will25u said:

---

On road & parked momentarily for a couple things so no time to do tweet thread on JudgeBoasberg’s order. But if he opens his opinion with an outright misrepresentation of what his order was, that tells me rest of substance sucks. pic.twitter.com/2GhtJ4i9Zo

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 16, 2025

Breaking: As I have warned, Jeb Boasberg just filed an opinion finding Trump adm officials in contempt. pic.twitter.com/fU2qAmP9k1

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) April 16, 2025

This is a 46-page rant dripping with Boasberg's ego and sense of superiority. It is INSANE for him to find Trump officials in CRIMINAL CONTEMPT over an "oral command" he did not include in a written order as planes were out of US airspace and over which he had NO authority then… pic.twitter.com/0QUfSu4ewX

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) April 16, 2025

---

Well, if team DOJ was patiently goading Boasburg to issue an order that is impossible to interpret in a way that isn't a major problem, they got what they wanted.

Boasburg with a juicy serve right down the middle. Time for the DOJ to put this ball back in SCOTUS' court.

Im Gipper said:

---

With the current balance of the Supreme Court, they do not need Roberts to do anything.

Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch can get any case heard they want. Why do they escape everyone's scorn?

---

So 4 out of 9? Maybe I am missing your point. The SCOTUS has already said that Boasberg (and others) do not have jurisdiction to hear cases for aliens contesting deportation that are not detained within their district. That ruling has already been made and is being ignored by Boasberg. All of Boasberg's orders and theatrics on this case should be moot. When they ruled that these aliens are not entitled to any hearing beyond a habeas corpus hearing the district where they are held, Boasberg officially lost jurisdiction over the guys he is gnashing and wailing about.

He should dismiss the case and refer it instead to the district where they were held when they were allegedly illegally deported. The fact that he has not done so should be vigorously and viciously shot down by Roberts in order to reinforce his control over the actions of the lower courts. Not doing so makes him appear weak and ineffectual as a Chief Justice.

I am still befuddled as to how Boasberg certified such an amorphous "class" so quickly?

Where there's a will there's a way'!

Are we sure the Supreme Court can even handle this workload?

Seem to recall that pre-election we had ACB and wise Latina on a panel lamenting the court's increased workload because of Trump.

Couldn't Trump just pardon any criminal contempt?

Quote:

---

I am still befuddled as to how Boasberg certified such an amorphous "class" so quickly?

---

No way his class certification would have survived (much like the rest of his rulings in this case). The Rule 23 issues were not developed at all.

Aggie Jurist said:

---

Quote:

---

I am still befuddled as to how Boasberg certified such an amorphous "class" so quickly?

---

No way his class certification would have survived (much like the rest of his rulings in this case). The Rule 23 issues were not developed at all.

---

Class action suits were never in my bailiwick but I was good friends with some PI attorneys who did file class actions from time to time. It's a crap ton of work just to get certification before proceeding, according to them. very paperwork, document heavy cases.

Nor do I think the class certification gets him past the lack of jurisdiction but again not my forte.

Aggie Jurist said:

---

Quote:

---

I am still befuddled as to how Boasberg certified such an amorphous "class" so quickly?

---

No way his class certification would have survived (much like the rest of his rulings in this case). The Rule 23 issues were not developed at all.

---

A couple of weeks ago, Mark Levin was saying "imagine if Nazis were certified as a class" during World War II. Boasberg is absurd. He is acting outside the Constitution and the law.

I know judges can appoint Special Masters but can they appoint Special Prosecutors? Because Boasberg appears to be threatening that, too.

Yes, just takes 4 to take up a case

So why aren't you critical of Alito for not vigorously and viciously shooting down Bozoberg? He has as much authority as Roberts in that department.

aggiehawg said:

---

I know judges can appoint Special Masters but can they appoint Special Prosecutors? Because Boasberg appears to be threatening that, too.

---

Yes. Rule 42:

(2) Appointing a Prosecutor. The court must request that the contempt be prosecuted by an attorney for the government, unless the interest of justice requires the appointment of another attorney. If the government declines the request, the court must appoint another attorney to prosecute the contempt.

Thanks. Bet he already has someone picked out just to prolong this thing. Completely rogue judge.

Im Gipper said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

I know judges can appoint Special Masters but can they appoint Special Prosecutors? Because Boasberg appears to be threatening that, too.

---

Yes. Rule 42:

(2) Appointing a Prosecutor. The court must request that the contempt be prosecuted by an attorney for the government, unless the interest of justice requires the appointment of another attorney. If the government declines the request, the court must appoint another attorney to prosecute the contempt.

---

Are jails, prisons and LEOs under the Executive of Judiciary?

Appoint a prosecutor and hold a mock trial.

