BREAKING CNN - After defying Congress; can Trump circumvent the Supreme Court?

[real Cannabis calm]

Justice Department tells court it is looking at options to add citizenship question to census
By Ariane de Vogue, Kevin Liptak and Gregory Wallace, CNN
Updated 1:05 PM ET, Fri July 5, 2019

(CNN) - Lawyers for the Department of Justice told a federal judge in Maryland Friday afternoon that the Trump administration will continue to explore options of adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census, but made no mention of a potential executive order being considered by the White House.

An administration official stressed that as of now the census will be printed without the citizenship question, though discussions are continuing about how to challenge last week's Supreme Court ruling blocking the Census Bureau from adding it to the questionnaire.

Earlier Friday, President Donald Trump said he is considering his options, which include an executive order or a potential addendum to the questionnaire that would allow the question to be added at a later date. Such a move could require the administration to provide a new justification for the addition of the question, following a Supreme Court ruling requiring a new rationale.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/05/politics/census-citizenship-question-deadline-donald-trump/index.html?cid=web-alerts&nsid=38903092

[C_U_L8R]

1. If Trump defies the court

what can/will they do about it?

[jberryhill]

5. Most likely have the Marshals seize the forms

[at140]

6. Courts have no military to enforce anything

It is the executive branch which is supposed to enforce court edicts.
If the chief executive ignores the court, who can enforce?
Only a military coup can stop an out of control president.

[StarfishSaver]

15. US Marshals are technically in DOJ but they answer to the judges

And if a judge orders them to make an arrest, I don't think they'll disobey that lawful order, even if the AG says so.

[Celerity]

26. unfortunately the AG has the ultimate authority over them

He can shut them down with a stroke of a pen.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/561

28 U.S. Code § 561. United States Marshals Service


(a) There is hereby established a United States Marshals Service as a bureau within the Department of Justice under the authority and direction of the Attorney General. There shall be at the head of the United States Marshals Service (hereafter in this chapter referred to as the “Service”) a Director who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
(b) The Director of the United States Marshals Service (hereafter in this chapter referred to as the “Director”) shall, in addition to the powers and duties set forth in this chapter, exercise such other functions as may be delegated by the Attorney General.

[marylandblue]

31. Marshals are required by law to enforce court orders.

The AG can't stop it. If the AG orders a Marshal to refuse a court order or fires the Marshal, it sets up a conflict with the judicial branch that is a true constitutional crisis. The Marshal will have to decide which master to serve. Or maybe that's the time to take to the streets.

[Celerity]

34. oh, it will be a constitutional crisis, but the AG can shut them down, court order or not

see my post here, for the way I see the current lay of the land

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212248189#post29

[marylandblue]

41. All the AG can do is to fire and replace the Marshal.

But each executive branch employee decides for him or herself what is an unlawful order and can refuse it. So if the Marshal has any principles (and that's not a given under this administration) he or she can ignore the AG and also refuse to be fired for an unlawful purpose. That's a bit farfetched, but anything is possible with Trump.

[StarfishSaver]

50. The deputy marshals are the ones who actually carry out the court orders

The courts shouldn't have any trouble finding plenty of deputy marshals to carry out their orders

[StarfishSaver]

36. The marshals aren't likelt to defy a lawful court order, especially in response

to an unlawful order from the AG.

[marylandblue]

42. Well I'd hope so, but who knows what kind of trolls lurk in the Trump Administration.

[StarfishSaver]

35. The AG can't just "shut them down" - Congress created them and only Congress can get rid of them

The marshals aren't likely to follow an unlawful order from the AG. And, if push came to shove, the court can deputize the marshals to carry out its orders.

[Celerity]

38. I would like to believe your are right but I will believe it when I see it

I did not mean shut them down as in tear down the organisation, by the way. I meant he will order them to not obey the court, as he will claim it is an unlawful order from them (as Rump will have signed a countermanding executive order by then and Barr will claim the court has not ruled on that <<<< even though that is complete rubbish).

