What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

SCOTUS: sponsored by Harlan Crow

busterman62 said:
Serious question.
What is SCOTUS to do when Trump decides that his is going to defy their rulings? IIRC, US Marshall service is under the DOJ which is part of the Executive branch (Being an Old, I last took a Civics class long before most of you were born). As such, Trump will stop them from doing anything. Congress put their Yarbles in a jar on Trump's fireplace many moons ago so the chances of an impeachment and conviction is about like my chances of winning the PowerBall. I can't think of anything substantial actually happening once Trump decides to flip off SCOTUS and recite the lyric from Stairway to Cleveland. Unfortunately, I fear it's just a matter of time before it happens.
Click to expand...
Sorry, should have replied to you but you can read my answer above.
 
dxmnkd316 said:
I guess I reject this as a comparison because it's just not analogous. THe more apt analogy is whether you'd want your distinguished ivy league professor to be your lawyer for trial. The answer there is generally not. Amicus briefs sure. BUt not the trial lawyer.

I would definitely want someone who was a law professor who studies and teaches the law as theory to be writing the opinions. I really don't understand why this is remotely controversial. Law professors have a better understanding of the bases of law and the more theoretical questions and bounds of them. Those are the people who should be on the higher courts. Or rather, that kind of qualification is something we should be seeking.

In the lower courts, fine, you probably don't need a professorship to be ruling on basic cases. That's where having experience practicing the law is much more useful.
Click to expand...
Its controversial because the law is more than just flowery words on a page. There is practicality to it, and there is real world implications to the decisions that are made. Academics dont deal in that...I know, I am one. Academics argue why Communism can work based on "data" but actual living history shows why it doesnt.

The law is a living breathing thing that needs to change over time. Those changes need to be informed by experience. You dont experience teaching Con Law at the U of M you get it by being in courtrooms and by dealing with actual people. Anyone can write an opinion in a vacuum when there is no real world consequences behind it.

To you, who have been the best justices? Why were they best justices?

Real world experience trumps study man. It is much easier to understand a problem when you are dealing with it in your face.

But here...academically speaking you can make arguments for some of the things that the current court has said and done. If I was in a class I might even do so. But those decisions in the real world cause irreparable harm. The law is more than just being able to cite chapter and verse its about knowing how using those will affect the people. This is a court that is the highest in the land interpreting laws on behalf of all of us. I would rather have someone ruling who has seen firsthand what application of the laws can do.
 
dxmnkd316 said:
This is objectively wrong. If the US marshals refuse to enforce a court order the courts can deputize anyone they want to carry out the orders.
Click to expand...
Its not wrong...what you are describing has never really happened in the way you are talking about and there is actually no provision that allows it directly from the court that I can find. The rules about that (from what I have read as an amateur) don't give them the authority to just deputize anyone to enforce the law, its more that they are deputized to serve subpoenas and the like. If you want true deputization (you would need the Marshalls to grant that because, again, the DOJ has those powers. There is nothing in Rule 4.1a or 4.1b that says that anyone can be deputized to enforce the law.

Rule 4.1


(a) In General. Process—other than a summons under Rule 4 or a subpoena under Rule 45 —must be served by a United States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially appointed for that purpose. It may be served anywhere within the territorial limits of the state where the district court is located and, if authorized by a federal statute, beyond those limits. Proof of service must be made under Rule 4( l ) .

(b) Enforcing Orders: Committing for Civil Contempt. An order committing a person for civil contempt of a decree or injunction issued to enforce federal law may be served and enforced in any district. Any other order in a civil-contempt proceeding may be served only in the state where the issuing court is located or elsewhere in the United States within 100 miles from where the order was issued.
Click to expand...

