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
Nowhere did I say anything about not defending.
Nowhere did I say anything about not going on offence.
Nowhere didi say do nothing
Nowhere did I say sit back and wait.
Nowhere.
I said what is likely to happened and presented facts as they are. And what the Rs would do, have done.
How people have chosen to interpret things I wasn’t thinking or saying is their fault.
In other posts I’ve advocated, very aggressively, in many ways, for learning defense, learning offense, ways to organise, etc.for helping others in need, encouraging those with the capacity to fight to fight and not embarrassing others who cannot.
Nowhere do i ever say lay down and die.
Ever.
Just stop already. You presented no facts about deputizing. You speculated, wrongly, and were corrected. You even mentioned the monkey paw, which is just nonsensical fantasy. The burden of communication lies on you. If you failed to convey your meaning then that’s your fault, not ours.
And we aren’t reading your other posts, we are reading here.
Okay, then in that light, do you still think we need to be cautious in having the courts appoint people outside the executive branch to enforce their orders?
Like I said, I don’t think you’re on the wrong side, but I think this is a bad take. This is one of the last checks on Trump’s power, and no telling if it’s actually used… But it seems like caution is the absolute last thing we need to be advocating for right now
Cautious in the sense of being aware of what could happen. Not letting it. Not not preventing it. Not doing nothing.
That’s what caution means. To be aware and take action needed due to impending danger.
If things are left to the system to decide, well, look where that got us.
People need to do something. Beyond signs and marches.
That’s why the lady’s of liberty or whatever have taken over school boards. Etc.
The left protests.
The right has done.
Protests and marches and reliance on the system will not work unless and until the people reinsert themselves and take direct action.
The checks are ignored and balances have need weighed to one side.
I didn’t say don’t do things. All I said was beware what the other side has done, can do, and will do.
And prepare and act accordingly.
Okay, but that’s kinda my point… It’s bad messaging
You provided a reason not to “do”, regardless of what you meant by that.
We don’t need to hesitate, it’s not the time to be careful. MAGA doesn’t function on the openings we create - they create their own openings, their own lies about what the left is
We can’t be like the Democrats - the people don’t want the adults in the room who carefully avoid breaking things. The majority hates the Democrats more than ever
The people want change. They want a movement that will make enemies. That’s what most of the right wants too - they want to stop Trump and Musk, they want free healthcare, they want to afford housing, and most of all they want to hope for a better future
We need to move fast without hesitation to fight back, otherwise we’ll never keep up. We don’t need to worry about breaking things - things are plenty broken already.
We’ll fix them and patch up the holes, but first we have to win
Removed by mod