The Purge

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Since they will get away with this, the Trump administration will start arresting any judge that they don't like. The US military is impotent, and nothing will activate them to uphold their oath to the Constitution.
This case started with ICE illegally interrupting a court case, and when the judge responded with trying to uphold the law, they still arrested the man, and now the judge (a state judge - so much for states rights).

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Since they will get away with this, the Trump administration will start arresting any judge that they don't like. The US military is impotent, and nothing will activate them to uphold their oath to the Constitution.

I see this as all part of the purge of people in govt functions that could stop any particular thing Trump would want to do. I commented earlier on how they wanted to impeach judges, then it became a move to redo the courts jurisdictions so the ones they do not like disappear from their districts. Now we see a case of an arrest of a judge, but there are still many other ways to skin a cat.

Most recently, I saw this:

Trump fires more immigration judges in what some suspect is a move to bend courts to his will

Congressional members warn that bottlenecked courts will be hurt as Trump administration fire immigration judges, demand that Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi explain

www.latimes.com

Outright firing judges you disagree with, more unconstitutional/illegal moves, but who will stop them?

 

[crazyfingers]

Since they will get away with this, the Trump administration will start arresting any judge that they don't like. The US military is impotent, and nothing will activate them to uphold their oath to the Constitution.

I see this as all part of the purge of people in govt functions that could stop any particular thing Trump would want to do. I commented earlier on how they wanted to impeach judges, then it became a move to redo the courts jurisdictions so the ones they do not like disappear from their districts. Now we see a case of an arrest of a judge, but there are still many other ways to skin a cat.

Most recently, I saw this:

Trump fires more immigration judges in what some suspect is a move to bend courts to his will

Congressional members warn that bottlenecked courts will be hurt as Trump administration fire immigration judges, demand that Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi explain

www.latimes.com

Outright firing judges you disagree with, more unconstitutional/illegal moves, but who will stop them?

Immigration judges are part of the Executive Branch, In the DoJ. Not the Judicial Branch of government.

While this is sick and repugnant, it's probably not unconstitutional. It might be illegal. I don't know.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Since they will get away with this, the Trump administration will start arresting any judge that they don't like. The US military is impotent, and nothing will activate them to uphold their oath to the Constitution.

I see this as all part of the purge of people in govt functions that could stop any particular thing Trump would want to do. I commented earlier on how they wanted to impeach judges, then it became a move to redo the courts jurisdictions so the ones they do not like disappear from their districts. Now we see a case of an arrest of a judge, but there are still many other ways to skin a cat.

Most recently, I saw this:

Trump fires more immigration judges in what some suspect is a move to bend courts to his will

Congressional members warn that bottlenecked courts will be hurt as Trump administration fire immigration judges, demand that Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi explain

www.latimes.com

Outright firing judges you disagree with, more unconstitutional/illegal moves, but who will stop them?

Immigration judges are part of the Executive Branch, In the DoJ. Not the Judicial Branch of government.

While this is sick and repugnant, it's probably not unconstitutional. It might be illegal. I don't know.

The reason I wrote that is because I think it is unconstitutional/illegal, and the specific reason I think that goes back to arguments I made in previous posts. For example, Congress and a previous President passed the budget as a law because that is the Constitutional way to do it. Mass layoffs to do a different budget by a rogue President fall under the illegal classification because it is inconsistent with the budget, but also because the President does not have constitutional authority to do it. In the case of the judges, even if they are under executive branch, targeting California (i.e. a very liberal state) and immigration judges in particular and the structural jobs needed to support them is a policy prerogative provided it is proposed to Congress and the budget eliminated for these positions that then became passed for the upcoming year. What was done instead was superseding the budgetary authority of Congress and implementing policy that hasn't been voted upon as much as it needs to be. It certainly seems to be for anti-immigrant reasons.

 

[crazyfingers]

Since they will get away with this, the Trump administration will start arresting any judge that they don't like. The US military is impotent, and nothing will activate them to uphold their oath to the Constitution.

I see this as all part of the purge of people in govt functions that could stop any particular thing Trump would want to do. I commented earlier on how they wanted to impeach judges, then it became a move to redo the courts jurisdictions so the ones they do not like disappear from their districts. Now we see a case of an arrest of a judge, but there are still many other ways to skin a cat.

Most recently, I saw this:

Trump fires more immigration judges in what some suspect is a move to bend courts to his will

Congressional members warn that bottlenecked courts will be hurt as Trump administration fire immigration judges, demand that Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi explain

www.latimes.com

Outright firing judges you disagree with, more unconstitutional/illegal moves, but who will stop them?

Immigration judges are part of the Executive Branch, In the DoJ. Not the Judicial Branch of government.

