A headline-grabbing controversy that could erupt into a Constitutional crisis concerned the Trump administration's possible defiance of judges' ruling on the possible sneaky deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members. It got a rant from Trump. Impeach the judge, he tweeted. The rule of law was on the line and received immediate public pushback from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in defense of the independence of the judicial bench and judges. (Update 5/8/2025: Roberts again defended an independent judiciary and the need to reign in excessive actions by the other two branches. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts lays down the law on judiciary power in veiled swipe at Trump ) The appropriate response is to appeal to the next higher court instead. This flap goes right to the heart of the defense of the rule of law. What's the big deal about the rule of law? Who even cares? It is like playing N/FL football without the rules and officials on the field or instant replays to appeal their judgment calls.
Tracking pertinent developments in the struggle to protect the rule of law:
Updates: 4/23/2025 Supreme Court Ruling Backfires on Trump in New Lawsuit ACLU sues the Trump administration for sending deportees far from the original venue where they were snatched by ICE. Colorado involved: Colorado Judge Uses Supreme Court Order to Block Trump Admin Deportations - Newsweek.
Use of Alien enemies act to justify ignoring due process hearings for deportees challenged by the Supreme Court: Supreme Court temporarily blocks new deportations under Alien Enemies Act - CBS News
The rule of law still rules. It is being challenged by the rule of Trump as Trump demands judges whose judgment he does not like to be impeached, and he tries to get around obeying court orders by pulling a stunt that looks like criminal contempt of a judge's order. For example, in the Abrego Garcia incident. Judge just found probable cause Trump did in this flight of the night incident to avoid complying with court order. "those individuals were on planes being flown overseas, having been spirited out of the United States by the Government before they could vindicate their due-process rights by contesting their removability in a federal court, as the law requires." We have not heard the end of this story. There will be a full-out trial of the stunt, and if the Trump admin. is found guilty, someone may go to jail over this. https://www.npr.org/2025/04/16/g-s1-60696/judge-contempt-alien-enemies-act
Update 4 /18/2025 The left-right back and forth on Abrego-Garcia is a case in point of why due process before being deported is so important. Due process is what we all hope to have if we are ever arrested or held for a crime we did not commit, or at least defend ourselves before a court. We, as persons, citizens or not, have the Constitutional right to appear before a judge and present evidence before being punished. Character attacks on the Abrego Garcia, i.e. is he a good father, are irrelevant reasons not to obey court orders.
Due process is part of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution:
Amendment V Note: "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.."No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Evidence and a chance for Abrego Garcia to rebut whether or not a criminal or a gang member is relevant. Due process provides that opportunity and right, in his case, already given sanctuary by a US Judge earlier, he had no chance to tell a judge that..Abrego Garcia did not receive the protection he was due, so the courts ruled that he should be returned. Requiring in advance, the time to prepare and a hearing before a judge or a court process is called due process. SCOTUS has already ruled 9-0 that deportees are protected by the Constitution (it applies to persons, not just citizens) and must receive a due process hearing before deportation. The Trump administration defied the order to get him returned. The appeals court judge further in a damning response that the Trump regime must indeed comply. If successful in defiance, then no court has any power in that matter. It is a Constitutional issue that determines whether we will remain a democracy and be governed by the rule of law or a ruler who declares himself the ruler of what laws are to be observed. The court rejected the Trump administration's appeal in the case of the wrongly deported Abrego-Garcia:
There is a late 18th-century law that allows for the deportation of alien enemies if the country is at war. Are we at war with Venezuela? Really? In a late-night emergency decision, the Supreme Court halted deportations about to proceed when the Trump administration cited the law as a reason to put deportees on a plane to the El Salvador gulag without due process to consider that issue. https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/19/politics/supreme-court-alien-enemies-act-order/index.html
(Update: 4/18/2025 Here is what happened on appeal: GOP Judge Darkly Warns Of Last Chance To Avoid Tyranny The appeals court rejected the Trump administration's appeal in the case of the wrongly deported Abrego-Garcia. The ruling is also a wake-up call:
|
(Update 4/8-15,/2025) The Trump regime is attempting to tear down the rule of law, by threatening impeachment of judges whose rullnges they do not like, bullying large law firms into not representing clients the Trump regime does not like, and now threatening to defy court orders in the wrongfully deporting Venezualan gang members, depositing them in El Salvador jails the US funds, and now defying court orders to return them to the US to face due process hearings.) The Supreme Court then ruled that before deportation, there must be a hearing before a judge, but left no help for the 300 now in El Salvador gulag. https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-deportations-el-salvador-9988b667199e1b02fc0a6a83570225c1 https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-deportations-el-salvador-9988b667199e1b02fc0a6a83570225c1 However, they did instruct the DOJ to retrieve the wrongfully person sent to the El Salvador gulag. In return, the DOJ and Trump have chosen to defy the courts setting up a constitutional crisis and an act if successulf would destroy the effectiveness of the courts to enforce any rule...the plan of 2025 to destroy the balance of powers and set up a government with all of the power in the hands of the executive branch and a wannabe dictator. )
The attorney general of Arizona has launched an information-gathering activity to record consumer complaints about Social Security. The DOGE cuts of staff providing customer service is so severe, the state AG of a state full of retirees is taking action. In a form developed by the AG is the word "unconstitutional". What could that be? What could be the basis of a suit? I wonder if a clause in the Constitution could be the one to which the Constitution is involved. https://www.azag.gov/socialsecurity
The U.S. Constitution, specifically in Article II, Section 3, requires the President to "take care that the Laws be faithfully executed." This means the President, and the executive branch as a whole, must ensure laws passed by Congress are implemented and enforced. Per Google AI.
