Spine-of-Steel Bondi Tells Judge to Pound Sand, Says Admin Will Follow the Law Instead of Crony Judge
By: Samantha-Chang (The Western Journal)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
By Samantha Chang March 20, 2025 at 7:40am Facebook FacebookShare on Facebook Twitter XTweet TelegramShare Truth SocialShare GettrShare EmailEmail Share MoreShare Advertisement - story continues below
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi eviscerated unelected federal judges who are illegally obstructing President Donald Trump's executive orders, saying they're overstepping their authority.
Over the weekend, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg of the District of Columbia blocked the Trump administration from deporting members of the transnational crime ring Tren de Aragua, a deadly Venezuelan gang.
During an emergency hearing Saturday, Boasberg verbally ordered the government to turn around any aircraft that were carrying deportees.
Advertisement - story continues below
However, at least two flights took off during the hearing and landed in El Salvador, ABC News reported.
Administration officials argued that the planes were over international waters and thus outside Boasberg's jurisdiction at the time.
The judge then issued a written order halting further deportations for at least 14 days, pending judicial review.
On Monday, Boasberg — who was elevated to the federal bench by former President Barack Obama — demanded the administration answer the following questions about the two deportation flights that took off:
Advertisement - story continues below
- What time did the plane take off from U.S. soil and from where?
- What time did it leave U.S. airspace?
- What time did it land on foreign soil?
- When were the terrorists transferred out of U.S. custody?
- How many were on board the flight?
The White House has until Thursday to respond.
Does the Trump administration have the right to ignore the courts where the courts contradict the law of the land? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge via email. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Yes: 98% (4175 Votes) No: 2% (81 Votes)
Bondi said Boasberg has no authority to block Trump's deportation of terrorists.
"Our lawyers are working on this, we will answer appropriately," Bondi said Wednesday on Fox News.
"But what I will tell you is, this judge has no right to ask those questions," she underscored.
Advertisement - story continues below
Bondi: This judge has no right to ask those questions. The judge had no business, no power to do what he did. This judge had no right to do that.. pic.twitter.com/0dqgakyVym
— Acyn (@Acyn) March 19, 2025
Related: Watch: Karoline Leavitt Lays Out Disturbing Facts That Explain Why Trump Signed Department of Education Death Sentence
On Saturday, Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act to expel the Tren de Aragua terrorists.
The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 allows the president to detain or deport enemy invaders.
Advertisement - story continues below
"You have one unelected federal judge trying to control foreign policy, trying to control the Alien Enemies Act, which they have no business presiding over," Bondi told Fox News.
"And there are 261 reasons why Americans are safer now. That's because those people are out of this country."
The attorney general continued: "The judge had no business, no power, to do what he did. This has been a pattern with these liberal judges."
"They're meddling in foreign affairs. They're meddling in our government, and the question should be, 'Why is a judge trying to protect terrorists who invaded our country over our American citizens?'" Bondi asked.
Advertisement - story continues below
The AG said the administration will respond to Boasberg's questions, but will appeal his injunction, and will continue to expel terrorists from the homeland.
"We are going to deport them, and we're going to continue to deport them," she vowed. "We will honor what the court says, but we will appeal. And we will continue to fight terrorists within our country."
At a news conference Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt ripped Boasberg as a "Democratic activist" who's trying to usurp the authority of the executive branch.
"The judge in this case is essentially trying to say the president doesn't have the executive authority to deport foreign terrorists from our American soil," she said. "That is an egregious abuse of the bench."
Advertisement - story continues below
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt criticises a judge for being an 'activist judge' appointed by Barack Obama'.
NBC News's Garrett Haake corrects her on Live TV: "Judge Boasberg was originally appointed by George W. Bush, and then elevated by Barack Obama." pic.twitter.com/Frp7YLbmAU
— Basit Mahmood (@BasitMahmood91) March 20, 2025
"This judge cannot, does not, have that authority," she said. "And that's why we're fighting this in court. It's very clear that this is an activist judge who is trying to usurp this president's authority."
"Under the Alien Enemies Act, the president has the power, and that's why the deportation campaign will continue," Leavitt vowed.
Advertisement - story continues below
Unelected left-wing activists masquerading as nonpartisan judges must stop wasting taxpayer money and abusing the court system to undermine the president's authority.
Unlike Trump, nobody voted for these subversive, rogue agitators.
Calling members trolls or dishonest will cause your comments to be deleted. All NT rules apply.
