Very powerful. Those retired judges - the very image of rectitude and non-partisanship - bring weight to the matter—it is justice, and democracy, that matter … not politics.
It would be better for the rule of law if more prominent professionals would speak out in defense of it. That includes the elected Representatives and Senators in the republican party. Too many people have stayed quiet for too long.
The treatment of migrants is lawless and this administration doesn’t give a f*ck. There are people in DOJ, FBI, DHS & ICE that should be investigated and prosecuted. Starting with the felon at the top!
Those in the Trump Concentration Camps are suffering and nobody cares or remembers them. They are humans, most of them just trying for a better life. Some of the people in DOJ, FBI, DHS, and ICE forget that, and yes they should be investigated!!
For simplicity sake let’s say that the government is found to have disregarded the law, what is the punishment for The Government. Is it simply a slap on the wrist? Is there a mechanism for punishment and to whom? The president? The pilots who flew the aircraft? Is there written law beside impeachment which is won or lost through politics?
For this instance I’m not interested in punishment to the judge.
Our homework every day as democracy defenders & of course, contrarians, is to get through the day relatively intact. We study our notes, Joyce keeps it real. We stay present. There are millions of us. The regime knows this. Hive behavior. Resistance. Bring it on.
I agree, Ginny ... (there are millions of us who didn't vote for Trump 05nov2024, as in almost 166.7 million. 77.3m voted for him (49.8%), 75m for Kamala, and about 2.9m for "other"(total 50.2%). 88.8m didn't vote or couldn't vote, or otherwise experienced some kind of voter suppression -- BUT, they didn't vote for him.) ... the vast majority of U.S. do not support him, nor his regime, and the number who don't is growing with proceeding day, and each new outrage, embarrassment, cruel action, or inanity.
Hungarians booted Orban in April when 79% voted. In the USA in 2024? 12M Biden voters sat out the election, and overall, 64% voted. Closing ANY of those gaps means a BLUNAMI.
Everyone can find their niche. No act is too small. We are going to win!
We must make sure we do have an election! That is my main concern. The blue numbers seem to be very strong, but if the election does not happen or people are prevented from voting, our millions will not matter. Are we doing anything about that?
Thanks, Eric for the GOTV link ❤️ ... we just got our 200 postcards and stamps to prep for mid-October mailing. It's our small, but determined contribution. https://turnoutpac.org/postcards/
It is pretty obvious that the Regime has suborned and corrupted the DOJ for its own political ends. If this doesn’t ultimately get overturned, the courts are rendered impotent and the regime can do literally anything it wishes. It will be a long, long time before DOJ can regain any presumption of regularity.
Thank you for your continued vigilance and explanations of legal proceedings. I don’t envy you having to listen to the orange shitgibbon and his clown car of paint-scum. Keep up the good work, we support you!
Thank you for bringing court decisions and actions to our attention. It keeps me sane knowing there are Judges out there who still care about the Law and the Constitution.
All of this scholarly analysis distills to a pinpoint drop of meaning..."Do we have laws or not?" In Trumpiana, that world says, contrary to Marbury v. Madison, the law is what we say it is, what we want. I imagine that the break room at the Supreme Court is abuzz regretting the Trump decision granting the President immunity for just about anything. I wonder if the Hon. Justices Kagan, Jackson, and Sotomayor (and Bryant...maybe..) are able to split a Danish with Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh. I wonder if the halls are awkwardly quiet when they walk around, politely smiling, yet ignoring each other like long-married spouses who have nothing to say to each other. Dobbs and Trump v US...OMG. "Who's gonna share this bagel?" The reflecting pool debacle is a metaphor for this Trump presidency...rotten stink with the floors in tatters. I often contemplate where things will go after 3 November. I sense that "all the fun" of being a Supreme Court Justice has waned amidst their grueling and very personal work they must do...cutting the baby in half, as they must do in Birthright. It's going to be offal.
I would be stunned if the half carton of eggs narcissistic whores on the court have any regrets about the immunity decision. If they were thoughtful and self aware, they wouldn't have given this thug, of all presidents , this power.
I agree. Someone mused: I wonder how they sleep at night. My reply: They sleep just fine. They have lots of goodies (read grift), lifetime job, good hours and long breaks. What's not to like if you have no moral compass to begin with!
I am so glad that you remind us that we are all in this together! I appreciate that so many retired judges have made their opinion based upon long standing experience and appreciation of what being a judge means, becoming public. You bring us up to date on issues that matter and then seemed to be forgotten or ignored. Emil Bové is way past due for punishment.
I can only hope that the full DC appellate court will reverse the panel and allow justice to be served. If Emil Bove, as the Acting Deputy Attorney General, ordered the Department's attorneys to ignore the district court's ruling, he ought to finally have to answer for it. The whistleblowers should be heard in court as to exactly what was said in those meetings.
To my mind, the Boasberg case raises once again the tension in the law between reality or how it actually operates and its theory. The principle that you must obey a court order until it's reversed on appeal --- the principle Boasberg invoked against the administration --- applies with very different weight depending on who you are. For the federal government or a major corporation, appealing is costless in the practical sense that matters most: you keep operating, you have lawyers on staff, and the cost of litigation is an acceptable business expense or simply appropriated funds. The "obey first, appeal second" rule doesn't meaningfully constrain you because compliance doesn't threaten your existence. For an ordinary citizen or small business it can be devastating. If you're ordered to stop doing something that constitutes your livelihood while your appeal works its way through a system that takes years, the appeal becomes meaningless even if you eventually win. You've already been destroyed. The contempt power amplifies this asymmetry further. A private citizen who defies a court order while appealing it risks immediate incarceration or ruinous fines. Senior executive officials defying a court order get four emergency stays from sympathetic appellate judges and a year of procedural protection while the government litigates whether the order was clear enough to obey in the first place.
Justice is definitely not blind. Power gets a pass. The rest of us are deported, sent to jail, or even murdered for trumped (yes, good word here) charges.
Yes, available for individuals but frequently inaccessible in practice without substantial assets, and courts are not obligated to accommodate inability to post bond absent a compelling showing. And, of course, Rule 62 and FRAP Rule 8 do not apply to criminal cases.
IFP status means you litigated without prepaying fees --- it doesn't extinguish a judgment entered against you, and it doesn't substitute for a supersedeas bond. That it can be applied to the necessary bond is up to the court's discretion and a full waiver is harder to get than a reduced bond or an alternative security arrangement. If the district court denies, FRAP Rule 8 lets you take the same argument to the circuit --- but you have to have tried and failed below first. The circuit applies the same discretionary standard and is not bound by the district court's ruling. And while IFP is a relatively low bar to clear for truly indigent litigants, courts do scrutinize the required affidavit carefully ---false statements are perjury, and courts will deny IFP if the financial picture is ambiguous or the claim appears exaggerated. So the process is easy --- being able to proceed IFP, however, is not a slam dunk.
To this non-lawyer, the foregoing discussion is all really depressing. It sounds like cards stacked against everyone but the government no matter which way one turns.
Unfortunately in the U.S. system it pretty much is the luck of the draw. Can you get a compassionate judge --- but yes, the weight of empirical evidence supports the view that wealth and power confer substantial advantages at nearly every stage --- arrest, charging, bail, plea bargaining, trial, sentencing, and appeal. The disagreement is more about why (underfunding vs. structural design vs. cultural bias) and how much (correlated disadvantage vs. fundamentally corrupted system) than about whether. Few credible observers argue the system treats a homeless defendant and a corporate executive identically. The harder question is whether this represents a deviation from an otherwise fair system --- a fixable resource problem --- or reflects something more fundamental about how law operates in a society with large wealth inequality.
I await the day when trump and everyone in his administration like Emil Bove and the other idolators are prosecuted and sent to jail. Only then will I believe the rule of law has been restored.
Very powerful. Those retired judges - the very image of rectitude and non-partisanship - bring weight to the matter—it is justice, and democracy, that matter … not politics.
It would be better for the rule of law if more prominent professionals would speak out in defense of it. That includes the elected Representatives and Senators in the republican party. Too many people have stayed quiet for too long.
Wishful thinking. Democrats speak out and are ignored or demonized; Republicans, no spines … or voted out.
Aren't most of them attorneys themselves? Except for the football coaches of course
Yes, and Ted Cruz graduated from Harvard—so much debased, and legacies ruined.
I've thought about that. What must these law schools think about their graduates who proudly claim their alma mater.
They stay quiet … lest Trump sues them for DEI, unconvincing charges of antisemitism, employment of “nasty women” etc.
There is not one good thing to say about Ted Cruz!
Indeed. Apparently he is the most disliked person in Congress … quite a feat these days.
The treatment of migrants is lawless and this administration doesn’t give a f*ck. There are people in DOJ, FBI, DHS & ICE that should be investigated and prosecuted. Starting with the felon at the top!
Those in the Trump Concentration Camps are suffering and nobody cares or remembers them. They are humans, most of them just trying for a better life. Some of the people in DOJ, FBI, DHS, and ICE forget that, and yes they should be investigated!!
Thank you for your superhuman keeping up with litigation and making it clear for those of us who do not deal with the law. Take care of yourself.
I’m a lawyer and I think Joyce writes so clearly and wonderfully, that it’s such a pleasure to read even though the situation itself is tough.
Thank you, professor. I remember that. This administration is responding very much badly in the matter of migrants.
For simplicity sake let’s say that the government is found to have disregarded the law, what is the punishment for The Government. Is it simply a slap on the wrist? Is there a mechanism for punishment and to whom? The president? The pilots who flew the aircraft? Is there written law beside impeachment which is won or lost through politics?
For this instance I’m not interested in punishment to the judge.
Our homework every day as democracy defenders & of course, contrarians, is to get through the day relatively intact. We study our notes, Joyce keeps it real. We stay present. There are millions of us. The regime knows this. Hive behavior. Resistance. Bring it on.
I agree, Ginny ... (there are millions of us who didn't vote for Trump 05nov2024, as in almost 166.7 million. 77.3m voted for him (49.8%), 75m for Kamala, and about 2.9m for "other"(total 50.2%). 88.8m didn't vote or couldn't vote, or otherwise experienced some kind of voter suppression -- BUT, they didn't vote for him.) ... the vast majority of U.S. do not support him, nor his regime, and the number who don't is growing with proceeding day, and each new outrage, embarrassment, cruel action, or inanity.
Yes, we who are pro-democracy are the large majority. After being clear on the outrages, let's turn anger into action!
To generate a Blue Tsunami and make November's election results TOO BIG TO RIG, this toolkit has actions any of us can take to Get Out The Vote:
https://tinyurl.com/4e2zsxmj
Hungarians booted Orban in April when 79% voted. In the USA in 2024? 12M Biden voters sat out the election, and overall, 64% voted. Closing ANY of those gaps means a BLUNAMI.
Everyone can find their niche. No act is too small. We are going to win!
We must make sure we do have an election! That is my main concern. The blue numbers seem to be very strong, but if the election does not happen or people are prevented from voting, our millions will not matter. Are we doing anything about that?
I think many people are working to ensure fair elections! Here's hoping they, and we, prevail!
Thanks, Eric for the GOTV link ❤️ ... we just got our 200 postcards and stamps to prep for mid-October mailing. It's our small, but determined contribution. https://turnoutpac.org/postcards/
It is pretty obvious that the Regime has suborned and corrupted the DOJ for its own political ends. If this doesn’t ultimately get overturned, the courts are rendered impotent and the regime can do literally anything it wishes. It will be a long, long time before DOJ can regain any presumption of regularity.
Thank you for your continued vigilance and explanations of legal proceedings. I don’t envy you having to listen to the orange shitgibbon and his clown car of paint-scum. Keep up the good work, we support you!
Thank you for bringing court decisions and actions to our attention. It keeps me sane knowing there are Judges out there who still care about the Law and the Constitution.
All of this scholarly analysis distills to a pinpoint drop of meaning..."Do we have laws or not?" In Trumpiana, that world says, contrary to Marbury v. Madison, the law is what we say it is, what we want. I imagine that the break room at the Supreme Court is abuzz regretting the Trump decision granting the President immunity for just about anything. I wonder if the Hon. Justices Kagan, Jackson, and Sotomayor (and Bryant...maybe..) are able to split a Danish with Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh. I wonder if the halls are awkwardly quiet when they walk around, politely smiling, yet ignoring each other like long-married spouses who have nothing to say to each other. Dobbs and Trump v US...OMG. "Who's gonna share this bagel?" The reflecting pool debacle is a metaphor for this Trump presidency...rotten stink with the floors in tatters. I often contemplate where things will go after 3 November. I sense that "all the fun" of being a Supreme Court Justice has waned amidst their grueling and very personal work they must do...cutting the baby in half, as they must do in Birthright. It's going to be offal.
I would be stunned if the half carton of eggs narcissistic whores on the court have any regrets about the immunity decision. If they were thoughtful and self aware, they wouldn't have given this thug, of all presidents , this power.
Or ruined women's rights either.
I agree. Someone mused: I wonder how they sleep at night. My reply: They sleep just fine. They have lots of goodies (read grift), lifetime job, good hours and long breaks. What's not to like if you have no moral compass to begin with!
I am so glad that you remind us that we are all in this together! I appreciate that so many retired judges have made their opinion based upon long standing experience and appreciation of what being a judge means, becoming public. You bring us up to date on issues that matter and then seemed to be forgotten or ignored. Emil Bové is way past due for punishment.
I can only hope that the full DC appellate court will reverse the panel and allow justice to be served. If Emil Bove, as the Acting Deputy Attorney General, ordered the Department's attorneys to ignore the district court's ruling, he ought to finally have to answer for it. The whistleblowers should be heard in court as to exactly what was said in those meetings.
To my mind, the Boasberg case raises once again the tension in the law between reality or how it actually operates and its theory. The principle that you must obey a court order until it's reversed on appeal --- the principle Boasberg invoked against the administration --- applies with very different weight depending on who you are. For the federal government or a major corporation, appealing is costless in the practical sense that matters most: you keep operating, you have lawyers on staff, and the cost of litigation is an acceptable business expense or simply appropriated funds. The "obey first, appeal second" rule doesn't meaningfully constrain you because compliance doesn't threaten your existence. For an ordinary citizen or small business it can be devastating. If you're ordered to stop doing something that constitutes your livelihood while your appeal works its way through a system that takes years, the appeal becomes meaningless even if you eventually win. You've already been destroyed. The contempt power amplifies this asymmetry further. A private citizen who defies a court order while appealing it risks immediate incarceration or ruinous fines. Senior executive officials defying a court order get four emergency stays from sympathetic appellate judges and a year of procedural protection while the government litigates whether the order was clear enough to obey in the first place.
Justice is definitely not blind. Power gets a pass. The rest of us are deported, sent to jail, or even murdered for trumped (yes, good word here) charges.
A supersedeas bond. Rule 62 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) and Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (FRAP).
Yes, available for individuals but frequently inaccessible in practice without substantial assets, and courts are not obligated to accommodate inability to post bond absent a compelling showing. And, of course, Rule 62 and FRAP Rule 8 do not apply to criminal cases.
These cases usually aren't criminial.
Can file a motion in forma pauperis.
IFP status means you litigated without prepaying fees --- it doesn't extinguish a judgment entered against you, and it doesn't substitute for a supersedeas bond. That it can be applied to the necessary bond is up to the court's discretion and a full waiver is harder to get than a reduced bond or an alternative security arrangement. If the district court denies, FRAP Rule 8 lets you take the same argument to the circuit --- but you have to have tried and failed below first. The circuit applies the same discretionary standard and is not bound by the district court's ruling. And while IFP is a relatively low bar to clear for truly indigent litigants, courts do scrutinize the required affidavit carefully ---false statements are perjury, and courts will deny IFP if the financial picture is ambiguous or the claim appears exaggerated. So the process is easy --- being able to proceed IFP, however, is not a slam dunk.
To this non-lawyer, the foregoing discussion is all really depressing. It sounds like cards stacked against everyone but the government no matter which way one turns.
Unfortunately in the U.S. system it pretty much is the luck of the draw. Can you get a compassionate judge --- but yes, the weight of empirical evidence supports the view that wealth and power confer substantial advantages at nearly every stage --- arrest, charging, bail, plea bargaining, trial, sentencing, and appeal. The disagreement is more about why (underfunding vs. structural design vs. cultural bias) and how much (correlated disadvantage vs. fundamentally corrupted system) than about whether. Few credible observers argue the system treats a homeless defendant and a corporate executive identically. The harder question is whether this represents a deviation from an otherwise fair system --- a fixable resource problem --- or reflects something more fundamental about how law operates in a society with large wealth inequality.
Thank you for all you are doing in these bery trying times. Your voice is calming and reassuring. 😎
Terrific overview of the law‼️
I await the day when trump and everyone in his administration like Emil Bove and the other idolators are prosecuted and sent to jail. Only then will I believe the rule of law has been restored.