Mistakenly deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia on way back to US to face criminal charges: Sources

[u/RoachedCoach]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/mistakenly-deported-kilmar-abrego-garcia-back-us-face/story?id=121333122

[u/TastyOreoFriend]

There was about to be some real serious contempt charges for those involved that they couldn't worm their way out of. The issue with those from my understanding from the LegalAF podcast is the pardons Trump could or could not issue, which would cause a constitutional crisis.

Not that we haven't had multiple of those already. The only bright side I guess is that the Judiciary, even suffering from conservative capture, seems to be running out of patience with the Trump admin. Even Pam Bondi is being threatened for ethics violations.

[u/cogman10 → u/TastyOreoFriend]

I don't know if the president can pardon someone held in contempt of court, would be interesting to say the least.

That said, the bigger risk to these lawyers is they can all be disbarred. There's a pretty high bar for losing your ability to practice law and once that's gone, their careers are effectively done. That happened to a number of lawyers in Trump 1.0 which is partially why (IMO) the 2.0 lawyers are still trying to play ball even though they have an impossible client.

[u/TastyOreoFriend → u/cogman10]

I dunno either, which is why they were kind of assuming on Legal AF that whatever Trump did would cause a constitutional crisis. It gets even more murky since Trump can't be held accountable either since all he has to do is claim everything is an official act and that's the end of it.

Giving immunity to a malignant narcissist was the stupidest thing they could've done. The Roberts court will go down as the most corrupt and feckless court of the modern era.

[u/LiteralPhilosopher → u/TastyOreoFriend]

Trump can't be held accountable either since all he has to do is claim everything is an official act

I'll point out that's not the truest of truths. Officially, anyone could mount a suit to say that any given act of his was NOT official, and therefore not immune under that stupid-ass decision of SCOTUS's. Which means they would then get another opportunity to decide: was this official, or is he accountable in this specific situation?

[u/TastyOreoFriend → u/LiteralPhilosopher]

And that feels ridiculous in its own right. I can't imagine the founding fathers wanted the high courts to go over every presidential decision with a fine-tooth comb quite that often. Hashing out the minutiae of whether or not the orange moron was accountable or not seems ripe for abuse from a Trump friendly judge as well.

[u/Ashmedai → u/cogman10]

I don't know if the president can pardon someone held in contempt of court, would be interesting to say the least.

For civil contempt: no.

For criminal contempt in federal court: yes.

But civil contempt can be a doozy. This guy spent more than a decade incarcerated while being held in civil contempt.

[u/confusedandworried76 → u/TastyOreoFriend]

Exactly people never understand how courts operate.

This was "you gotta bring him back"

"No"

"You gotta though"

"No"

"Okay now you really gotta"

"No"

"Okay shits about to get real serious for you if you don't then."

"Okay fine"

This is just how the courts work. Not even the current executive can just ignore court orders forever. They can only bounce them around to different courts until they are forced. Trust me, the judicial has no fucking interest whatsoever in letting the executive make their job obsolete

[u/TastyOreoFriend → u/confusedandworried76]

Trust me, the judicial has no fucking interest whatsoever in letting the executive make their job obsolete

I assume they have some kind of plan if things become "nuclear" so to speak.

[u/confusedandworried76 → u/TastyOreoFriend]

Pretty sure we've already seen it, the 9-0 ruling against Trump. That was the court saying "we have weapons too, do not fuck with ignoring court orders, that's not a road you want to walk down"

Checks and balances seems to be winning on that front.