mfryd said: The bottom line is that even if it was a crime for the President to defy a court order, he cannot be prosecuted for it, and the US Marshalls would have no jurisdiction over the President.
Go back to the original post from Randominternetperson. He was talking about Department of Homeland Security officials and not the President. Donald Trump isn't going to be personally attempting to collect tariffs from importers.
randominternetperson said: What happens when the Sec of Homeland Security orders her U.S. Customs and Border Production officers to collect tariff revenue from ships in port after a court as said those tariffs are null and void?
That would be obvious obstruction and contempt of court. A federal judge could potentially have U.S. Marshalls arrest officials involved in that.
One issue with that is that the U.S. Marshalls are under the Dept. of Justice. The Dept. of Justice is under Trump.
This can make it problematic for the courts to enforce rulings against the wishes of a sitting President.
U.S. Marshalls serve both the DOJ and the Federal judiciary. Separation of powers = judge doesn't need sign-off from DOJ.
There are theoretical issues and practical issues.
From a theoretical standpoint, the Marshalls listen to the DOJ and Trump can't set tariffs.
From a practical standpoint, a Marshall's paycheck comes from the DOJ, and the Marshall's chain of command work for the DOJ. This administration has a history of firing people who follow the law when it conflicts with Presidential orders. Thus, a Marshall might be fired for attempting to enforce a court order against the Trump administration. We have seen this in the US Attorney's office of the Southern District of New York, where they went through six high ranking officials who refused to follow an illegal directive.
Furthermore, the US Supreme Court has ruled that a sitting President cannot be charged with a crime for any official acts. Executive orders and directives fall into that category. Additionally, any official acts can't be used as evidence in a court of law, even after the President leaves office.
Let's look at a hypothetical situation. Imagine a foreign government can't buy arms from the US because they have a history of supporting terrorism. They decide to offer the sitting President lucrative personal real estate deals, and a $200 million jet as an "incentive" for him to change US foreign policy to allow that country to purchase weapons. Suppose they structure the deal, so that the Jet is technical given to the US Government, with the stipulation that when the President leaves office the jet goes to a private organization run by the retired President (i.e. his "presidential library"). Imagine that in this hypothetical situation, the President agreed.
In the past, this would have been considered a bribe. The President could have been charged with a crime while in office, or after he let office. Under the new supreme court ruling the President is immune from prosecution for accepting bribes while in office, and after he leaves office.
Similarly, suppose someone donated a million dollars to the President in order to get a pardon for her son's tax fraud conviction. Again the President is immune from prosecution. While the person making the bribe can be prosecuted, you can't use as evidence that the President pardoned her son. This makes it challenging to prosecute people who bribe the President. Strangely, you can prosecute for attempted bribery, but if the President accepts and acts on the bribe, you can't use those actions as evidence in court.
The bottom line is that even if it was a crime for the President to defy a court order, he cannot be prosecuted for it, and the US Marshalls would have no jurisdiction over the President.
The SCOTUS will likely affirm the ruling by refusing to hear it because it's clear that what Trump did was a violation of law. The president cannot impose tariffs when no emergency laws are in effect. It has to be done with the Congress to decide what tariffs can be imposed or not.
The Extreme Court has proven repeatedly it’s in the tank for Mango Mussolini. The rule of law is dead in the USA and fascists killed it.
randominternetperson said: What happens when the Sec of Homeland Security orders her U.S. Customs and Border Production officers to collect tariff revenue from ships in port after a court as said those tariffs are null and void?
That would be obvious obstruction and contempt of court. A federal judge could potentially have U.S. Marshalls arrest officials involved in that.
Yeah. But what if nobody does anything?
The Supreme Court was very clear that the Administration "facilitate" the return of kidnapped and illegally deported Abrego Garcia. How's that going?
(Let's please not argue that case; I merely use it as an example to illustrate that we're already seeing the administration simply ignore both the rule of law and court orders, with zero repercussions.)