Update 4/9/2025 Even the Supreme Court just made it clear all deportees deserve due process, a hearing before a judge, before being shipped off to an El Salvador gulag...which included even one they know of was not a gang member. The rule of law has survived MAGA and those followers who are willing to destroy the rule of law to get their way. https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-deportations-el-salvador-9988b667199e1b02fc0a6a83570225c1
Update: 4/11/2025 The Supreme Court just set up a potentially huge clash with Trump. The issue is over the demand that the Trump regime retrieve the wrongly deported individual. What happens if the Trump regime stonewalls the order? What happens if someone, citizen or immigrant, is snatched from the streets by an arm of the executive branch, FBI, ICE, and spirited away to an offshore gulag before the person has the opportunity to get notice and seek a hearing before a judge?. Who has the power to force the executive branch to retrieve the victim? What happens if the wrongfully snatched person is a US citizen? Without a resolution to these questions, we are all potential victims of an out-of-control fascist government, as Trump is attempting to be. It was significant that at least all nine justices agreed that all citizens and immigrants, regardless of status, have the right to due process. What is still hanging in the air is what happens when the executive branch tries to pull a fast one or defies a court order?
https://mufticforumblog.blogspot.com/2025/02/what-those-who-support-rule-of-law.html What those who support the rule of law should fear the most: what happens if the Trump regime defies a court order? By whom and how can there be any enforcement?
Continuing the original post:
Original post continues:
https://mufticforumblog.blogspot.com/2025/02/what-those-who-support-rule-of-law.htm
This post contains an explainer for those who do not grasp why the rule of law is so central to a successful democracy. What seems strange to me is that there are those who would prefer an autocracy, dictatorship, rule by a strong man, king, or fascist to democracy. I would never have thought in my lifetime I would ever have to defend democracy and the rule of law to my fellow Americans. Then Trump came along. 38% of Americans under age 30 support these nondemocratic alternatives, compared with 29% of those ages 50 to 64 and 26% of those 65 and older. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/02/28/who-likes-authoritarianism-and-how-do-they-want-to-change-their-government/
I am the first to be happy to rid the US of Venezuelan gang members. However, when the Trump administration sticks its middle digit at the rule of law and claims the executive branch does not have to comply with a judge's ruling, the issue is not whether it is legal to deport criminals who were here on a visa or special immigrant permissions (it is legal if due process is applied). It is a far more serious test case that strikes at the heart of what separates democracy from a dictatorship as well as an attempt to reshape the Constitution to destroy checks and balances and separation of powers, giving exclusive control of the government to the executive branch (the goal of Project 2025). Conservative former federal judge says Trump has ‘declared war’ on US rule of law | Donald Trump | The Guardian
Opinion | Trump Won’t Win a War Against the Courts - The New York Times
The bottom line is if the Trump regime refuses to comply with a judges' rule...including a ruling by the Supreme Court, and declares they do not have to obey the judges and defy any contempt penalties, democracy is dead. And whatever you call it, you are now living in a dictatorship at that point.. I am fairly sure most in the US did not vote for this.
https://mufticforumblog.blogspot.com/2025/03/are-we-already-living-with-fascism.html
The Venezuelan deportation case is where the Trump regime is going to test how far they can go. No one has any sympathy for the alleged gang members, so the issue will be fought strictly on the law and whether we will have a democracy or not based on the rule of law or the rule of a tyrant king who uses fear and favor to get his way. Below are the options judges will have to demand compliance of civil contempt. It includes personal fines
and jail. If the defendant does not comply with the penalties, there is little left the judicial branch can do and
democracy is dead. Also below is an analogy of the importance of rules, whether in a football game or in law .
What I have noticed looking at the recent polls that reflect a plunging public approval of Trump's policies is that the reason that did not score much was "the rule of law." Many do not get it or care about the rule of law. It can be explained in NFL sports terms. There are strict rules to ensure the fairness and safety of football players. Don't grab face masks, don't interfere with a pass, don't commit unnecessary roughness, etc., and the penalties get assessed in losing yardage. The corp of officials on the field and the replays available called the fouls and assessed the penalties. The appeal is to the instant replay machine and booth off-premises. Imagine a football game without the rules being followed or officials deciding and enforcing them. The rule of law is like those rules of football but applied to governance in a democracy. Without them, politics would be a brawl, and fairness for all involved would be replaced by the rule of fear and favor, with the calls for justice going to the muscle guy who benefits for his own purposes and pockets the profits and power the entertainment value, blood on the field or takeover and destruction of democracy by a tyrant king it provides. The lawsuits and criminal trials are the game. The Constitution and rules and law derivatives are like the NFL rules. The officials on the field are the judges, and the appeals are made via instant replays, with the Supreme Court sitting in a booth to see if the rules were followed fairly. The boos from partisans in the bleachers disagreeing with the official's calls do not count any more than the howls of protest from partisan politicians or the street demonstrations.
