Oh dear NO. The poor wittle federal agents surely cannot handle hearing (reading) such AGGRESSIVE language as the word "must" as they drag human beings from their homes as citizens protest.
What an absolute travesty and dereliction of duty!
They aren’t police. They’re federal agents. Where in the law, specifically, are they required to wear body cameras? What’s the legal argument, apart from the judge arbitrarily deciding this, for them to wear body cameras?
Again, what law is there that is applicable to federal agents and requires body cameras? Be specific. A federal judge doesn’t make laws. They interpret and apply existing laws.
They're federal agents, not presidential mercenaries. When you work for the federal government, you must obey checks-and-balances even if you don't agree with the politics. We have a whole Watergate scandal to prove it.
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.
Judges can order all sorts of things they deem are reasonably necessary to enforce their rulings or the law. Injunctive relief can take a huge variety of things so long as it's narrow and directly applicable to the case before them.
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.
> 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?
There should be an internet law for “Just to be clear you’re saying… <inject OP’s own bad faith interpretation>”
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.”
A judge needs to remain calm and neutral. Behaving like an angry child means they aren’t fit for the job. And also, their earlier order didn’t include that. Which is why she literally edited the formal written order now.
The judge is angry here because the US government indicated it agreed to these conditions during the oral hearing on the order, and is now arguing that it doesn't need to abide by what it orally agreed to because it's not in the written order.
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.
Only MAGA sycophants and fascist adjacents would not want appropriate checks and balances.
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.
> Only MAGA sycophants and fascist adjacents would not want appropriate checks and balances.
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.
> ... because there is no clear definition for this word - other than simply labeling anything right of socialist as “fascist”.
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.
Police and politicians often says that if I am doing nothing wrong, I should not be afraid of being watched. But when police is watched, it is suddenly a big problem...