Tags
Who is online
51 visitors
Lawfare bitch slapped..........as it should be. Who the hell tells these pompous asses that they are the arbiter of federal intervention?
This is the constitutional mechanism of judicial checks on executive power. Trump is trying yet again to be above the law. His supporters do a disservice to the nation when they try to defend him engaging in wrongful acts.
In simple terms, this act requires that those deported be enemy invaders. The legal context for 'enemy invader' is that of a combatant from a nation on which the USA has declared war or formally declared an invasion.
The judge rejected the use of the Alien Enemies Act because these gang members, no matter how bad they are, are not enemy invaders since we are not at war with Venezuela and no formal invasion has been declared. The law is the law and Pam Bondi stated in her confirmation that she would follow the law and the constitution rather than follow Trump. That is how an AG is supposed to operate. I am not surprised that she lied in her confirmation and is indeed simply doing the bidding of Trump.
No, it is not. At least 3 Supreme Court Justices have been complaining about district Judges filing nationwide injunctions. Let the SCOTUS make a decision on it NOW!
He's trying to be 'above the law" by enforcing the law? Kind of a backwards way to look at deporting illegals and the criminal illegals.
With respect to the lower federal courts, the constitutional authorization for Congress to from time to time ordain and establish inferior courts may imply that Congress can alter the system it establishes, including by eliminating exiting federal courts.
Congressional Power to Abolish Federal Courts | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
Let them begin with the DC Court
It is precisely the constitutional mechanism of judicial checks and the legal principle of judicial review. You are just issuing a 'nuh-uh'.
The judge could be overridden upon appeal, but that does not change the fact that this judge is well within his rights and his interpretation of the law is clearly reasonable. We are not at war with Venezuela. Trump has yet again overstepped his bounds. And his supporters who in the past were champions of the rule of law now find the rule of law to be inconvenient.
The question of whether a district judge can issue nation-wide injunctions is an open one, It must be addressed by the SCOTUS.
Nope, not even a question. This is the long-established legal principle of judicial review supported by substantial precedent since 1803.
People can object to it on the basis that they think it is wrong, but it is a well-established, well-practiced legal principle.
Only to the radical left. Three Supreme Court Justices have raised concerns about it. I'm surprised it didn't get to the SCOTUS in Trump's first term. I'm sure AG Bondi is going to drive every one of these cases right up Chief Justice Robets nose.
Explain how you can come to the conclusion that misusing the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 is enforcing the law.
Trump was trying to bypass due-process by misusing an ancient act.
Apparently then you think that those of us who still uphold the CotUS and the rule of law are the 'radical left'.
Of course, she will do Trump's bidding no matter what. She was nominated by Trump because she will do his bidding (no matter what).
No matter how you want to interpret the Act, (I know some are saying there must be a war etc,) you do know that the Supreme Court ruled that when a President invokes it, it is not open to judicial review:
"The Alien Enemy Act of 1798 is such a statute. Its terms, purpose, and construction leave no doubt. The language employed by the Fifth Congress could hardly be made clearer, or be rendered doubtful, by the incomplete and not always dependable accounts we have of debates in the early years of Congress. [ Footnote 6 ] That such was the scope of the Act is established by controlling contemporaneous construction. "The act concerning alien enemies, which confers on the president very great discretionary powers respecting their persons," Marshall, C.J., in Brown v. United States , 8 Cranch 110, 12 U. S. 126 , "appears to me to be as unlimited as the legislature could make it." Washington, J., in Lockington v. Smith, 15 Fed.Cas. No. 8448 at p. 760. The very nature of the President's power to order the removal of all enemy aliens rejects the notion that courts may pass judgment upon the exercise of his discretion. [ Footnote 7 ] This view was expressed by Mr. Justice Iredell shortly after the Act was passed, Case of Fries, 9 Fed.Cas. No. 5126, and every judge before whom the question has since come has held that the statute barred judicial
Ludecke v. Watkins | 335 U.S. 160 (1948) | Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center
You are the one crying about that.
The law I'm referring to as being enforced is 8 USC 1227.
This is predicted on a declared war. Right off the bat in your source:
And this is what I outlined in my post . Because we are not at war with Venezuela, Trump legally must follow normal deportation protocols. IF we were at war, then judicial review does not apply.
NOTE :
Well then you are not talking about the topic. The assumption is that you are talking about the topic.