As usual, if he does not like a judge's ruling, Trump attacks the judge personally and calls for the impeachment of the judge. It is his modus operandi, his response when he thinks the courts did not treat him fairly. In this case, in a stunning rebuke, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court reacted immediately to protect the independence of the courts and the judicial bench. Did the deportees get due process, a court hearing ot make sure they were gang members? To make sure his supporters can rationalize their support of what were illegal acts or defiance of a judge's ruling, Trump claimed Venezuela attacked us. That, at best, was a redefinition of warfare or what was an attack used to pretzel his decree into a 200plus-year-old law that allowed alien enemies to be deported.(or the Japanese put in camps in WWII without due process) Gee whiz, by golly, if we were attacked by Venezuelans, that's news to us. Why weren't we bombing them? Where's the declaration? Declaring a war when there is no one to use "war powers" to violate the law is the issue and if he gets away with it, he is setting a dangerous precedent because he can say it is OK to kick others out of the country without giving them due process or a hearing anytime he chooses and simply declaring what is a false pretense. Trump's border czar Tom Homan's response to the judge: "We don't care (what you rule), we will do what we want.", is an explicit challenge to the rule of law by an administration threatening to go rogue. https://www.axios.com/2025/03/17/tom-homan-deportation-flights-trump-court-order
Trump followed with a tweet calling for impeaching the judge in caps and screaming rhetoric:“HE DIDN’T WIN ANYTHING! I WON FOR MANY REASONS, IN AN OVERWHELMING MANDATE, BUT FIGHTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION MAY HAVE BEEN THE NUMBER ONE REASON FOR THIS HISTORIC VICTORY,” Trump wrote on Tuesday. “I’m just doing what the VOTERS wanted me to do. This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!”
This rant was immediately followed by a slap down by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court : Use the appellant process; impeachment is not appropriate. Chief Justice Roberts rebukes Trump, saying impeachment isn't 'appropriate response' to disagreeing with judge's ruling
John Roberts pushes back on Trump's judge impeachment threat
(The Alien Enemies Act of 1789states it can be invoked "whenever there is a declared war" or "any invasion or predatory incursion" perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the United States by a foreign government.,,)
To defy a court order by leaving US jurisdiction quickly without a process to determine the deportees are indeed gang members, as it appears it happened in this Venezuelan gang case, is also a precedent that could be applied to others. To get around due process required by law to determine whether the deportees were actually gang members takes away civil rights that could be used against others.
How can Trump get away with this? There are no repercussions thanks to the immunity from criminal act prosecutions given to him by his Supreme Court. The immunity does not extend to immigration czar Tom Honan or AG Pam Bondi, FYI. This, however, could become a constitutional crisis on steroids if Honan or Trump actually act to defy the courts. For now, they have to prove to the judge they were not playing keep away and getting the planes in the air before they were told they had to stop a deceptive tactic so the game is still being played within the rules (of law).
The process of how we do it is an essential element of following the rule of law, and lying about the facts or twisting them to fool public perception, using false pretenses, is a tool Trump often uses to meet his desires of the moment. He does it by using his own definitions of calling a crisis or an attack when they are not. He depends on the public's ignorance and slavish loyalty to him, which demands them to believe everything he says is the truth. Former Trump White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham ‘knows he can basically say anything, and his base will believe.’ https://thehill.com/.../4394676-grisham-trump-knows-he.../.
If a judge calls out a pretense as BS or even asks for time to hear the arguments, Trump attacks the judge as a lib, a lunatic, corrupt (where's the payoff?), or worse and calls for that judge's impeachment, not even waiting for the appeal to a higher court. That, too, is a pretense Trump uses to say he has the right to defy judge rulings he does not like, so impeach the judge. He has to come up with some cover for his illegal actions to satisfy his loyal followers that he is always righteous. It seems like some would get wise it is such a predictable rhetoric he would spew acid at a "bad judge, prejudiced against him" every time a judge rules against him,, so he threats to impeach him/'her without even waiting for an appeals court or the supreme court to rule otherwise. It is an abuse of power, to say the least, that has a profound impact on whether they continue as a country abiding by the rule of law or the rule by a tyrannical king. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/trump-officials-raise-stakes-showdowns-judges-rcna196702
U[date 3/23/2025 AG Bondi just issued a warning against lawyers filing frivolous lawsuits against the Trump regime. That's rich. 62 lawsuits were filed by Trumpsters in the 2020 "stop the steal" attempt, nearly all thrown out because they were frivolous or without any evidence. 8 have been filed against the current Trump administration; all are active save one TRO, and none were dismissed for being frivolous.
No comments:
Post a Comment