Let's hope the court's ruling is enforced and the tariffs are dropped. So many of the executive orders issued by this administration are the legal equivalent of vaporware. They lack legal authority, and as challenges to them make their way through the courts, one after another will be invalidated. Even as that happens and, hopefully, as the court rulings are heeded, the instability that the administration has wrought through this process will be damaging for a long time, hurting markets, businesses, and regular people alike. When you're not happy with the general status quo, the idea of "shaking things up" sounds great, until you find out that the things you care about are also being shaken up. American voters were frustrated in 2024 by inflation, housing costs and reverberating damage from the pandemic working its way through the economy. This tariff bull in an imported china shop only exacerbates those problems. It doesn't fix them.
Who knows what effect this latest turn will have on Apple? Is the best response to Trump's 25% tariff threat now measured silence as we wait to see? From a policy standpoint, there is little to be gained by reacting to a tariff that can't be imposed. Politically, however, if the President issued the threat in the first place as a petty response to Tim Cook's decision not to go on an Arabian holiday, what will be his reaction if Cook simply ignores this public tariff threat? Perhaps the best answer is silence from Cook, and a brief, non-specific statement from the PR department that Apple will be "closely monitoring" the tariff situation as cases go through the courts.
randominternetperson said: What happens when the Sec of Homeland Security orders her U.S. Customs and Border Production officers to collect tariff revenue from ships in port after a court as said those tariffs are null and void?
That would be obvious obstruction and contempt of court. A federal judge could potentially have U.S. Marshalls arrest officials involved in that.
One issue with that is that the U.S. Marshalls are under the Dept. of Justice. The Dept. of Justice is under Trump.
This can make it problematic for the courts to enforce rulings against the wishes of a sitting President.
U.S. Marshalls serve both the DOJ and the Federal judiciary. Separation of powers = judge doesn't need sign-off from DOJ.
There are theoretical issues and practical issues.
From a theoretical standpoint, the Marshalls listen to the DOJ and Trump can't set tariffs.
From a practical standpoint, a Marshall's paycheck comes from the DOJ, and the Marshall's chain of command work for the DOJ. This administration has a history of firing people who follow the law when it conflicts with Presidential orders. Thus, a Marshall might be fired for attempting to enforce a court order against the Trump administration. We have seen this in the US Attorney's office of the Southern District of New York, where they went through six high ranking officials who refused to follow an illegal directive.
Furthermore, the US Supreme Court has ruled that a sitting President cannot be charged with a crime for any official acts. Executive orders and directives fall into that category. Additionally, any official acts can't be used as evidence in a court of law, even after the President leaves office.
Let's look at a hypothetical situation. Imagine a foreign government can't buy arms from the US because they have a history of supporting terrorism. They decide to offer the sitting President lucrative personal real estate deals, and a $200 million jet as an "incentive" for him to change US foreign policy to allow that country to purchase weapons. Suppose they structure the deal, so that the Jet is technical given to the US Government, with the stipulation that when the President leaves office the jet goes to a private organization run by the retired President (i.e. his "presidential library"). Imagine that in this hypothetical situation, the President agreed.
In the past, this would have been considered a bribe. The President could have been charged with a crime while in office, or after he let office. Under the new supreme court ruling the President is immune from prosecution for accepting bribes while in office, and after he leaves office.
Similarly, suppose someone donated a million dollars to the President in order to get a pardon for her son's tax fraud conviction. Again the President is immune from prosecution. While the person making the bribe can be prosecuted, you can't use as evidence that the President pardoned her son. This makes it challenging to prosecute people who bribe the President. Strangely, you can prosecute for attempted bribery, but if the President accepts and acts on the bribe, you can't use those actions as evidence in court.
The bottom line is that even if it was a crime for the President to defy a court order, he cannot be prosecuted for it, and the US Marshalls would have no jurisdiction over the President.
