The justices said no action should be taken to pursue the deportations of any alleged Venezuelan gang members in Texas under the rarely used wartime law.

The justices said no action should be taken to pursue the deportations of any alleged Venezuelan gang members in Texas under the rarely used wartime law.

  • hddsx@lemmy.ca
    285·
    3 个月前

    No it’s not. The judiciary doesn’t have an enforcement arm. It’s troubling

    • dhork@lemmy.worldEnglish
      191·
      3 个月前

      It’s interesting that the one judge who was going to conduct his own contempt hearings also claimed the right to appoint a prosecutor if the Justice Department chooses not to. That process is on hold while the appeals court considers it. (Which is not surprising, it’s quite a big step and deserves some review). But if the appeals court allows it to go forward with an Independant prosecutor, then we might be getting somewhere.

    • peoplebeproblemsEnglish
      141·
      3 个月前

      Why do I keep hearing this?

      Three branches all have enforment. In contempt of Congress or contempt of Court, the branches can deputize as many people as necessary to make arrears.

      • hddsx@lemmy.ca
        107·
        3 个月前

        Because it’s not an arm of enforcement and has rarely been attempted

      • hddsx@lemmy.ca
        6·
        3 个月前

        According to the link you posted, it is correct. The usual enforcement arm for the courts is the US Marshalls under the DOJ. However, they have other options that have never been tried.

        So what’s stopping the President from ordering the FBI/Marshalls/etc from actively preventing the arrest of the person in contempt?

        • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.worldOP
          43·
          3 个月前

          It’s in that same article. A judge may deputize someone to enforce a court order. That’s assuming the DoJ refuses, then the judge issues a writ that is ignored.

          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.”

          • hddsx@lemmy.ca
            62·
            3 个月前

            The US Marshalls of the DOJ is usually the enforcement arm for the judiciary.

            Deputizing someone is an enforcement mechanism and not the enforcement arm.