[marylandblue]

44. No, he can't order them to disobey a court order.

The law delegates enforcement of court orders directly to the Marshals, not the AG.

[StarfishSaver]

53. Fun Fact: Thurgood Marshall's son was the chief US Marshal during the Clinton Administration

He was Marshal Marshall.

[tblue37]

59. I wonder if he knew Major Major Major Major. nt

[Polybius]

57. Arrest who? Trump?

They would be shot by the Secret Service before they got within 1,000 feet of him.

[StarfishSaver]

58. No, not Trump

The Treasury officials who refuse to turn over the documents. Trump is not party to the litigation and the court order doesn't apply to him. It applies to the custodians of his tax records.

However, even if this were Trump, the Secret Service is charged with protecting the life and safety of the president it's not their mission to protect him from embarrassment, political consequences or arrest. They won't shoot a fellow law enforcement officer unless the president is in immediate danger.

[Polybius]

60. It falls under safety if they are trying to arrest him

Maybe they wouldn't immediately shoot them, but they wouldn't let them arrest him.

[StarfishSaver]

61. No, it doesn't

Arresting him isn't a threat to his safety. And if the agents tried to interfere with a judge's order to take him into custody, they'd be violating a lawful order and would themselves be subject to arrest for contempt of court and possibly other crimes. They may insist on accompanying him, but they would not legally be permitted to prevent the arrest.

Of course, this is all academic since this scenario isn't likely to happen.

[Polybius]

62. His safety could be in jeopardy in jail

Besides the point though. No SS is going to let anyone take a President. Lets stop talk about this though, since your original post that I replied to was misinterpreted (and you weren't talking about arresting Trump).

If he's impeached or a new President is sworn in though, it's a far different story.

[StarfishSaver]

63. Being arrested doesn't mean he would be put into an unsafe situation or even go to jail

Secret Service would make sure that he's not in danger in jail - he surely wouldn't go into general population, something the judge would address when issuing the bench warrant. But Secret Service couldn't interfere with his arrest by claiming they think he would be in danger in jail. They have to do what the judge says, no matter what and if the judge says he's going to jail, Secret Service has no say in whether he does or not. Their power, at that point, would be limited to trying to keep him safe in whatever situation the judge orders him into.

Yes, it's beside the point, but it's an interesting thought experiment, isn't it?

[Polybius]

64. They might compromise

Imagine if they insisted that they would accompany him in jail? Wouldn't that be interesting?

[StarfishSaver]

65. Yes

If it were to come to this, they would work out everything in advance.

They would surely insist on accompanying him to jail. The judge would put him protective custody outside of the general population. He'd be in a secure area, with his Secret Service detail and full communication apparatus - which the White House Communications Agency would have to set up - because as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, he'd have to have constant, secure communication capability. His military aide would also have to be within a few yards at all times.

If the president's in jail for contempt of court, would the 25th Amendment kick in or would he be deemed to still be capable of carrying out the duties of the office from jail?

This would be a very interesting endeavor.

[demosincebirth]

55. How do you think they'll vote? Give you one guess

[superpatriotman]

2. Who will stop him?

The unitary executive is, essentially, a dictator by design.

[at140]

23. Elizabeth Warren! .. nt

[Celerity]

29. Yep, Trump is at the head of a constitutional trifecta of tyranny

Trump (commander in chief with vast executive powers)
AG Barr who control the Justice Department
Senate Majority leader McTurtle, who controls the only organ (other than the puppet cabinet and VP) who can oust Trump

The SCOTUS has no real enforcement power, as the AG can block the US Marshals, etc

The House can only impeach, not remove (the only thing they can do is try and shutdown the government, but Trump will just bypass via executive order and dare anyone to stop it)

The cabinet (as already mentioned) is hand-picked puppets

it is an epic clusterfuck

The only ones who MIGHT step in

is the truly awful option

The US Military

do we really want a coup?

it may come down to that, if things go truly all pete tong (I mean full blown, to a point far beyond where we are at now, but certainly that point is starting to enter the longer range event horizon)

perilous times

[misanthrope]

32. The linchpin to the entire miasma is

Mitch McConnell. As the leader of the GOP Senate, he could put a stop to it by rallying his charges and letting the House know the limit has been reached and the teapot dictator must be deposed.