To be honest, if I am the DOJ or anyone else in the Executive then I refuse to show up to any of these clowns courts until they are disciplined and or removed.

Trump is gloves off. If it cause a constitutional crisis, then its time for that.

Im Gipper said:

---

Yes, just takes 4 to take up a case

So why aren't you critical of Alito for not vigorously and viciously shooting down Bozoberg? He has as much authority as Roberts in that department.

---

This is not a situation where they need to "take up a case". This is a situation where the SCOTUS needs to put their foot down and demand that the lower courts adhere to the rulings that SCOTUS has already made on the matter. SCOTUS already ruled that lower court judges do not have jurisdiction over aliens held outside of their district. That makes Boasberg's entire argument and ruling moot because all of the guys he is raising hell about were held outside of his district at the time he heard the case. The proper procedure is for the Chief Justice to step in and say "We already covered this at SCOTUS and you should abide by our ruling." We can go through the theatrics of making Trump's lawyers go back to SCOTUS again for them to enforce their own ruling, but all that does is highlight how weak Roberts is if he lets that play out. He is not just the chief justice of the SCOTUS, but the head justice over all of the lower courts as well, and to let one of them openly defy the SCOTUS ruling like this is a bad look for him personally that should be called out publicly by Trump and his officials.

Quote:

---

The proper procedure

---

Respectfully, that's a "procedure" you invented whole cloth. So there is no reason doing so couldn't be done by any justice.

Entire justice system is a joke to me...totally gamed and practically useless for anything...except for delaying solutions.

Something about a system only fit for a moral people…

When large swathes of society turned their back to God (most apparently the godless Democrat party) the structures were doomed.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

The proper procedure

---

Respectfully, that's a "procedure" you invented whole cloth. So there is no reason doing so couldn't be done by any justice.

---

Ok, so what is the procedure when the court remands a case to a judge saying "you have no jurisdiction in this matter" and the judge says "ok, cool, lets continue."? The government goes back to SCOTUS and says "please enforce your previous order"? And if SCOTUS writes a sternly worded order saying "Obey our previous order" and the judge still ignores it, then what? At some point there has to be some other consequence within the judicial branch for a lower court judge who ignores the orders of the SCOTUS.

To me, this is not a role for impeachment by the legislative branch since that is for things like high crimes. This is a situation where a member of the judicial branch is showing insubordination to the higher courts and the chief justice by ignoring the order of a superior court within the same branch. And at least in my mind, it should be handled by the head of the judicial branch, who is the Chief Justice...not some other random member of SCOTUS.

This is not dissimilar to a random base commander telling people that she disagrees with the commander in chief and will not implement his plans. It is insubordination and letting her do that without any penalty from her superiors is a truly slippery slope towards anarchy in the chain of command.

Im Gipper said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

I know judges can appoint Special Masters but can they appoint Special Prosecutors? Because Boasberg appears to be threatening that, too.

---

Yes. Rule 42:

(2) Appointing a Prosecutor. The court must request that the contempt be prosecuted by an attorney for the government, unless the interest of justice requires the appointment of another attorney. If the government declines the request, the court must appoint another attorney to prosecute the contempt.

---

And of course Trump can pardon anyone convicted, or charged (see: Sheriff Arpaio). Hell, that might even be his game, to figure out who Boasberg wants to go after and just issue blanket pardons as a flip of the bird to team Biden.

Boasberg has no cards, and he knows it, which is why he is so mad/angry.

Quote:

---

Ok, so what is the procedure when the court remands a case to a judge saying "you have no jurisdiction in this matter" and the judge says "ok, cool, lets continue."? The government goes back to SCOTUS and says "please enforce your previous order"? And if SCOTUS writes a sternly worded order saying "Obey our previous order" and the judge still ignores it, then what? At some point there has to be some other consequence within the judicial branch for a lower court judge who ignores the orders of the SCOTUS.

---

They can remand it but have another judge assigned and remove him from the case entirely.

nortex97 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

I know judges can appoint Special Masters but can they appoint Special Prosecutors? Because Boasberg appears to be threatening that, too.

---

Yes. Rule 42:

(2) Appointing a Prosecutor. The court must request that the contempt be prosecuted by an attorney for the government, unless the interest of justice requires the appointment of another attorney. If the government declines the request, the court must appoint another attorney to prosecute the contempt.

---

And of course Trump can pardon anyone convicted, or charged (see: Sheriff Arpaio). Hell, that might even be his game, to figure out who Boasberg wants to go after and just issue blanket pardons as a flip of the bird to team Biden.

Boasberg has no cards, and he knows it, which is why he is so mad/angry.

