Trump rebuke: Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. rebuked an idea raised by President Trumpin a rare public statement after the president called for a judge’s impeachment on Monday. “Impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote, hours after Mr. Trump referred to the judge, James E. Boasberg, as a “Radical Left Lunatic” in a social media post and called for his removal.
I am unaware of any president in US history as who has made such blatant public verbal attack on a sitting judge as Donald Trump after defying the judge’s orders. Trump is out of control. He’s still popular with his Maga supporters though. And Congressional Democrats are not united on how to oppose him. It remains to be seen if the courts can stop him. They don’t command an army. He does.
Judge Finds Musk’s Role in Dismantling U.S.A.I.D. Likely Violated Constitution
It appears to be the first time a federal judge has acted to constrain Elon Musk, a top adviser to President Trump. The judge also ordered agency functions be partially restored, though that relief could be temporary.
The courts are doing better job of standing up to Trump than congressional Democrats. That condition may hold until Trump’s popularity fades which Dems are counting on.
What I said is context-dependent, so… if you know, you know.
.
I did say “recent ‘woke’ court decisions”, not all and every court decision… so right answer.
You said it after calling the judicial system “a joke”, and in response to basic questions about your belief in a due process and cruel and unusual punishments.
So, in context, it reads like you don’t care about the law generally. I’m willing to be believe you don’t really mean that given what I know about your politics, but I think Bob’s interpretation is a natural one.
Again I invoke the principle suggested by “ First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”
When they come for me, ( may I be so fortunate that they never do) may I be granted the best lawyer, the fairest judge and jury, every opportunity to present my case, every procedural safeguard due me under the law. Now, if that is what I want for my self, what about those who are denied due process under the law? When we read about them in the news or see them on the internet what do we know about them really? Aren’t they entitled to a fair trial, just like I would want if it were me?
What do we really know about each individual flown to prison in El Salvador without a trial?
“… putting aside whether there is proof that each Venezuelan man flown to El Salvador to be housed in a high-security prison is, in fact, a member of the gang, is it even true that Tren de Aragua is a terrorist group?”
Could one of them or maybe more have been a refugee fleeing from an evil dictator in Venezuela to the United States for asylum who was rounded up by ICE and never given a chance to state his case? Who can say they know that isn’t so?
And speaking of “they came for ________(fill in the blank) “The U.S. Institute for Peace announced Monday that despite being independent of the executive branch and controlling its own building and the land it sits on, their objections to members of Elon Musk’s DOGE team trespassing in their building were overridden by D.C. police. That came after an earlier confrontation in which DOGE was accompanied by the FBI. Skye Perryman, president of Democracy Forward, who is suing the U.S. Marshals for information on DOGE after a similar raid, joins to discuss the unprecedented nature of DOGE leveraging the threat of armed law enforcement against another part of the government.”
March 17, 2025, Rachel Maddow
If someone knocks on my door and forces entrance with no good reason, it isn’t because I have something to hide that I complain, but because it is the invasion of my privacy and autonomy. This institute is independent, so the same applies.
If an agency calls to ask to enter my house without due reason, I can decide and if their reasons are viable, they can get a court order. The behaviour described above is mafiosi tactic.
If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear, no?
.
Since when are private quangos exempt from investigation? Any company affiliated with their government, is subject to scrutiny and revisiting of contracts and such… or are these contracts eternally-binding, for ever and ever Amen…
Read what I wrote about invasion of privacy and autonomy. The barging into an institution just because someone wants to is not civilised. Besides, I was reacting to your
Your naivety is amusing.
You write as if there is no corruption in the police force.
One example, in the U S of A racial disparity plays a significant part in the justice system and is high up on the list of the biggest problems facing the criminal justice system today.
According to their newsletter, the Union of Concern Scientists has already tracked 102 direct attacks on science in less than two months, where the Trump administration’s actions, decisions, or policies have sidelined or excluded science or undermined federal science processes. It may come as no surprise that this drastically outpaces his first administration, where they tracked 207 such attacks over four years (2017-2021) – more than the Bush (2001-2009), Obama (2009-2017), and Biden (2021-2025) administrations combined.
From The New York Times” A federal judge blocked the Trump administration on Tuesday from banning transgender people from serving in the military.
In a forcefully written opinion that rebuked the president’s effort, U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes issued an injunction that allows trans troops to keep serving in the military, under rules that were established by the Biden administration, until their lawsuit against the Trump administration’s ban is decided.
“The ban at bottom invokes derogatory language to target a vulnerable group in violation of the Fifth Amendment,” Judge Reyes wrote.
The government had argued that courts must defer to military judgment, but in a 79-page opinion, the judge said the government had thrown together a ban based on next-to-no evidence and that “the law does not demand that the Court rubber-stamp illogical judgments based on conjecture.”
…they’ve obviously got something to hide…
