421
Judge orders Trump administration to immediately unfreeze federal funding and to stop violating his rulings
(www.businessinsider.com)
this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2025
421 points (99.5% liked)
politics
19916 readers
3956 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think the judge is mistaken. This is an official act. That means it’s not constrained by things like rulings. In fact, law just isn’t applicable. They really should put more effort into staying up-to-date. /s
Well, supreme Court already said if it's an official act, then he is immune. So if he decides a court order but it's an official act, then he can't be guilty.
Great job there scotus
I get your point, but just because you and your freedom are immune to prosecution doesn't mean your money and property are safe from seizure. For example, if it's believed that Mar-a-Lago was used in the process of a crime, like withholding documents or discussing illegal things, then it can be seized in civil asset forfeiture and Trump would have to prove his innocence to get it back. Same with his money. I think it's possible in the current context to find a judge willing to try this. I have no idea how the execution of such an order would play out. But there are still interesting cards unplayed.
It wouldn't. The order would get appealed, the appeal would be slow walked so it wouldn't be executed in a timely manner, and eventually, it would find its way to the supreme ~~kangaroo~~ court and be deemed unconstitutional to seize the assets of the acting president ~~for life~~.
Edit to add sarcasm tag?
One would hope that’s not necessary!
And yet here we are
The internet has taught me that there is no such thing as sarcasm that everyone can detect.
This is the timeline where that guy took POTUS. It's necessary.
Don’t ever use the /s. I don’t and look how awesome I am.
I’m not saying you’re wrong in your opinion here, but I am gonna ask what happens if Trump does not comply with a federal judge’s order or the order from a state judge that would have implications and federal rulings?
I think the courts already determined that you can’t prosecute a sitting president, are there no repercussions?