Nobody has stated that a PotUS does not have the power to deport. The problem is deportation without due process and 8 USC 1227 offers no exemption of due process. This is why Trump tried to skirt due process with Alien Enemy Act of 1798. If we were at war with Venezuela then Trump would have the power to deport these individuals without due process.
Since we are not at war, this power does not exist. So 8 USC 1227, et. al., would apply but they require due process.
No. I'm not talking about what YOU want to talk about. I mentioned "enforcing the law", YOU made the wrong assumption you knew what I was referring to and ran with it.
They can get their due process in their home country.
Obviously you have no rebuttal. Why even respond if your comment is just bullshit?
Trump does not have the legal authority to use the Alien Enemy Act of 1798 to bypass due process because we are not at war with Venezuela.
If you hate this act because of how old it is, then you must really hate the Constitution.
I made no argument that this act is wrong or that it is even flawed due to its age.
You posted yet another strawman rather than actually rebut my argument.
The context of your post insinuates that Trump should not have been able to use the act because of its age, otherwise you would not have used the word "ancient"..
Get real. My reference to the age was only to emphasize how far Trump stretched to try to find a loophole.
My argument, however, is crystal clear. Let's see you rebut the argument:
I have no interest in opining on the nonsense of the cut and paste post.
My argument correctly shows you have issues with acts that are considered, to you, to be "ancient". If this "ancient" act was used to find a loophole. then by your logic, using the Constitution to find a loophole is an even more egregious act.
My post stands.
You have no argument, just bullshit.
If it is bullshit, the debunk it.
You have yet to do so.
This bears repeating, especially in the present company.
and my post farts. What exactly do you make of positioning? If you are talking about legal standing, then you had better just sit back down.
A stupid strawman.
I did not deem the law wrong by virtue of it being old. I pointed out that Trump had to go back over 220 years to find a law that he could use as a loophole. I then explained how even his loophole is flawed.
Don't remember any leftists getting upset when Brandon defied Supreme Court rulings not once but twice- both with his illegal Student Loan debt forgiveness program; and his illegal renter's moratorium program (which was Trump's first; but Brandon illegally extended it multiple times after the Court ruled it was illegal).
Yes, courts have the right to judicial oversite; not judicial activism. The courts don't get the right to reinterpret set laws to mean whatever the hell leftists want them to at any given damn time.
Deporting gang members that are here illegally (and never should have been let in) is something that everyone is on board with; but leftists will always defend the indefensible when it comes to Trump.
Trump is fixing Brandon's fuck up; and all leftists can do is fight him every step of the way- and cry about it. Maybe they should ask some of the victims of the gang members that are here illegally what they think? Or leftists can do their normal and blame the victims. Why do leftists love criminals so damn much?
Did not read your Brandon post. Do not care what you wrote.
Okay. To be clear anytime a poll is referred to " Feelings" are invoked not legality.
So since MAGAs are.(allegedly) interested in just facts and legalities. . .MAGAS ought not stray into appeals to emotion!
To be clear, such appeals are fair and useful in human interactions and discussions. . . but, only by those of us who permit and accept them.
Additionally, reference and repeat mentioning of "Brandon" is a headnod to a display of emotions.
Since we are talking about 2 different things, there is no need.
If this idiot judge paid any attention, those questions were answered.
"Check the control tower."
"Guilty"
These people have contempt for the rule of law. Judges are an equal branch of the government and they should act like it and not allow themselves to the intimidated by those with big mouths and lack of respect for other agencies of government.
This is the Court's responsibility: to remember to serve the people not politicians. Judges are not politicians. This can not be overstressed. Though judges are appointed by politicians they do not serve at the pleasure of any politician.
Whenever the President is named Trump?
I thought the SCOTUS said that Biden had no right to forgive student debt.
Even if Biden had ignored the SCotUS that would not be an argument for Trump to ignore the law.
( And Biden did NOT ignore the SCotUS ruling that he could not use the HEROES act to forgive large amounts of student loans. He stopped that and instead he used the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965. He followed the law. )
Brandon did not follow the law- what fucking bullshit.
The only reason Brandon wasn't impeach is that Democrats have no standards or morals. They have proven it repeatedly over the last 9 years and counting.
l don't have any patience for this kind of foolishness. So I'm going to give this short shift.
The difference is in intent and interest.
If the GOP is stupidly trying (and I have every reason to believe that it is) to use democratic presidents actions and acts as cover for deeper and darker actions and act, then do not be surprised when this country falls through its own turning against itself and reason.