---

this is what I was thinking. As soon as he identifies the people he wants criminally charged, they get pardoned.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Ok, so what is the procedure when the court remands a case to a judge saying "you have no jurisdiction in this matter" and the judge says "ok, cool, lets continue."? The government goes back to SCOTUS and says "please enforce your previous order"? And if SCOTUS writes a sternly worded order saying "Obey our previous order" and the judge still ignores it, then what? At some point there has to be some other consequence within the judicial branch for a lower court judge who ignores the orders of the SCOTUS.

---

They can remand it but have another judge assigned and remove him from the case entirely.

---

Why remand to another judge, when they have already stated that it is the wrong venue based on jurisdiction for a habeas case (which this was not). No other judge in the DC circuit has jurisdiction either and they have said APA is the wrong vehicle to try these cases. Why not just send a clear message by dismissing the case with prejudice and rebuking the judge for ignoring their previous order?

Remand to another judge with explicit instructions to dismiss it, is what I was getting at.

aggiehawg said:

---

Remand to another judge with explicit instructions to dismiss it, is what I was getting at.

---

Fair. Just seems a roundabout way when they could just dismiss it themselves. But yeah, Roberts and ACB and "proper procedures" yada yada.

txags92 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Remand to another judge with explicit instructions to dismiss it, is what I was getting at.

---

Fair. Just seems a roundabout way when they could just dismiss it themselves. But yeah, Roberts and ACB and "proper procedures" yada yada.

---

Yeah, sticklers on that. Seems a waste of judicial resources but it is what it is.

Alito, Thomas et al are stickers too as none of them wrote to say that is what should be done!

Im Gipper said:

---

Alito, Thomas et al are stickers too as none of them wrote to say that is what should be done!

---

They knew better than to waste their time with a compromised chief justice calling the shots.

Im Gipper said:

---

Alito, Thomas et al are stickers too as none of them wrote to say that is what should be done!

---

Why would they? Who knew the district court judge would just ignore them? And go so far as to lie about what their per curiam said?

Roberts weakness is driving a Constitutional crisis. Insane how bad a pick he has been.

txags92 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Alito, Thomas et al are stickers too as none of them wrote to say that is what should be done!

---

They knew better than to waste their time with a compromised chief justice calling the shots.

---

You are very confused about what a Chief justice does

I think SCOTUS should have reversed, remanded and dismissed this case with prejudice. Not a single justice wrote that should be the case. Yet you only critical of two. Hmmm

Why is only Roberts compromised? Hilarious how he did the same as Alito and Thomas here, but only he's compromised.

Every one of them should have done more here.

Dersh with his take. Boasberg backs down and does not ultimately find criminal contempt. Interestingly, he also believes that such appointment of a Special Prosecutor violates separation of powers and would be struck down

Im Gipper said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Alito, Thomas et al are stickers too as none of them wrote to say that is what should be done!

---

They knew better than to waste their time with a compromised chief justice calling the shots.

---

You are very confused about what a Chief justice does

I think SCOTUS should have reversed, remanded and dismissed this case with prejudice. Not a single justice wrote that should be the case. Yet you only critical of two. Hmmm

Why is only Roberts compromised? Hilarious how he did the same as Alito and Thomas here, but only he's compromised.

Every one of them should have done more here.

---

Is the chief justice the head of the federal judiciary? Is he the head of the administration of the federal courts? I agree with hawg that the two you pointed out had no reason to think the judge would just ignore them. I single out ACB and Roberts because those two seem the most willing to turn a blind eye to what is obvious judicial abuse to impede the agenda of the executive branch while insisting on following "normal procedure" in how they intervene. In this case, the proper role of the head of the federal judiciary would be to step in and insist that the courts limit their efforts to stay within those "normal procedures" or else have SCOTUS step in and preemptively address their failures.

Such normal procedures would be properly handling the development of a class action before making rulings applying beyond the plaintiffs in the court. Properly identifying whether they actually have jurisdiction of the case at all before declaring nationwide injunctions in the form of TROs, etc. The judges at the district level are turning "normal procedure" on its ear, and by allowing them to do so, SCOTUS (led by Roberts) is tarnishing their own reputation and by association all of the judiciary branch of government.

As for why is only he "compromised" I don't know that he is alone, but his consistent position as the swing vote on some really key decisions by the court where the left needed a win are at odds with a lot of his other jurisprudence and statements, and accusations that he is compromised are not just my own opinion.

Dersh gave up his friends and the waning days of his career to stand for the US Constitution during the 1st Trump impeachment. Rare person of character in an ever expanding gaggle of corrupted judges, lawyers, prosecutors, etc.

The stories of the ostricizing and abuse he and his wife took for him merely providing a rational view of the Constitution should have shown all of us where the left was headed with the lawfare, cancel culture and flat out tyranny.

God bless him.