Yes, he could do that, but he won't. He's too craven, too Machiavellian. He would rather the nation burn than relinquish partisan division to safeguard the Constitution and our representative democracy.

How ironic. He calls himself Republican but is willing to destroy a republic.

[Celerity]

37. this has all been 'war gamed' out for decades by the rethugs and their paymasters

They look at every single level and vector of power, every combo from state/local up to federal, then find inflection points that they can use to increase their power at the expense of all other competing entities.

[misanthrope]

39. Yes, it has

They started a couple of generations ago, filling as many offices as possible from the bottom up.

One of my college roommates and I used to joke about the widespread adoption of the word "liberal" as a solely negative descriptive during the Reagan era, that we expected to hear people start using it for inclement weather. Here's the rub: he was vice president of our university's Young Republicans chapter. Even so, he still understood the ridiculousness of what was unfolding.

It was no accident that "liberal" became tainted like that. It was purposeful, a small portion of a larger plan from those who had their eyes trained many decades into the future. They had capital and they had patience. What we're seeing now is all part of the same thing, something launched before the first space shuttle.

Their schemes have been despicable, but masterful.

[superpatriotman]

45. Liberty university

George Mason university
ALEC
Federalist Society
Koch Industries
University of Chicago
Etc.

[Celerity]

48. The Powell Memo too, regardless of it's apparent obscurity in the beginning

The Powell Memo with Commentary

Below is the first page of the memo with its thesis circled:

https://www.thwink.org/sustain/articles/017_PowellMemo/index.htm

The Powell Memo was the precipitating event for the swift rise and astounding success of big business and its control of the United States, starting in the early 1970s. The memo presented a bold strategy for how the corporate life form could take over the key portions of the system, without the other side knowing what was happening. Unless they have read the memo, they still don't.

snip


Authentic Reproduction of the Memo
Here is an authentic reproduction of the complete Powell Memo PDF with no commentary

https://www.thwink.org/sustain/articles/017_PowellMemo/PowellMemoReproduction.pdf

[superpatriotman]

43. Bravo on the Pete Tong reference!

You must be an aging house fan, like me.

[Celerity]

46. no, 23 year old London-raised girl, lolol

It's rhyming slang

pete tong 'wrong'

but have listened to Pete at Ibiza and on the BBC for ages

[superpatriotman]

56. At 23 'ages' means something different than it does an old raver

Do you listen to the ‘old’ Tong shows on YT?

[Celerity]

68. some yes, or downloads, like his older, 90's Essential Selections

here is a great BBC Radio 1 set with one of my favourite Swedish techno DJ's Adam Beyer

it's from February 2019

[elleng]

3. Let's see how long it takes for someone/entity to say STOP,

with strong and enforceable consequences.

[at140]

4. Who will that be? Turtle face? Willard?

Those mobs showing up at Drumpf's rallies has every republican scared.

[woodsprite]

11. Right now, I doubt that will ever happen.

Republican judges, Republican Senate, his administration, his family? They're all his enablers, and truthfully, his users too, because they're using him as much as he's using them to grab and pocket what they can.

[triron]

7. If he does he will get a sternly worded letter.

[MyOwnPeace]

30. Or, if they're really serious,

a "doubly sternly" worded letter! (I'd like to put a bunch of here, but I'm beginning to think that we've gone past the point of thinking it as something impossible........... )

[malaise]

8. The Court ruled

That should be end of fucking story - PERIOD

[AncientGeezer]

21. Not really...SCOTUS sent it back down..leaving a door open

..for the Dumpster to fix the reasoning...
Trying to do an EO.....that would be an interesting case to watch

[kentuck]

9. What can the Court do about it if he issues an executive order? Nothing.

It is still up to Congress to hold the President accountable.

We shall see where it goes after Mueller?

