• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Appeals court tosses judge's contempt finding against Trump administration in prison deportations

D

dobieg

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 24, 2017
Messages
11,271
Reaction score
6,384
Location
In yo' grill
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Activist judges can pound sand. Mark another one up for the good guys.



Appeals court tosses judge's contempt finding against Trump administration in prison deportations

A split appeals court panel tossed out a judge’s contempt finding against President Donald Trump's administration on Friday in a case over deportations to an El Salvador prison. The decision comes after planes carrying Venezuelan migrants landed at the prison even though U.S District Judge...
www.yahoo.com
 
I got 100$ American that says the appeals court ruling was by a majority Trump "court."
 
Two judges appointed by our child rapist president sided with our child rapist president.

This is meaningless.
 
Absentglare said:
Two judges appointed by our child rapist president sided with our child rapist president.

This is meaningless.
Click to expand...
BUT, Righties will get the jollies on because these judges were not "activist" judges. They get to gloat. When rulings go against Trump, they weep like little children.
Imagine the maturity level of those who think that way.
 
dobieg said:
Activist judges can pound sand. Mark another one up for the good guys.
Click to expand...
The good guys. Like we're watching a movie.

I swear, that's exactly what has happened to this country. People see politics as entertainment. Filled with conspiracies, good guys and bad guys.

In the MAGA movie, the good guys are the ones who ignore and violate the law.

Let's go bad guys!!!

 
A judge gave an order. The order was violated. That's contempt.
Unless your MAGA, then it's whatever Trump says it is. I was fond of the rule of law. I'm going to miss it.
 
Good. Boasberg gets slapped down again.
 
Immature Trump playbook: If there is a legal ruling against you, call the judge names.
 
Bok Tuklo said:
I got 100$ American that says the appeals court ruling was by a majority Trump "court."
Click to expand...
Easy win.

“But the divided three-judge panel in the nation’s capital found that Boasberg had exceeded his authority and intruded on the executive branch’s foreign affairs powers.

Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, both of whom were nominated by Trump in his first term in the White House, agreed with the unsigned majority opinion.”
 

The basic story has been is that Trump generally loses in district courts.
But he generally wins the appeals in the circuit Courts.
The circuit Courts generally have higher quality judges.
Perhaps the problem here is lack of understanding the 'movie.'
 
Loulit01 said:
A judge gave an order. The order was violated. That's contempt.
Unless your MAGA, then it's whatever Trump says it is. I was fond of the rule of law. I'm going to miss it.
Click to expand...

The appellate court said Boasberg lacked the authority to issue the order. Basically saying he violated the rule of law.
Judges do not have authority in foreign policy.

Separation of powers and all that.
 
Athanasius68 said:
The appellate court said Boasberg lacked the authority to issue the order. Basically saying he violated the rule of law.
Judges do not have authority in foreign policy.

Separation of powers and all that.
Click to expand...

While both Katsas and Rao voted to “vacate” the contempt-related order, they disagreed about how far to go in limiting Boasberg’s future options. Katsas wrote in a solo opinion that he wanted to rule out any further criminal contempt proceedings stemming from the El Salvador deportations. Rao, by contrast, wrote her own solo opinion stopping short of foreclosing that possibility.

The third member of the appeals panel, Judge Cornelia Pillard, an Obama appointee, dissented. She said the majority’s ruling was legally unjustified and “a grave disservice” to Boasberg.

The full 11-member bench of the D.C. Circuit — which has seven Democratic appointees and four Republican appointees — could reconsider the panel’s ruling and revive Boasberg’s contempt proceedings. Lawyers for the deported men, who have since been moved to Venezuela as part of a prisoner swap brokered by the Trump administration, could also take the issue to the Supreme Court.
 

It would appear that both Katsos and Rao both agree that the Judiciary does not have absolute power in the USA constitutional system. They are wrestling over the details.
They are correct. As Justice Barrett wrote earlier this year, Article III is not an overseer of Article II operations.
 
We're crediting Amy Bugs Barrett? Okay.
 

Good. I agree with both Trump's actions and the Appellate majority overturning the contempt ruling.

IMO the original ruling was another attempt at Judicial overreach despite prior SCOTUS rulings, especially in regard to identified members of the Venezuelan gang "Tren de Aragua." They had originally been imprisoned by the Government of Venezuela, then released and sent north to the USA with the intent to cause crime and mayhem.

They were acting in criminal manners within the USA and could rightly fall under the law identifying them as enemy agents of a foreign power inimical to the USA.

My only worry in returning them to Venezuela is what prevents the dictator from holding them for a short while, then letting them go again to trouble the USA.
 
Another leftist activist impersonating a judge gets pwned.
 
Athanasius68 said:
The appellate court said Boasberg lacked the authority to issue the order. Basically saying he violated the rule of law.
Judges do not have authority in foreign policy.

Separation of powers and all that.
Click to expand...
It wasnt foreign policy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…