While this is sick and repugnant, it's probably not unconstitutional. It might be illegal. I don't know.

The reason I wrote that is because I think it is unconstitutional/illegal, and the specific reason I think that goes back to arguments I made in previous posts. For example, Congress and a previous President passed the budget as a law because that is the Constitutional way to do it. Mass layoffs to do a different budget by a rogue President fall under the illegal classification because it is inconsistent with the budget, but also because the President does not have constitutional authority to do it. In the case of the judges, even if they are under executive branch, targeting California (i.e. a very liberal state) and immigration judges in particular and the structural jobs needed to support them is a policy prerogative provided it is proposed to Congress and the budget eliminated for these positions that then became passed for the upcoming year. What was done instead was superseding the budgetary authority of Congress and implementing policy that hasn't been voted upon as much as it needs to be. It certainly seems to be for anti-immigrant reasons.

I agree that Trump eliminating government agencies violates the constitution because agencies and their budgets are created by congress and are law.

I am not sure how firing an individual immigration judge relates. While it's incredibly wrong, evil, etc... I don't think that it relates to the elimination of departments and layoffs.

This is really Trump firing someone that he disagrees with. Which may or may not be legal.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Trump’s justice department appointees remove leadership of voting unit

Section is responsible for enforcing laws designed to prevent voter discrimination, raised alarm about voting rights enforcement

www.theguardian.com

Donald Trump’s appointees at the Department of Justice have removed all of the senior civil servants working as managers in the department’s voting section and directed attorneys to dismiss all active cases, according to people familiar with the matter, part of a broader attack on the department’s civil rights division.

The moves come less than a month after Trump ally Harmeet Dhillon was confirmed to lead the civil rights division, created in 1957 and referred to as the “crown jewel” of the justice department. In an unusual move, Dhillon sent out new “mission statements” to the department’s sections that made it clear the civil rights division was shifting its focus from protecting the civil rights of marginalized people to supporting Trump’s priorities.

 

[crazyfingers]

Trump’s justice department appointees remove leadership of voting unit

Section is responsible for enforcing laws designed to prevent voter discrimination, raised alarm about voting rights enforcement

www.theguardian.com

Donald Trump’s appointees at the Department of Justice have removed all of the senior civil servants working as managers in the department’s voting section and directed attorneys to dismiss all active cases, according to people familiar with the matter, part of a broader attack on the department’s civil rights division.

The moves come less than a month after Trump ally Harmeet Dhillon was confirmed to lead the civil rights division, created in 1957 and referred to as the “crown jewel” of the justice department. In an unusual move, Dhillon sent out new “mission statements” to the department’s sections that made it clear the civil rights division was shifting its focus from protecting the civil rights of marginalized people to supporting Trump’s priorities.

Trump is such a piece of shit!

Once again this is probably illegal/unconstitutional. If that was created by a law with the mission to protect civil rights written into the law, then Trump and his buttsuckerts have no power to change the mission or close the office without a new law.

Very likely another lawsuit coming.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

US dismisses all authors of National Climate Assessment, email says​

Trump fires entire US climate panel: What it means for future research​

Trump Administration Fires Authors of Key U.S. Climate Report​

 

[robnisch]

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Corporation for Public Broadcasting sues Trump after he tries to fire board members

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Trump fires longtime Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden

Carla Hayden has been the Librarian of Congress since 2016. She was the first woman and African American to hold the position.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Pam Bondi fires three Jan. 6 prosecutors, sending another chill through DOJ workforce

The dismissals were the first time that prosecutors who worked on Jan. 6 cases and were past their probationary period of federal employment had been fired by the Justice Department.

www.nbcnews.com

I am surprised there were any left after a bunch of people had been fired back in January who had worked on the J6 prosecutions. These firings were of people who had made it past the probationary period, and so there was no basis for firing, other than for the political calculus of consolidating control.

FBI’s polygraph purge: Kash Patel-led US agency using lie detector to test staff loyalty, says report

Since Kash Patel assumed charge as the Director of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the agency has intensified its reliance on polygraph tests — not just to guard national secrets, but to test employee loyalty as well, according to a report

www.firstpost.com

Polygraphs are being administered under the guise of looking for leaks, but there are other questions being asked, such as, were you friends with so-and-so who was let go, and have you said anything negative about various people in charge?

The effect of these kinds of things is to create a fearfully loyal atmosphere not based on the rule of law or their oath to defend the Constitution.

 

[robnisch]

Corporation for Public Broadcasting sues Trump after he tries to fire board members

Now that the funding is gone and they are shutting down.
We should ask. Is NPR biased?
I would say, more or less, yes.
I'm a longtime supporter of public broadcasting because they try to tell both sides more than anyone else.
What's that saying? "The truth has a liberal bias".