(again I am not a legal scholar everything I know comes from the research I can do when I have time so maybe there is more I never studied or read so I could definitely be mistaken)

Now the people at Democracy Docket make the leap that since it doesn't say who can enforce the order that can be interpreted to mean that anyone can. Their argument is actually sound (basically the same one we have all be making and using Rule 4.3 as a road map...see below) but even they admit this would be breaking new ground. It has never been tried as far as I can see, and I highly doubt the Supreme Court that handed Trump immunity would allow a lower court to make such an action. And we both know there is zero chance they would do it themselves...even ACB since it is not expressly said in the Constitution that it is a thing.

According to the Supreme Court interpretation of rule 4.3:

The Court mentioned specifically the power to deal summarily with contempt committed in the presence of the courts or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice, and the power to enforce mandatory decrees by coercive means.<a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S1-4-3/ALDE_00013522/#ALDF_00025279">16</a> The Court has held that this latter power to enforce includes the authority to appoint private counsel to prosecute a criminal contempt.<a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S1-4-3/ALDE_00013522/#ALDF_00025280">17</a>
Click to expand...
Now I guess you could take a super liberal view of "prosecute" to get there, but that is quite a stretch and again, no way this SC allows that.

edit: I apologize to uno and any other lawyers for any stupid misinterpretations I might have made...as I said I am at best an amateur who is just related to a lot of lawyers and planned to be one for years so I took some classes years ago.
 
Last edited:
LynahFan said:
Doesn’t matter who they deputize. Deputies can’t remove Trump from office nor force his hand to sign a rescission of unconditional EOs. What’s the remedy?
Click to expand...
revolution-guillotine.gif
 
Handyman said:
Its not wrong...what you are describing has never really happened in the way you are talking about and there is actually no provision that allows it directly from the court that I can find. The rules about that (from what I have read as an amateur) don't give them the authority to just deputize anyone to enforce the law, its more that they are deputized to serve subpoenas and the like. If you want true deputization (you would need the Marshalls to grant that because, again, the DOJ has those powers. There is nothing in Rule 4.1a or 4.1b that says that anyone can be deputized to enforce the law.

Rule 4.1




(again I am not a legal scholar everything I know comes from the research I can do when I have time so maybe there is more I never studied or read so I could definitely be mistaken)

Now the people at Democracy Docket make the leap that since it doesn't say who can enforce the order that can be interpreted to mean that anyone can. Their argument is actually sound (basically the same one we have all be making and using Rule 4.3 as a road map...see below) but even they admit this would be breaking new ground. It has never been tried as far as I can see, and I highly doubt the Supreme Court that handed Trump immunity would allow a lower court to make such an action. And we both know there is zero chance they would do it themselves...even ACB since it is not expressly said in the Constitution that it is a thing.

According to the Supreme Court interpretation of rule 4.3:


Now I guess you could take a super liberal view of "prosecute" to get there, but that is quite a stretch and again, no way this SC allows that.

edit: I apologize to uno and any other lawyers for any stupid misinterpretations I might have made...as I said I am at best an amateur who is just related to a lot of lawyers and planned to be one for years so I took some classes years ago.
Click to expand...

Hey nothing else has happened recently that has never happened historically either. So…
 
aparch said:
9-0 sweep, Trump admin needs to go to El Salvador and bring Kilmar Garcia home.
Click to expand...
I dunno they said "facilitate" bringing him home to me that seems vague enough that Trump will futz with it and make it seem like they "cant".
 
bsky.app

Joshua J. Friedman (@joshuajfriedman.com)

WOW: “Defendants are not in a position where they "can" share any information requested by the Court. That is the reality.” DOJ refuses to say more, doesn’t even say whether they are refusing to appear at 1 pm hearing
bsky.app bsky.app

Like I said...the Court gave them a way out by saying "facilitate".
 
Pretty much as expected. I bet Roberts came up with the "facilitate" word to give his Orange God and his minion Bondi an out.
 
As expected. Like I have been saying for a while. WHO is going to stop them? That's what we will figure out. My guess is nobody. And when that is confirmed (basically needs to keep all the Republicans in Congress on his side) he will have unlimited power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top