Summary
The Democratic National Committee and two other party committees have sued Trump over Executive Order 14215, which claims authority to seize control of the Federal Elections Commission.
The lawsuit argues this violates federal law and threatens free elections.
The order also claims power over other agencies including the SEC, FTC, and NLRB.
Democrats contend this executive overreach contradicts constitutional principles and a century of Supreme Court precedent upholding Congress’s authority to insulate certain agencies from presidential control.
Jails are administered by judges. Put a judge in jail illegally, and another judge will immediately release them.
Ok, the judge gets swept up in a military tribunal or they just say anyone collaborating with this judge is also guilty of treason. This is all putting aside brownshirts straight up burning down their house and the FBI regrettably failing to catch the culprits.
You can’t arrest someone for treason without a warrant. And warrants are signed by judges.
The rest of your hypothetical describes kidnapping and arson. Kidnapping and arson are state crimes even if the perp is a federal employee. The brownshirts would be arrested by state/local police (who vastly outnumber federal agents btw) and tried in state courts.
Well, you can’t legally arrest someone without a warrant. We’re talking about a situation where the rule of law is being dismantled.
Although, I also wouldn’t put it past them to argue that you don’t need a warrant to arrest someone for “issuing a treasonous court order” on the grounds that it was done in plain view or that they have probable cause to believe the judge committed said treason, which is a felony and thus doesn’t require a warrant.
It’s obvious baloney but that doesn’t mean it’s not a workable veneer of legitimacy.
All arrests end with an appearance before a judge. If it’s obvious baloney, the judge will dismiss.
You do know who appoints the judges, right?
And you think the federal government doesn’t have the resources to pull off those crimes without plausible deniability? Or that the right wing militias aren’t perfectly constructed to take their own initiative, fight and die for their dear leader anyway?
State judges are elected or appointed by governors.
Judges aren’t healthcare CEOs: they are accustomed to being targeted by criminals, they have armed security details, and they have the chief of police on speed-dial.
The federal government might have “plausible deniability” but the perps are still going to be arrested and tried. “Plausible deniability” just means the government will abandon them.
Genuine question because I’m not a lawyer, but why would a state judge specifically need to issue the warrant? And could it come from any red state maga judge?
And yes, the government would absolutely abandon them. But all a dictator (or his public propaganda) needs to say is “unfortunate violence, but that judge got what was coming to him” and the lap dogs will eat it up. There are way more willing martyrs than judges.
Will the chief of police stop the feds from finding a hard-drive full of CP in the judges office, sourced back to some international investigation the feds have jurisdiction over?
Your phrasing keeps implying that naked unconstitutional acts would be met with armed resistance, but that’s not what I’m trying to get across. A state judge could pretty fairly label Trump an outlaw today, giving judicial sanction for violent arrest. That doesn’t put a bunch of state police on par with Trump engaging the national guard. All he needs is some thin veil of imagined legitimacy and he has the power to “defend” America from any threat.
For federal crimes, a federal judge would issue the warrant. But not a hand-picked federal judge, they would be randomly chosen from within the jurisdiction.
Even if a Trump-appointed judge were randomly chosen, I doubt they would go along with a bogus warrant against another judge. For one thing, judges (like cops) protect their own. For another, the warrant would be appealed and it’s quite unlikely that every judge in the line of appeal would play along.
That’s not the slam-dunk you seem to think. First, local PD would be present during the search and notice that a hard drive appeared out of nowhere. Next, the forensics team would notice that the only fingerprints on the drive belonged to federal agents. Finally, the judge’s password-protected computer would have no record of interfacing with that drive. All in all, those charges would likely be dismissed.
Trump might be an “outlaw” because he is not following the law, but that is not the same as a “criminal” (someone who has specifically violated the criminal code). And only criminals can be arrested.
The consequence for breaking the law is often not arrest, but a lawsuit. And Trump is being sued all over the place.
Trump isn’t going to successfully engage the national guard against the state police. For one thing, the national guard is paid by the governor’s office. What is Trump offering them?
If the governor tells the guard “Any guardsman who interferes with state police won’t get paid and/or will be demoted”, then nobody will interfere.
Tell me where the buck stops, because we could go back and forth all day. The only people who can remove Trump from office are the legislative branch, and they already consent to what he’s doing. He could just cut federal funding to any state that causes too much of a ruckus.
If they won’t hold him accountable for any blatantly unconstitutional activity then nothing can change. Sure, I guess you could imagine a scenario where all of America collectively decides that the states have a right to intercede and remove elected federal officials, but that’s no longer playing by the rules of the game.
The judicial branch alone cannot save you, suits can go back and forth and injunctions be ignored in perpetuity. If it causes any real annoyance there’s a million levers to pull (pulling funding, national emergencies, the insurrection act, targeted coercion, etc…)
That’s true.
We’re not talking about removing him from office, though. We are talking about judicial remedies, which usually involve paying restitution to people who have been wronged. And getting those people paid is not as difficult as you imagine.
Governors might care if you cut federal funding to their states.
But judges don’t care. And judges don’t work for the governor.
There’s a reason why judges tend to consider themselves as untouchable. None of this would have any effect on them.
Judges sentence mafia captains and drug kingpins to jail, people for whom extortion and violent retribution are second nature. Why do you think they would suddenly be scared off by Trump’s crew of incompetent doofuses?
No, they can’t. Nobody has an infinite bank account.