts but that isn’t the case.
While this is true today, it doesn’t appear that it’s an inevitable part of our constitutional government. Marshals apparently started out as officers for the courts but that time seems to have ended a bit ago when “[t]he Attorney General began supervising the Marshals in 1861.” Okay, so it was a long bit ago. The same history says that Marshals have been under the purview of the Department of Justice since the DOJ’s creation in 1870.
Perhaps George Washington had the right idea when he established the Marshals as a judiciary staff that could enforce federal courts’ warrants and orders. Of course, we aren’t changing that now.
Even though the quote is apocryphal, it’s interesting to me that Marshall had Marshals who could have enforced the order, if he were so inclined. It would be a few more years before the Marshals’ chain of command was moved to the Attorney General.
Trump isn’t the only person named in the case. The courts could declare any of those people or the agencies they command to be in civil contempt and force them to comply, under threat of jail if necessary. That threat would be even more credible if the judiciary still commanded the Marshals. The president is arguably the one person the judiciary could not jail but it would unlikely be necessary to do so in any event as long as they could get the right minions.
As discussed elsewhere, the Supreme Court has never held that the president can pardon someone from a civil contempt order. Trump has pardoned someone from a criminal contempt order but it remains an open question whether he could pardon someone from a civil contempt order.
The key difference between the two is that a criminal contempt order is a punishment for a past failure to comply with the court’s directives whereas a civil contempt order is an inducement for the person to comply with the court’s instructions now. Civil contempt ends when the person complies.
Courts might not allow the president to pardon someone from civil contempt. Since the civil contempt would be ongoing, such a pardon would be covering future conduct. There is no precedent for courts to respect a pardon that covered future conduct. A pardon is meant to be forgiveness for past conduct, not permission or authority to break the laws in the future. I’m inclined to think courts would not allow a pardon for civil contempt. That said, I might be wrong. The current Supreme Court has issued a lot of supremely wrong decisions. In general, they seem to be keen to maintain or expand their own authority but they also seem determined to create imperial presidential powers. Those competing drives would clash if a pardon for civil contempt came before them and I’m not sure where they’d land.
The DOJ just decided to drop their corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams, reasoning in part:
The order came from the acting deputy attorney general, appointed by President Donald Trump, who said the indictment had “restricted” the mayor’s ability to address “illegal immigration and violent crime” in the city.
They’ve basically extended the “He can’t do his job” rational that the Supreme Court used to create immunity for Trump, to the mayor of New York. So it can logically be applied to any elected official in between those two levels. So no more “trickle down” needed. If you’re an elected official, you’re immune, at least so long as you’re in office.
My understanding is that the justification for dropping the charges is that they were brought too close to the election, that DOJ has been instructed to cease investigation until after the election and that it will be dismissed without prejudice, which means it can be re-filed after the election, when Adams will lose whatever value he has to Trump because Adams will not be re-elected
Not as good, no, of course Trump always gets his second scoop of ice cream, but it still sends the message: if you’re in office, you’re safe. So go ahead and do whatever corrupt stuff you need to do to stay in office. You’ll only pay the price if you lose. Maybe.
One thing is for sure, I certainly did not expect to see as many references to Marbury vs Madison!
As I’ve said many times before, I do not wish to be alarmist. But I’m not sure how many long-established rules and principles of US government will withstand 4 years of Trump. And, whether you realize it or not, those rules and principles affect so many aspects of private business and private lives. It sure seems as tho Trump’s team is working quite hard to achieve a future which is quite different from what any of us has experienced. Exactly how that will affect each of us in our daily lives is far from clear.
Driving is a social contract between the drivers. Almost always it works well and the rules are enforced by wanting to do it the right way and if necessary police. It is only when you have a road-rager that you realize how fragile that social contract really is.
The framers certainly held those were powers of the people, the ultimate checks. But they are outside the Constitution.
The second amendment is the closest. One of the intents of the framers was to protect against tyranny. But that action is outside the scope of the Const.
It could be security of the State from the tyranny of the Feds. Some blue states may like that especially if they can march on the White House with their National Guard.
This is likely to be the first crack in the rule of law at the Federal level. Unless this Stacey Street person is found in contempt of the court that issued this order the wall will quickly crumble and the Judicial branch will lose all relevance when it comes to orders Trump/Musk dislike.
As discussed upthread, SCOTUS and the other courts have no ability to order law enforcement to stop this coming chaos. From where I sit it looks like this could well be the first step to a civil war.
What happens when Governors start ordering State Police to detain any Federal employee who defies orders by Federal courts? I could see this happening in some blue states. How would Trusk react to that?
Trumpy governance in Hungary, Venezuela, El Salvador, and Turkey has not resulted in civil war (Kurdish struggle predates Erdoğan). Why would the U.S. be so different. Guns? Gun owners are mostly GOP.
Contempt citations against said employees will be pardoned. Said governors believe too much in the rule of law to do what you say. I know there’s a theory that civil contempt is unpardonable, but SCOTUS will probably disagree.
Also, I’m skeptical that the Supreme Court will rule against Trump on cases he cares about too much, either because SCOTUS has a Trumpy majority, or because of fear over setting a precedent where the President defied the court.
The most realistic chance to stop MAGA may be the 2028 elections. Free elections are often the last thing to go when a country is going in an authoritarian direction. Before that? Maybe there are possibilities if he crashes way down in the polls. But a lot of people like a strongman.
Chances of elections in 2028 decrease daily. Archpresident Musk will find a way to stop them. Because of rampant voter or election fraud or other reasons. Blue state results will be tossed out. Courts may rule otherwise but without anyone to enforce their rulings nothing will be done.
At some point these dipshits will overstep and there will be protesters in some blue state or city and possibly there will be violence. Trusk will invoke the Insurrection Act in said cities and impose martial law. Things will get bad from there. What happens if Musk takes a bullet to the head? Things would get pretty much apeshit from there. I think this is far more likely than Trump being assassinated as others have predicted.
Is it really so difficult to see how we may get to this point?
