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.
I don’t think you’re on the wrong side, I think you’re advocating to hold back on using a tool that can be used, right now, to mitigate some of the most terrible shit that can be done to a group of people by a government
But even forgetting what’s at stake… Do you think there are no checks on this power? Do you think it isn’t used already? There was a case last year where a judge ordered a custom bat mobile or something, and was unhappy he hadn’t received it yet. The local cops flew across state lines and seized one in front of the judge in line. The judge ended up balking at using this legal argument, but it was discussed, and the opinion was that the judge had no legal basis for it anyways. I don’t remember the resolution, but the judge was in danger of losing his robes over it
There’s petty tyrants everywhere… The police are generally enablers of it to start with. Judges are still beholden to oversight, aside from the supreme court apparently
And back to where we are… Things aren’t just going to go back to normal in two or four years. We’re over the cliff, they’re disappearing people and throwing them into what legally classifies as torture with no due process. They’re trampling over the courts and the constitution - there’s no going back from that, only forward
This isn’t the time to tiptoe carefully around. It’s not time to come up with reasons to let them continue to act, even if there’s problems to work out later