A federal judge warned of “consequences” if the Trump administration violated court orders, but did not specify what those consequences would be or what it would take for the judge to enact them.

    • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Seriously, if I were a large company owner that had to pay a settlement right now I wouldn’t. I’d just say the executive branch showed the courts aren’t a governing body any more. We killed 17 workers? Oops, who cares. Their families? Fuck em

      • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        What power do courts actually have to enforce judgements? That’ll be the deciding factor. If it’s just bailiffs/sheriffs/cops in general, I find it unlikely they’d do anything.

  • Tronn4@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    16 hours ago

    They already did. Why is there all these warnings and super warnings and ultimatums. Because there are separate laws for us and them.

  • doctortofu@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Consequences? As in, sequences of cons? Because I’ve seen a lot of those already - Trump’s whole damn life is a con sequence…

  • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    edit-2
    19 hours ago

    Anyone wanna guess what those “Consequences” are going to be?

    • A sternly worded written order DEMANDING compliance, with random words in ALL CAPS to show how serious they are this time.
    • A repeat of the orders demanding compliance, but adding the words “OR ELSE” to the end.
    • A $1000 fine for the first dozen or so violations, followed by nothing at all.
    • A contempt of court charge for Trump that actually can’t be enforced because he’s the sitting President.
    • A press release saying that Trump needs to abide by the court’s decisions.
    • Absolutely fucking nothing at all.
      • zenpocalypse@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        14 hours ago

        On the one hand, yeah. On the other hand, would it somehow unleash Stephen Miller even more?

        • Eldritch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          12 hours ago

          No. None of these other chuds had nearly 20 or 30 years of media whitewashing them like Trump had. Stephen Miller is practically date rape incarnate. As Steve Bannon is what alcoholism would be if it were a person.

    • NJSpradlin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      18 hours ago

      Last I checked he can’t be charged with anything as sitting President, not that it can’t be enforced. The SC said that as long as he’s acting in the official capacity of President, and they’re the only ones that can define that on a case by case basis, then it’s official and legal. It’ll be his subordinates that’ll be charged.

      Edit: even my grasp of the situation here seems flimsy to me, so someone more dialed in or informed feel free to re-educate me on the subject.

      • Aa!@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        18 hours ago

        Theoretically, you can still sue the office of the President, just not Trump himself.

        So, you know. You can cost the taxpayers money, but not the person making the terrible costly decisions

      • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        18 hours ago

        Last I checked he can’t be charged with anything as sitting President, not that it can’t be enforced.

        Whichever way it works. The end result is the same.

  • Deello@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Consequences? I don’t know the meaning of the word.

    -Trump probably

    • qprimed@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      13 hours ago

      let it play out. so far the judiciary has been the only administrative bulwark. we will know so much more very shortly and that will dictate what hand is forced next.

      edit: not defending the democrats one bit, but they may be looking for judicially adjudicated constitutional overreach by the executive. when that happens, if the dems dont react with leadership and direction, the only thing left is mass street action (bets on this actually getting organized?) and then there will almost certainly be real violence - which may open up the fourth box.