This is one problem for DOJ with acting the fool in front of Judge Boasberg - other judges will start concluding the Government cannot be trusted in litigation. - ThreadSky

rmfifthcircuit.bsky.social • 14 hours ago

This is one problem for DOJ with acting the fool in front of Judge Boasberg - other judges will start concluding the Government cannot be trusted in litigation.

Reposted from Quinta Jurecic

yowza storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Comments

mithras.bsky.social•14 hours ago

Musk was included in that order, wasn't he?

Hehehehehehehehe

juliezebrak.bsky.social•14 hours ago

Theo is no dummy

richpr.bsky.social•13 hours ago

That should already be painfully obvious

thelordgod.bsky.social•14 hours ago

If only there was a Justice who would actually follow through rather than just pointing out the obvious that they are subject to penalties including contempt.

zakariyarashid.bsky.social•13 hours ago

Read my blog about When A.I. felt too much: https://medium.com/@zak00rashid/the-empathy-paradox-when-ai-felt-too-much-f27946838559?source=friends_link&sk=240dc0a7ffc1fccaaecbbf78c5fc36ad

lkthompson.bsky.social•14 hours ago

Justly so.

spewspewitt.bsky.social•14 hours ago

I hope these judges have each others backs.

jgieseke.bsky.social•13 hours ago

That ship sailed long ago

r5-to-philly.bsky.social•14 hours ago

Fool me once.......

https://bsky.app/profile/r5-to-philly.bsky.social/post/3lkm62sptes2z

piattodelgatto.bsky.social•14 hours ago

Suppose hypothetically that I'm the attorney general. Should I put my name on every tendentious court filing?

gordonvincent.bsky.social•14 hours ago

It's a good and valid threat. Now, to see it fulfilled.

wingtips.bsky.social•14 hours ago

Good lawyers work hard to acquire a reputation for honesty. They show respect to judges because their careers depend upon this good will. Now judges wonder if the DOJ lawyer or the client (i.e. the Trump regime) is to blame for the disobedience of their orders. Wouldn’t want to be a DOJ lawyer now.

anthrodiva.bsky.social•14 hours ago

I mean, they can't!

joedudekjd.bsky.social•14 hours ago

I am not emotionally prepared for the stay motion. “I know you said we violated the first two articles of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and at least two statutes, but could we please just do that for a little longer? Thanks.”

dankeevy.bsky.social•14 hours ago

The judge reading the pdf in the car on the way home. A one act play.

penguinonepal.bsky.social•14 hours ago

Could be misreading the tone, but this one also from today feels like it's of the same piece in distrusting the government's tactics (especially with the "before" in bold and underlined). https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.564248/gov.uscourts.njd.564248.7.0.pdf

edenarachnelatro.bsky.social•13 hours ago

And then?

tehubbard.bsky.social•14 hours ago

Start?

lynn0908.bsky.social•14 hours ago

I consider that a win for the rest of us.

wolmanj.bsky.social•13 hours ago

About time

rmfifthcircuit.bsky.social•14 hours ago

The United States has a lot of credibility in Court because of what it is and what DOJ has historically been - which it makes great hay of against normal litigants - but it judges don't believe it anymore, you get this.

informed1.bsky.social•13 hours ago

The DOJ lawyers lying to the court or submitting ludicrous arguments, e.g., birthright citizenship nonsense, need to be disbarred.

cdf.bsky.social•13 hours ago

I suspect judges are observing the new norm of the Executive Branch ignoring court orders and nullifying any pretext of judicial authority at all. How long before DOGE calls them "superfluous" & ships them off to Ecuador if they complain? SOONER THAN YOU THINK.

It's now or never for the Judiciary.

ecppdx.bsky.social•12 hours ago

The United States *shouldn't* have a lot of credibility in court, since it's a constantly shifting entity. The government wasn't trustworthy under Trump's last administration and judges should have learned from that.

giffordhead.co.uk•14 hours ago

It strikes me as being similar to an individual lawyer's integrity. We always tell pupils here that once you lose that you've lost it forever which is why no case is ever worth throwing it away on.

d-m.bsky.social•14 hours ago

I suppose the courts distrusting the government doesn't have any real bearing on whether the courts are able to enjoin the government against doing whatever bad thing they want to do, but it probably does make it harder to use the courts to harass enemies of the state.

