Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
onetexan
onetexan's Journal
onetexan's Journal
January 31, 2017
"The situation has forced observers to reckon with a question that has little or no precedent in American history: What happens when the federal government or its agents refuse to honor a court order handed down by a federal judge? By definition, it has to be different from what happens when, say, a state lawmaker flouts the word of a federal judge, since in the past, such cases have involved the president himself sending in the U.S. Marshals to enforce the law. But who will be on what side if things escalate, and the executive branch itself explicitly and continuously refuses to follow the rulings of the judiciary? At what point does the conflict turn into a full-blown constitutional crisis?
If the reports are true, there are a couple paths to escalate, said University of Chicago Law School professor William Baude. Before it gets to that point, though, attempts will have to be made by the judges in question to clarify what they intended with their orders and how exactly officials might be in violation of them. Most likely, Baude said, there will be several rounds of brinksmanship before this rises to the level of a constitutional crisis.
According to Doug Laycock, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, the likelihood that we would see fines or jail time even if a contempt order did come down is very slimin large part because neither the judge, nor the government, has any interest in having the situation devolve to that point. Judges are much more likely to threaten sanctions than to actually impose them, Laycock wrote in an email. What typically happens insteadand its worth noting that typically here refers to much less fraught circumstances than the ones we face todayis that the judge tries to keep ramping up the pressure, but tries to avoid reaching the point where he has no choice but to send someone to jail.
What happens if Trump and his people simply decline to back down, even after a judge gives them an opportunity to comply? According to Waldman, thats when a judge could call the U.S. Marshals in to enforce the order. In the case of Dulles, that could mean pitting U.S. Marshals against armed agents at airports. This, Waldman wrote, is what sets us up for a darker, dangerous turn.
Slate article: What happens if Donald Trump refuses a federal court order
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/01/what_happens_if_donald_trump_refuses_a_federal_court_order.html"The situation has forced observers to reckon with a question that has little or no precedent in American history: What happens when the federal government or its agents refuse to honor a court order handed down by a federal judge? By definition, it has to be different from what happens when, say, a state lawmaker flouts the word of a federal judge, since in the past, such cases have involved the president himself sending in the U.S. Marshals to enforce the law. But who will be on what side if things escalate, and the executive branch itself explicitly and continuously refuses to follow the rulings of the judiciary? At what point does the conflict turn into a full-blown constitutional crisis?
If the reports are true, there are a couple paths to escalate, said University of Chicago Law School professor William Baude. Before it gets to that point, though, attempts will have to be made by the judges in question to clarify what they intended with their orders and how exactly officials might be in violation of them. Most likely, Baude said, there will be several rounds of brinksmanship before this rises to the level of a constitutional crisis.
According to Doug Laycock, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, the likelihood that we would see fines or jail time even if a contempt order did come down is very slimin large part because neither the judge, nor the government, has any interest in having the situation devolve to that point. Judges are much more likely to threaten sanctions than to actually impose them, Laycock wrote in an email. What typically happens insteadand its worth noting that typically here refers to much less fraught circumstances than the ones we face todayis that the judge tries to keep ramping up the pressure, but tries to avoid reaching the point where he has no choice but to send someone to jail.
What happens if Trump and his people simply decline to back down, even after a judge gives them an opportunity to comply? According to Waldman, thats when a judge could call the U.S. Marshals in to enforce the order. In the case of Dulles, that could mean pitting U.S. Marshals against armed agents at airports. This, Waldman wrote, is what sets us up for a darker, dangerous turn.
January 24, 2017
Holy crap the crackdown on reporters began inauguration day.
2 Journalists Covering Inauguration Protests Face Felony Riot Charges
Source: Huffington Post
Two journalists arrested while covering President Donald Trumps inauguration in Washington have been charged with felony rioting, an accusation one of their employers called an affront to the First Amendment.
Evan Engel of Vocativ and Alexander Rubinstein of RT America were among more than 200 people arrested during anti-Trump demonstrations Friday, The Guardian reports. Most of those people face felony rioting charges, according to CBS.
Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/journalists-inauguration-protests-felony-riot-charges_us_5887ca89e4b0441a8f71888b?yipmegevaw2ep14i&
Holy crap the crackdown on reporters began inauguration day.
Profile Information
Member since: Mon Oct 31, 2016, 08:09 PMNumber of posts: 13,037