3 ms·

separation of powers require the people in gov't to enforce the separation. If the whitehouse is using federal agents to force an action that is directly contr

by chii 2y ago

separation of powers require the people in gov't to enforce the separation. If the whitehouse is using federal agents to force an action that is directly contrary to court judgement, those agents should have refused orders tbh. They need to know what separation of power is, and the citizens need to also be outraged regardless of political affiliation. The problem is that some citizens _are not outraged_ (at least, not enough), and those federal agents are following orders from the whitehouse directly regardless of consequences. So a judge's words right now is only as good as the paper it's written on.

thaumasiotes 2y ago
Like I said, that's the point of the separation of powers. Enforcement isn't a power the judiciary has. I'm not quite clear on how your comment responds to mine?
- ty6853 2y ago
  Supreme court and many other courts have judicial armed officers of the court that are part of the judicial branch; they can enforce contempt or orders of the court. But of course they are way overpowered by the number of LEO in the executive.
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    > Supreme court and many other courts have judicial armed officers of the court that are part of the judicial branch; The Supreme Court, but not lower federal courts, has its own police department, but its legal authority is limited to security for the Supreme Court building and grounds and the Supreme Court justices, and to make arrests for violations of federal law as necessary to those two functions. They do not enforce orders of the court unrelated to those functions. (For lower federal courts, these functions are performed by the US Marshals Service, a DoJ agency, which also does enforce other court orders; but, that's an executive not a judicial-branch agency.)
    - ty6853 2y ago
      The other courts in this case would be bailiffs who are judicial officers in some states.

by chii 2y ago

thaumasiotes 2y ago

Like I said, that's the point of the separation of powers. Enforcement isn't a power the judiciary has. I'm not quite clear on how your comment responds to mine?

ty6853 2y ago
Supreme court and many other courts have judicial armed officers of the court that are part of the judicial branch; they can enforce contempt or orders of the court. But of course they are way overpowered by the number of LEO in the executive.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  > Supreme court and many other courts have judicial armed officers of the court that are part of the judicial branch; The Supreme Court, but not lower federal courts, has its own police department, but its legal authority is limited to security for the Supreme Court building and grounds and the Supreme Court justices, and to make arrests for violations of federal law as necessary to those two functions. They do not enforce orders of the court unrelated to those functions. (For lower federal courts, these functions are performed by the US Marshals Service, a DoJ agency, which also does enforce other court orders; but, that's an executive not a judicial-branch agency.)
  - ty6853 2y ago
    The other courts in this case would be bailiffs who are judicial officers in some states.