[flagged]
What an absolute travesty and dereliction of duty!
It's a federal judge. If those agents don't want to listen, then they don't deserve the honor of serving America's people.
Washington D.C. is an at-will employment state. If they feel violated because their job requires a bodycam, they can take their vast litany of talents to any private enterprise that's willing to pay for their retinue. Nobody should go to jail because they don't want to wear a bodycam, after all.
You'd be hard pressed to find "wear bodycameras" to be an out of scope form of relief for a case about police brutality, dishonesty in court, and lack of accountability.
You clearly haven't spent much time around courtrooms if you think judges can only create orders that are "follow the law as already written." It's an obviously silly idea when you actually write it out.
So just to be clear you’re both advocating for judges to act outside the law when they issue orders, and are simultaneously claiming this isn’t judicial activism?
No, I’m saying that you fundamentally misunderstand the role of courts, judges, and judicial orders.
The law says “follow the law as written.” Judicial orders necessarily encompass a much, much broader set of types of relief that give courts more levers to compel people to follow the law and to ensure that they actually do it.
This is just how courts work and it always has been. This literally predates the United States by hundreds of years.
Assuming there’s some good faith curiosity behind the curtain here, the concept you want to look up is “equity jurisdiction.”
If you applied that standard, the entire current administration would be gone.
Other episodes like that, not to mention the pattern of the US government outright fabricating stuff in its legal writings, make it clear that the Trump administration is openly contemptuous of the court's authority, and the DoJ by extension has that its primary policy now. The government's lawyers are finally being treated with the respect normally accorded to those contemptuous of the court's authority.
I find that bringing all the details in the light is a great way to root out corruption. And it's quite telling of your attack of anti-corruption technology and orders. Tells me what I need to know about you.
No true Scotsman
> Tells me what I need to know about you.
Ad hominem
-
But leaving these logical fallacies aside, I bet you can’t make any coherent argument about “fascism” because there is no clear definition for this word - other than simply labeling anything right of socialist as “fascist”. This gaslighting no longer works, and is why Trump was able to win again.
The check and balance you’re looking for is in the law already - if one side wants body cams for federal agents they can win Congressional seats and pass a law around it. If they want to change administrative policy they can win a presidential election.
But letting people violently attack federal agents and then trying to hamper operations in the court is just lawfare and judicial activism at best, and directly enabling terrorists at worst.
fascism /făsh′ĭz″əm/ noun
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
Sorry, but The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition (and just about every other English language dictionary, I suspect) begs to differ. There is indeed a very clear definition for that word.