That is all I have for you on any such simplistic treatment of the American people who need help, understanding, and wisdom from their human leaders and not to be treated as simple drones or test dummies for political strategies.
I don't recall you or anybody else on the left making those claims when the Biden Administration ignored rulings by not only the district courts but the SCOTUS as well. Why is that?
What you do not remember others not doing and not saying is not a real thing and certainly no excuse for this constitutional crisis...
I don't recall you or anybody else on the left making those claims when the Biden Administration ignored rulings by not only the district courts but the SCOTUS as well.
The Biden administration did not ignore the courts. You should not listen to your news source. It is Wrong.
Again, what you do not remember Biden not doing or saying and what you do not remember me not doing or not saying in reaction to Biden did not do or say is no excuse for any of Trump's crimes!
It is not even a real thing!
I suspect this was meant as a reply to Jeremy.
I did...
Again, what you do not remember Biden not doing or saying and what you do not remember me not doing or not saying in reaction to Biden did not do or say is no excuse for any of Trump's crimes!
It is not even a real thing!
3.1.3. I don't have the strength right now to take on a seemingly neverending quarrel with people who don't want to be reasonable and agreeable across the divide between Republicans and Democrats.
I'd agree but then we'd both be wrong.
Well then, you need to show everyone the decisions and rulings that the Biden administration ignored with the evidence that they were, in fact, ignored.
Student loan forgiveness.............
Sorry. Please try again.
Biden followed the SCotUS ruling. This has been made quite clear even in this major thread:
Note: I disagree with Biden's student loan forgiveness. But you are dead wrong to claim he did not follow the SCotUS directive.
I gave you one. That you didn't like it, isn't my problem.
Clearly you are ignoring the facts.
Biden followed the directive of the SCotUS.
Why are you refusing to accept this fact?
Try again.
Yes you are:
So tell me again how Biden didn't ignore the courts.
You need to actually read what people write.
Your link says what I wrote.
First, I stated the SCotUS, not just 'the courts'
Second, no timetable was established by the Southern District Court of Texas. Given this took place in the middle of 2024, and Biden was not reelected, deeming this defiance is premature.
Third, and most importantly, if Biden did violate a court —especially the SCotUS as I have noted— would you have found that to be wrong? And if so, then why do you not object to Trump defying the SCotUS?
So, let's play your hypothetical. Let's assume Biden violated a lower court order. If so, is it okay for Trump to violate an order?
Spit hairs all you want. Despite what you WANT me to think, Biden ignored court rulings. And you were silent about it.
And in true partisan fashion, you are setting your hair on fire for the current POTUS doing the same thing. The sad part is, you're crying because the current POTUS is doing it and enforcing federal laws.
Let's assume Biden violated a lower court order. If so, is it okay for Trump to violate an order?
There is nothing to assume. See #3.2.16 and #3.2.17. You were good with those.
You accuse others of ignoring fact, and here you are doing the SAME THING.
You just keep refusing to acknowledge reality.
Let's assume Biden violated a lower court order. If so, is it okay for Trump to violate an order?
It is blatantly obvious that no PotUS should violate a court order. That applies to Trump as well as Biden.
But, as usual, you refuse to acknowledge any wrongdoing by Trump and simply deflect.
There is nothing to assume. See #3.2.16 and #3.2.17 . You were good with those.
Is it okay for Trump to violate an order from a federal judge?
There is nothing to assume. See #3.2.16 and #3.2.17 . You were good with those.
That is actually debatable both for Trump and future Presidents considering the Supreme Court's recent rulings regarding Presidential immunity. A ruling that I believe will be reconsidered before very long. Are Presidents above the law, or not?
Unfortunately, you are correct.
In theory. .. I don't know. But, in practice - no violating a judge's order is not going to stand (unless they can show cause) - use the appeal process. . .up to SCOTUS. Why? Because only a set of fools would give the only sway they hold over the country (their opinions) away for absolutely nothing. What good will they be then? May as well go home and all stay their for their opining would be of no value.
Here is an example: The last 2nd amendment case opined by Justice A. Scalia (Deceased.) in an assent to gun rights (whatever it states) 'everywhere' in public. But, not in federal buildings and specifically NOT IN THE SUPREME COURT building. Justices "ain't" actually stupid, for real. They just play politics from time to time because nobody can tell them what to do.