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. 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 NFL football without the rules and officials on the field or instant replays to appeal their judgment calls.
(Update 4/6/2025 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.) 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