Very well said. The on-going corruption is disgusting. Clearly and unambiguously the most corrupt administration in U.S. history. And the most shameless.
Also, if push comes to shove, the executive branch (or even just Homeland Security, which is responsible for collecting tariffs) employs a lot more "guys with guns" than the judiciary does. I mean if we end up with U.S. Marshals being called in to stop customs officials from collecting tariffs all bets are off.
Another issue is that the president does not have the authority to levy and collect taxes, which is what his tariff scheme does.
Per the US Constitution, Art 1 §8 Cl 1:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States".
It's quite amusing that Stephen Miller calls this decision a "judicial coup", given the pervasive usurpation of judicial and legislative authority by the White House and its clown cabinet. It's J6 2025 to be certain.
Another issue is that the president does not have the authority to levy and collect taxes, which is what his tariff scheme does.
Per the US Constitution, Art 1 §8 Cl 1:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States".
It's quite amusing that Stephen Miller calls this decision a "judicial coup", given the pervasive usurpation of judicial and legislative authority by the White House and its clown cabinet. It's J6 2025 to be certain.
That's pretty much the issue. There is nothing unconstitutional about the tariffs themselves, just how they were imposed.
Another issue is that the president does not have the authority to levy and collect taxes, which is what his tariff scheme does.
Per the US Constitution, Art 1 §8 Cl 1:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States".
It's quite amusing that Stephen Miller calls this decision a "judicial coup", given the pervasive usurpation of judicial and legislative authority by the White House and its clown cabinet. It's J6 2025 to be certain.
He doesn't have to worry, MAGA has *no* understanding of either Civics or Logic (hypocrisy, specifically) - he's trying to teach them something (false), sadly they know nothing so it's not even a case of his re-teaching them something since they have no knowledge of the subject at all.
Apparently an appeals court has lifted the first court block in tariffs but a second court has also placed a new block.
Hey, great. More instability. Just what every American business needs to thrive. This administration's Big Plan is really working!
Wait. Did I say "business?" I meant to say "short seller" and "inside trader."
Just like last time there's going to be a whole lot of people going to jail from this admin. Can't wait to watch all the perp walks (again, sigh).
I would be surprised if many from this administration go to jail. Most of the alleged transgressions are Federal issues. Both the FBI and DOJ are under Trump. Even if someone was to be charged, Trump has the authority to issues pardons for Federal issues. He can even issue proactive pardons for people who have not yet been charged. Pardons (including proactive pardons) stay in force past Trump's term.
As long as someone can stay on Trump's good side, I would be surprised if they face any Federal charges.
History confirms this. Trump has already issued pardons for many of his convicted supporters.
Comments
How's that going?
(Let's please not argue that case; I merely use it as an example to illustrate that we're already seeing the administration simply ignore both the rule of law and court orders, with zero repercussions.)
Who knows what effect this latest turn will have on Apple? Is the best response to Trump's 25% tariff threat now measured silence as we wait to see? From a policy standpoint, there is little to be gained by reacting to a tariff that can't be imposed. Politically, however, if the President issued the threat in the first place as a petty response to Tim Cook's decision not to go on an Arabian holiday, what will be his reaction if Cook simply ignores this public tariff threat? Perhaps the best answer is silence from Cook, and a brief, non-specific statement from the PR department that Apple will be "closely monitoring" the tariff situation as cases go through the courts.
Also, if push comes to shove, the executive branch (or even just Homeland Security, which is responsible for collecting tariffs) employs a lot more "guys with guns" than the judiciary does. I mean if we end up with U.S. Marshals being called in to stop customs officials from collecting tariffs all bets are off.
Per the US Constitution, Art 1 §8 Cl 1:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States".
It's quite amusing that Stephen Miller calls this decision a "judicial coup", given the pervasive usurpation of judicial and legislative authority by the White House and its clown cabinet. It's J6 2025 to be certain.
Wait. Did I say "business?" I meant to say "short seller" and "inside trader."