[world wide wally]

13. Well. Nancy?

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. "Executive order" doesn't mean "this overrides the courts"

They've struck down his executive orders before, eg the Muslim ban.

[AncientGeezer]

22. But..with a rewording(2nd bite)...have upheld the EO's

[SoCalDem]

10. Of course he can/will.

The house can only impeach, but the Senate will save his bacon.

Get used to it. We've got a tyrant in charge, running amok

I do not see the house doing diddly squat.. except for the stern looks and wringing of hands & clutching of pearls.

[nuxvomica]

12. They SC shouldn't have offered another bite at the apple

As soon as their motives were found to be inadequate, that should've been it. It doesn't matter what alternate rationale they manage to cobble together, the original motivation still exists. If someone murders a spouse for the insurance money, do they get a retrial if they can later figure out how to plead self-defense?

[triron]

14. Normally not but exceptions are made for the President.

[StarfishSaver]

16. The Court did the right thing

Last edited Fri Jul 5, 2019, 05:59 PM - Edit history (1)

In fact, they went further than I expected. They could have ruled based solely on the record before them, which didn't include evidence of the lies.

Sending it back for further proceedings, which allows the lower court judge to reopen the record was the appropriate thing to do.

[empedocles]

49. Thank you

[Retrograde]

17. "Mr Marshall has made his law

now let him enforce it” , according to Trump’s hero Andy Jackson. The ruling in question upheld Native American rights against Southern landgrabbers.

[Celerity]

40. yep, like Stalin said

[misanthrope]

47. I always get a kick out of Trump's stated "admiration" of Jackson

All he knows about the seventh POTUS was that he liked killing brown people and manipulated the ignorant.

[Everyman Jackal]

18. Since an EO can not override The Supreme Court

the question will be invalid. It looks like if he tries then the question will be on a separate form. We have to make sure that everyone including illegal immigrants through that piece of paper away. How can they arrest you for not answering a question that legally doesn't even exist? Since legal and illegal throw away that form how will they know who is legal or illegal are they going to arrest millions of people?

[AncientGeezer]

25. SCOTUS didn't actually decide the case...they sent it back down

[MiniMe]

19. Unless SCOTUS says it is legal to put the question on the census, I'm not answering that question

Yes, I am a citizen. But it it why they are asking it that I object to.

[notdarkyet]

27. I'm blacking mine out and writing redacted.

[pwb]

24. Should news organizations ask questions?

A question is not news.

[real Cannabis calm]

28. I spent my entire career in media: AND WE ASKED PLENTY OF "QUESTIONS!"

Many news articles focus on specific and general questions in western media. How long did you work in media?

[pwb]

66. Sure you did?

Asking people questions is fine. Asking a question in general is not news. Fox pulls questions out of their ass all the time? who cares? I work for the federal government.

[real Cannabis calm]

69. In college, where I learned to write news, questions were the basis:

WHO?
WHAT?
WHEN?
WHERE?
HOW MUCH?
HOW MANY?

By the way, nice promo for Faux News. Other real media does the same thing, on occasion.

If you worked for certain agencies at the US Federal Govt, you would have full access to my employment history, instead of questioning my honest reply. Also, I realize that of all the people, who graduate with a communications degree, only a few actually obtain jobs in media.

[0rganism]

33. he can and if he does, there will be no timely consequences for him

i think it's past time to admit the founders dropped the ball on this one. among other things, they didn't foresee a malevolent executive, hostile to the republic itself and supported by foreign powers, which would arise within the nation, feeding on internal divisions drawn from its own history.

[Kurt V.]

51. plus a subservient half of congress.

[Initech]

52. Please for the love of god don't give him any ideas!!!

[Gothmog]

54. The court hearing the discrimatory intent case just ruled against the DOJ

Link to tweet

[bluecollar2]

67. Yes

We have reached the point where the separation of powers is now irrelevant.

Trump will do as he pleases and force the issues into courts which are now rigged.

Our hope right now must be to turn out the vote in such overwhelming numbers that he is booted from the White House.

The next Democratic President will be tasked with restoring faith in government and its institutions....as usual.