So...mixed result?

d-m.bsky.social•14 hours ago

(My point being that the likely end game here is a) the executive ignores court orders, but b) also is bad at prosecuting enemies.)

scavamungus.bsky.social•14 hours ago

I suppose with LE firmly on their side, they can be very good at persecuting people with worrying so much about prosecuting them.

d-m.bsky.social•14 hours ago

Absolutely, and there are plenty of other mechanisms for persecution (e.g. IRS audits). I'm not saying any of this is good--just that it seems like it leads to a weakening of the influence of the courts overall and is somewhat double-edged in the admin's efforts to go after enemies.

gt4pete.bsky.social•14 hours ago

"Your honor I would like one 'DOJ Premium Rights Package' for the duration of my case please."

ajaxsinger.bsky.social•14 hours ago

I do wonder how long before this loss of ethos bleeds into the general public and jury trials...

ryanhumphrey.bsky.social•14 hours ago

I think the legal profession already badly underestimate how little integrity the general public thinks their profession has

ajaxsinger.bsky.social•14 hours ago

That's probably true, but juries are still mostly predisposed to view prosecutors as trustworthy. Local policing evils being revealed has sometimes poisoned the well in some jurisdictions but I'm wondering if a political and stupid DoJ does so federally.

ryanhumphrey.bsky.social•14 hours ago

I mostly follow legal-posters for the dumpster-fire posts. There’s a list of known bad actors a mile long, and they very rarely face professional consequences.The public absolutely judges the legal profession based on the least ethical lawyer that doesn’t get disbarred, and that’s a very low bar

ajaxsinger.bsky.social•14 hours ago

I think you're right about what the public thinks about lawyers but that that low esteem is generally left at the courtroom door when Joe Citizen is called for jury duty. In the courtroom it's mostly replaced with a faith in the system and its representative.

badguitarist.bsky.social•14 hours ago

Well he didn’t say this includes orders issued from the bench, did he. /s

faeelin.bsky.social•14 hours ago

This is stock language lol

alanpdx23.bsky.social•14 hours ago

They can't be trusted. They have already shown that.

nauticavan.bsky.social•14 hours ago

But again I ask, who will enforce the rulings?

lkthompson.bsky.social•14 hours ago

I’ve said this exact thing. What agency would enforce violations, DOJ? They would decline to prosecute & IF there is any attempt at forced enforcement, POTUS will pardon.

mitokandria.bsky.social•13 hours ago

Again a constitutional crisis. One that people are willing to bend backwards and bend reality not to have to deal with.

waderockett.bsky.social•14 hours ago

This is a helpful explainer: https://www.democracydocket.com/opinion/if-the-marshals-go-rogue-courts-have-other-ways-to-enforce-their-orders/

geauxblue.bsky.social•14 hours ago

The court has inherent authority to enforce its orders and can jail people for contempt without a criminal prosecution until they agree to comply with the order. If the US Marshals refused to enforce the court can appoint others to enforce.

lkthompson.bsky.social•14 hours ago

Right, then POSTUS will pardon. The courts are in a quagmire when it comes to enforcement.

chikitty.bsky.social•10 hours ago

Not really, as the article explains in detail.

Also, pardon isn’t an on the table here.

https://bsky.app/profile/waderockett.bsky.social/post/3lkoiubtm2s2r

chikitty.bsky.social•10 hours ago

Civil contempt is not pardonable.

geauxblue.bsky.social•14 hours ago

The law is not clear whether a president can pardon for civil contempt. If the executive is flouting court orders and trying to pardon its way out of civil contempt penalties we’re already far down the road of a constitutional crisis (and we’re already on that road).

chikitty.bsky.social•10 hours ago

The law is clear.

He can’t.

nauticavan.bsky.social•14 hours ago

And what agency would those others work for?

geauxblue.bsky.social•14 hours ago

If they’re appointed by the judge in this scenario, they’d work for the federal courts.

acunaandrew.bsky.social•14 hours ago

This is what happens when you get rid of the smart people in the agency

erdoc.bsky.social•14 hours ago

That's exactly their plane is to cause mistrust in the system so they can sell it

grahamshevlin.bsky.social•14 hours ago

If they haven't already reached that conclusion, I question their level of alertness.

goldensama.bsky.social•12 hours ago

It’s only a problem if the DOJ had to listen to judges. The way things are going, Trump is just going to declare the entire judiciary branch null and void. Until we actually stop his massive power grab nothing matters.

saraht74.bsky.social•14 hours ago

There's been a LOT of gratuitous acting the fool by DOJ lately. District court judges are noticing.

tvineveryroom.bsky.social•14 hours ago

I think it's great to see judges taking a stand here. But I'm concerned out who is going to actually enforce this decision for the judges when (not if) the orders are violated?

rst.bsky.social•14 hours ago

It ain't just Boasberg. In California, Alsup is openly complaining that he was misled (e.g., when the government told him that fired employees had certain routes for appeal -- which they didn't because the offices that would hear those appeals were themselves unstaffed).

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply