Unfortunately, the current administration doesn't know the meaning of the word compassion. They briefly wish Biden well, then proceed to demonize him and question his cognition in office while we are dealing with Trump's utter inability to speak with any coherence. Talking about the Biden crime family - and this was Mike Johnson. Investigating Oprah, Beyonce and Springsteen?? Endlessly going off topic. I still can't believe 77M people voted for Trump - and most still support him.
Can I just say....you have the home of my dreams. I love absolutely everything in it! Including your beautiful puppies! The picture of the window is amazing, it looks like an impressionist painting. I would love to see a house tour with the outside yard included 😍
Silly comment here - I know Trump is partially creating a smokescreen with all his ridiculous comments; but he must be causing even his supporters to worry about his mental health when he starts attacking Bruce Springsteen.
Everyone around him yields to him. In any other universe you might believe he has a brilliant mind, a superior intellect, a compassion worthy of both. But he doesn’t. Makes you question the others.
Kilmer Albrego Garcia is still languishing in a gulag despite clear judicial orders.
Trump has already defied the Supreme Court and only they don't seem to realize it.
He is openly violating the emoluments clause and rules on graft. When you add the other illegitimate detentions and the pardoning of J6 rioters, paired with calls for Police to be protected when they kill, the simple fact is that the rule of law is already dead. For Trump it is a blunt instrument to use against us, no more, no less.
So, we have a president who thinks that the Supreme Court in the land who determines what is illegal and what isn't is doing something illegal. Hey, Donnie, show us your law school diploma and your law credentials!
Great pupster pictures today. I have believed since SCOTUS made the worst ruling in Supreme Court history they had made themselves irrelevant. I pray I am wrong.
The following quote is from someone who read this book. I'm surrounding the quote with ///
/// One of the most alarming developments in the second Trump administration is agencies’ apparent defiance of court orders barring them from implementing illegal executive orders. As agencies including the State Department have ignored, evaded or slow-walked judicial decrees, courts have issued increasingly stronger warnings that compliance with their orders is not optional, and litigants have urged them to hold the responsible government officials in contempt of court.
Yet the prospect of holding executive branch officials in contempt threatens a fresh constitutional crisis.
Courts’ power of contempt — the inherent power to compel compliance with orders and punish actions that obstruct the administration of justice — is ultimately backstopped by their ability to jail people who defy their orders. There’d be no issue if judges themselves made arrests, but the courts’ enforcement arm, the U.S. Marshal’s Service, reports to both the courts and the attorney general. The marshals’ position within the executive branch has led commenters to predict that, if a court orders the arrest of a defiant executive branch official, the White House or Attorney General Pam Bondi will revoke the order and the courts will “run out of options.”
As Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky argues, “the hard truth for those looking to the courts to rein in the Trump administration is that the Constitution gives judges no power to compel compliance with their rulings — it is the executive branch that ultimately enforces judicial orders.”
But do the courts really lack authority to jail contemnors — people who defy court orders — if the marshals go rogue? A close look at the courts’ enforcement powers makes clear that judges don’t need to rely solely on the marshals to ensure their orders are enforced.
Even a rogue marshal’s service is not an insurmountable obstacle to courts enforcing the rule of law. Contempt of court is classified as either civil or criminal depending on whether a court seeks to compel compliance with its orders or punish obstruction of justice. When it comes to criminal contempt, the executive really does hold a veto over contempt proceedings. While Supreme Court caselaw and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure recognize the courts’ authority to appoint a private attorney to prosecute contempt, the president may pardon the contemnor, rendering the prosecution an academic exercise.
Civil contempt is different. The Supreme Court has long held that “a pardon cannot stop” courts from punishing cases of civil contempt. And while the marshals have traditionally enforced civil contempt orders, the courts have the power to deputize others to step in if they refuse to do so.
This authority is recognized in an obscure provision of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which govern proceedings in federal trial courts. Rule 4.1 specifies how certain types of “process” — the legal term for orders that command someone to appear in court — are to be served on the party to which they are directed. The rule begins in section (a) by instructing that, as a general matter, process “must be served by a United States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially appointed for that purpose.”
The next section, Rule 4.1(b), is entitled, “Enforcing Orders: Committing for Civil Contempt.” It sets some geographical limits for where “[a]n order committing a person for civil contempt of a decree or injunction” may be served based on the federal vs. state nature of the underlying lawsuit. But it does not say who may enforce such an order, and it never modifies the general rule that process may be served by a marshal, deputy marshal or person specially appointed for that purpose. Thus, by its plain terms, Rule 4.1 contemplates that the court may appoint individuals other than the marshals to enforce civil contempt orders.
This understanding of the courts’ powers is consistent with other provisions of the rules that allow them to make use of other parties as a backstop to enforcement by the marshals. For example, the rules governing civil forfeiture provide that when the court takes control of property, “the warrant and any supplemental process” may be enforced by marshals and “someone specially appointed by the court for that purpose.”
Perhaps more important, courts’ power to appoint individuals other than the marshals to enforce civil contempt orders is consistent with the broader law of contempt. A through theme in that law is the necessity of courts having independent authority to punish contempts to protect the rule of law. As expressed by the Supreme Court, “If a party can make himself a judge of the validity of orders which have been issued, and by his own act of disobedience set them aside, then are the courts impotent, and what the Constitution now fittingly calls ‘the judicial power of the United States’ would be a mere mockery.”
To be sure, a court that appointed someone other than the marshals to enforce a civil contempt order would be breaking new ground. Because of the marshals’ long and honorable history of respecting their legal obligation to enforce federal courts orders, the courts have rarely, if ever, had to turn to other parties to have their orders enforced. If forced to do so, however, individuals from court security officers and probation officers to local police and sheriffs have the training and experience to bring contemnors into court. And unlike the marshals, these individuals would be responsible to the court alone.
Even a rogue marshal’s service, in other words, is not an insurmountable obstacle to courts enforcing the rule of law. If courts have the courage, the legal tools are there.
David Noll is a professor of law at Rutgers Law School and the co-author of Vigilante Nation: How State-Sponsored Terror Threatens Our Democracy. He teaches and writes in the fields of civil procedure, complex litigation, administrative law and constitutional law.///
The big question is how stupid do the Qataris think he is? They tried 5 years to sell the white elephant and couldn't. Apparently, it is a black hole of maintenance, for which the American taxpayer will pick up the tab, because "it isn't his private plane, seriously!" But it will sit Bigly in any airport world wide. All to compensate for how much better 80 year old Springsteen looks on a public beach
Unfortunately, the current administration doesn't know the meaning of the word compassion. They briefly wish Biden well, then proceed to demonize him and question his cognition in office while we are dealing with Trump's utter inability to speak with any coherence. Talking about the Biden crime family - and this was Mike Johnson. Investigating Oprah, Beyonce and Springsteen?? Endlessly going off topic. I still can't believe 77M people voted for Trump - and most still support him.
Can I just say....you have the home of my dreams. I love absolutely everything in it! Including your beautiful puppies! The picture of the window is amazing, it looks like an impressionist painting. I would love to see a house tour with the outside yard included 😍
Who is your interior designer? (Just kidding!)
Silly comment here - I know Trump is partially creating a smokescreen with all his ridiculous comments; but he must be causing even his supporters to worry about his mental health when he starts attacking Bruce Springsteen.
Could Eli actually be an angel ?
I am wondering if I have missed a podcast or if you just haven’t done one in a few days
Thanks for keeping track of all this stuff
You got it all in there, Charlie! It all is so overwhelming.
He does like to threaten and bully and seems to enjoy it.
A real way of life for him .
None of it is normal
I simply do not get ABC and CBS
What is wrong with them?
A way your newsletter is different from others: it gives us political insight with heart.
Everyone around him yields to him. In any other universe you might believe he has a brilliant mind, a superior intellect, a compassion worthy of both. But he doesn’t. Makes you question the others.
Hi Auggie! Good dog!
Every sentence of that last post makes one want to look into the issue randomly mentioned because it's always always projection
Kilmer Albrego Garcia is still languishing in a gulag despite clear judicial orders.
Trump has already defied the Supreme Court and only they don't seem to realize it.
He is openly violating the emoluments clause and rules on graft. When you add the other illegitimate detentions and the pardoning of J6 rioters, paired with calls for Police to be protected when they kill, the simple fact is that the rule of law is already dead. For Trump it is a blunt instrument to use against us, no more, no less.
So, we have a president who thinks that the Supreme Court in the land who determines what is illegal and what isn't is doing something illegal. Hey, Donnie, show us your law school diploma and your law credentials!
Thank God for dogs! And cats!
Great pupster pictures today. I have believed since SCOTUS made the worst ruling in Supreme Court history they had made themselves irrelevant. I pray I am wrong.
Beautiful photos of the boys.
The thing I'm focused on right now is apparently touched upon in this book:
(Vigilante Nation: How State-Sponsored Terror Threatens Our Democracy Jon Michaels, David L. Noll)
"𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐚 𝐫𝐨𝐠𝐮𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐥’𝐬 𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞, 𝐢𝐧 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐬, 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐦𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐛𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐜𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐞𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐥𝐚𝐰. 𝐈𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐞, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐨𝐨𝐥𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞."
The following quote is from someone who read this book. I'm surrounding the quote with ///
/// One of the most alarming developments in the second Trump administration is agencies’ apparent defiance of court orders barring them from implementing illegal executive orders. As agencies including the State Department have ignored, evaded or slow-walked judicial decrees, courts have issued increasingly stronger warnings that compliance with their orders is not optional, and litigants have urged them to hold the responsible government officials in contempt of court.
Yet the prospect of holding executive branch officials in contempt threatens a fresh constitutional crisis.
Courts’ power of contempt — the inherent power to compel compliance with orders and punish actions that obstruct the administration of justice — is ultimately backstopped by their ability to jail people who defy their orders. There’d be no issue if judges themselves made arrests, but the courts’ enforcement arm, the U.S. Marshal’s Service, reports to both the courts and the attorney general. The marshals’ position within the executive branch has led commenters to predict that, if a court orders the arrest of a defiant executive branch official, the White House or Attorney General Pam Bondi will revoke the order and the courts will “run out of options.”
As Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky argues, “the hard truth for those looking to the courts to rein in the Trump administration is that the Constitution gives judges no power to compel compliance with their rulings — it is the executive branch that ultimately enforces judicial orders.”
But do the courts really lack authority to jail contemnors — people who defy court orders — if the marshals go rogue? A close look at the courts’ enforcement powers makes clear that judges don’t need to rely solely on the marshals to ensure their orders are enforced.
Even a rogue marshal’s service is not an insurmountable obstacle to courts enforcing the rule of law. Contempt of court is classified as either civil or criminal depending on whether a court seeks to compel compliance with its orders or punish obstruction of justice. When it comes to criminal contempt, the executive really does hold a veto over contempt proceedings. While Supreme Court caselaw and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure recognize the courts’ authority to appoint a private attorney to prosecute contempt, the president may pardon the contemnor, rendering the prosecution an academic exercise.
Civil contempt is different. The Supreme Court has long held that “a pardon cannot stop” courts from punishing cases of civil contempt. And while the marshals have traditionally enforced civil contempt orders, the courts have the power to deputize others to step in if they refuse to do so.
This authority is recognized in an obscure provision of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which govern proceedings in federal trial courts. Rule 4.1 specifies how certain types of “process” — the legal term for orders that command someone to appear in court — are to be served on the party to which they are directed. The rule begins in section (a) by instructing that, as a general matter, process “must be served by a United States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially appointed for that purpose.”
The next section, Rule 4.1(b), is entitled, “Enforcing Orders: Committing for Civil Contempt.” It sets some geographical limits for where “[a]n order committing a person for civil contempt of a decree or injunction” may be served based on the federal vs. state nature of the underlying lawsuit. But it does not say who may enforce such an order, and it never modifies the general rule that process may be served by a marshal, deputy marshal or person specially appointed for that purpose. Thus, by its plain terms, Rule 4.1 contemplates that the court may appoint individuals other than the marshals to enforce civil contempt orders.
This understanding of the courts’ powers is consistent with other provisions of the rules that allow them to make use of other parties as a backstop to enforcement by the marshals. For example, the rules governing civil forfeiture provide that when the court takes control of property, “the warrant and any supplemental process” may be enforced by marshals and “someone specially appointed by the court for that purpose.”
Perhaps more important, courts’ power to appoint individuals other than the marshals to enforce civil contempt orders is consistent with the broader law of contempt. A through theme in that law is the necessity of courts having independent authority to punish contempts to protect the rule of law. As expressed by the Supreme Court, “If a party can make himself a judge of the validity of orders which have been issued, and by his own act of disobedience set them aside, then are the courts impotent, and what the Constitution now fittingly calls ‘the judicial power of the United States’ would be a mere mockery.”
To be sure, a court that appointed someone other than the marshals to enforce a civil contempt order would be breaking new ground. Because of the marshals’ long and honorable history of respecting their legal obligation to enforce federal courts orders, the courts have rarely, if ever, had to turn to other parties to have their orders enforced. If forced to do so, however, individuals from court security officers and probation officers to local police and sheriffs have the training and experience to bring contemnors into court. And unlike the marshals, these individuals would be responsible to the court alone.
Even a rogue marshal’s service, in other words, is not an insurmountable obstacle to courts enforcing the rule of law. If courts have the courage, the legal tools are there.
David Noll is a professor of law at Rutgers Law School and the co-author of Vigilante Nation: How State-Sponsored Terror Threatens Our Democracy. He teaches and writes in the fields of civil procedure, complex litigation, administrative law and constitutional law.///
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/207617657-vigilante-nation
The big question is how stupid do the Qataris think he is? They tried 5 years to sell the white elephant and couldn't. Apparently, it is a black hole of maintenance, for which the American taxpayer will pick up the tab, because "it isn't his private plane, seriously!" But it will sit Bigly in any airport world wide. All to compensate for how much better 80 year old Springsteen looks on a public beach