DOJ Asks Court: Are Rules Optional for Admin Deporting Migrants?
The AP reports the Justice Department is asking an appeals court to block a contempt investigation against the Trump administration for allegedly defying a court order to halt deportation flights of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador. They also want Chief Judge James Boasberg removed, claiming he's biased and running a 'circus'. This, of course, from the same administration that routinely tested
the limits of judicial oversight. The pattern? If a court order inconveniently stops a policy, the policy isn't the problem – the judge is. This isn't about separation of powers; it's about whether one arm of government believes it's above the law. The constant push for removal of inconvenient judges, the dismissal of oversight as 'radical,' and the relentless pursuit of policies regardless of
legal challenge, suggests a clear preference for unchecked executive authority. One might charitably wonder if the 'radical' part is simply holding power accountable to its own rules. How many legal warnings does it take before such actions are called what they are?