• GreenBeanMachine@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    64
    ·
    5 hours ago

    “A court order is not advisory, and it is not conditional,” Blackwell said. “It is not something that any agency can treat as optional as it decides how or whether to comply.”

    Really? Clearly they can ignore your orders and have been ignoring them and will continue ignoring them. What are you gonna do about it? Cry louder?

    • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Until they start sending out US Marshals and other judicial officers to arrest offenders and charging them for contempt… it kind of is just advisory.

      • GreenBeanMachine@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        Right, so the courts have their own “enforcers” US Marshals? And don’t rely on cops to arrest those breaking judge orders?

        That would make sense, to have their own officers, independent of other agencies they might be prosecuting.

        • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 hour ago

          Yes and no. The US Marshals are law enforcement for he Federal Courts. However they are not a part of the judicial branch. They are still part of the executive branch and answer to the DOJ.

          So… literally the “where does power lie” question from Game of Thrones. When you are meant to enforce the Court’s orders but you’re also meant to follow the DOJ’s orders, which orders do you follow when they conflict?

    • Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Honestly I’m really interested to see what judge is finally going to be pushed to the point that they deputize people to go make sure it happens. I think nobody wants to go there because they’re afraid of what will happen, but I’m more afraid of what will happen if we continually allow courts to be optional for this regime.

        • Fermion@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          3 hours ago

          There have been a few of those, but it’s always for DWI or similar when they aren’t protected by their gaggle of goons.

  • TipRing@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    5 hours ago

    So if she stayed in the role after submitting her resignation (presumably talked into staying by her boss) and stayed because there was nobody to replace her and now she has been removed from the role, then who is doing her job?

    • villainy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 hours ago

      They’re not going to abide by any orders anyway so why bother showing up to court at all? They can buy a lot of pepper spray and Punisher patches with all the money they were paying those lawyers.

    • lectricleopard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      The Trump administration has been burning through lackeys since 2016. There aren’t enough people that are willing to commit crimes and ignire the constitution for very long. Even the dumb podcasters that voted and touted Trump are turning on him. This will implode eventually, probably in Nov.

  • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    4 hours ago

    “A court order is not advisory, and it is not conditional,” Blackwell said. “It is not something that any agency can treat as optional as it decides how or whether to comply.”

    During the hearing, Le acknowledged that many at the DHS did not understand the seriousness of an order from a federal judge.

    “It took a long, long, long time, and many orders to show cause to explain and let them know that if you don’t fix it, I’m going to quit and you’re going to be dragging yourself into court,” she said

    So… Having nobody in the position will lead to less effective ICE defense against wrongful detainments? Was she helping enable ICE send people to Texas? Or was she sabotaging the fascism from within and doing what y’all advocate, “don’t quit, make them fire you”?

    • fodor@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      She was working for them, knowing they were evil, and happily getting a paycheck. But she knew that the judge would eventually regulate things, starting with her. You can get only stonewall for so long, before you either quit or start lying.

      Shit, we don’t know, but did she already lie and was worried that it would be uncovered? Wouldn’t surprise me.