Posted on 03/21/2025 2:32:59 AM PDT by Libloather
Amid the growing battle between President Donald Trump and the courts, a once-unthinkable question is harder to shrug off: Will the administration deliberately defy federal judges if it doesn’t get what it wants?
The issue has come into sharp relief in the challenge to the administration’s deportation of Venezuelan nationals under the purported authority of the Alien Enemies Act. The presiding judge — James Boasberg, chief judge of the federal district court in Washington, D.C. — directed the government from the bench to turn the planes around carrying the deportees. That did not happen, though the administration claims it did not deliberately defy the judge. Boasberg has since pressed the government for more information, and on Friday, he will hold a hearing to consider the matter further.
To consider Boasberg’s options and the implications, I spoke with Shira Scheindlin, a former federal judge in Manhattan who served on the bench for 22 years. She is no stranger to complex, high-profile disputes involving the government, and as I can attest from brief personal experience — I once litigated before Judge Scheindlin while I worked in the private sector — she had a well-earned reputation for exercising firm control over her courtroom and the lawyers who appeared before her.
Scheindlin said that in the debate over whether the United States is already in a constitutional crisis, the real red line is if the executive branch defies the judiciary, a move that Trump says he wouldn’t take.
But if it were to happen?
“That’s when authoritarians become dictators and really tear down the temple by just ignoring the Constitution, ignoring the judiciary,” she said. “That would be the shocking end to our 250-year experiment.”
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Listen to Stephen Miller’s comment on this here.
https://youtu.be/5GmxNtXhS9k?si=L18pkx74zL-_IIQ2&t=76
you cannot have a
1:29
democracy where single individual
1:32
district court judges can assume the
1:34
full total powers of the
1:36
commander-in-chief. Even on the Supreme
1:37
Court it takes agreement of five Supreme
1:40
Court Justices to change a federal
1:43
policy, five. A single District Court
1:46
Judge out of 700 cannot set policy for
1:49
the entire nation let alone on National
1:50
Security and public safety issues. The
1:52
president’s been clear uh that he is has
1:56
tremendous respect for justice Roberts
1:58
and believes it’s the Supreme Court
2:01
crack down and stop this assault in our
2:04
democracy from these radical Rogue
2:06
judges that are assuring the powers of
2:09
the presidency and laying waste to our
2:11
entire constitutional system.
In other words, the judiciary can defy the other branches, but they cannot defy the judiciary.
Heads I win, tails you lose.
A Consitutional Crisis? A Shocking End?
How about having a f@cking vegetable occupy the seat for 4 years and letting who knows who secretly run the country? Or having an abject moron for a VP who is drunk all the time?
He's not gonna completely ignore all the leftist judges who are now law-faring out the Democrat Party's response to his massive win (this judge appointed by Clinton included). He and the DOJ will present his (OUR) case and let it eventually work its way to the USSC. I despise these people.
The ‘check’ for responding to some bad behavior against so-called judicial rulings is impeachment by the House. Have at it assholes. Elections have consequences
It’s a she - nominated by Bill Clinton
If this judicial activism continues to stonewall the wishes of the electorate, perhaps another Summer of Love featuring mostly peaceful protests would be in order.
Three Co-Equal Branches of Government. PERIOD.
Martial law is not possible.
Lincoln didn’t think so.
So, let’s say executive is rock, judicial is scissors, and legislative is paper.
Rock breaks scissors, scissors cuts paper and paper wraps rock.
Rock can break scissors because judicial lacks enforcement power over executive, which can simply ignore them.
But if rock breaks scissors too much, paper can wrap rock, since legislative can impeach executive.
If paper wraps rock too much, scissors can cut paper, since the judiciary can rule in favor of the executive - keeping legislative oversight from micromanaging the executive.
It seems to me that scissors is trying to cut rock instead of paper, so rock us getting wrapped by paper - what needs to happen is rock (Trump) needs to break scissors (judicial).
So we’re back to Trump instead of President Trump again.
How many times did they do that with Biden?
A district court judge is NOT going to order Federal marshals into the White House.
Unless this ends up in the USSC.....it’s not going anywhere. The media show is all he. has.
Qualified Martial Law would most likely be the type used where the military assists civilian authorities (1.28 million nationwide) with law enforcement or other functions, but civilian government remains in place. A few arrests, prosecutions and convictions and this will all come to a screeching halt. Especially if the arrested includes one or two democrat politicians in congress who are behind this 100%.
Democrat Andrew Jackson defied the Supreme Court. Nothing happened.
Politico article by some foreigner quotes Shira Scheindlin, a former federal judge in Manhattan, an avowed lib. More fake news.
Hubris, thy name is Pollutico.
Trump can pardon anyone a federal judge goes after.
These same douchenipples had their panties in a wad when Hegseth and Bondi wouldn’t say that they would defy an order from Trump.
For perspective, the District Court judge has jurisdiction in his district, the same as a state judge has jurisdiction in his state. How would New York feel if Texas judges start issuing injunctions on New York cases?
EC
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.