US judges who decide against Trump, who blocks abuse and threats, warn experts | Trump Administration

US judges, who have increasingly covered the hard deportation agenda of the Trump government and other Maga guidelines, stand by the president and his allies, who apparently have other dangerous threats to judges, say, right -wing experts and former judges.

The escalating struggle of the Trump government has come with the courts, since more than 200 complaints have questioned the orders and guidelines for the executive in several questions, including the deportation of migration background, the punishment of law firms with connections to political enemies, expenditure for agency and work cuts as well as other assets.

The wave of the legal dispute has caused Trump and other initiatives to temporarily or by judicial decisions of judges, which were named both by Democrats and Republicans, more than 100 executive commands.

Ex-judges and right-wing experts are increasingly warning the verbal attacks by Trump, his Attorney General Pam Bondi and Maga allies, an enemy climate that endangers the security of judges and their families.

“The constant failure of Trump and his allies of judicial decisions as a political nature together with their false, vitualative and ad hominem attacks on individual judges who make them distort the public's perception of the federal court,” said former judge John Jones, who is now president of Dickinson College.

Jones added: “These attacks are a climate in which the security of judges and their families is exposed to a high risk.”

These risks were underlined when the top democrat in the Senate Justice Committee, Richard Durbin, wrote to Bondi and the FBI director Kash Patel this month and an investigation of the anonymous pizza deliveries to at least a dozen judges, which aim to edit them as cases that affect the administration.

Durbin's letter found that some of the pizza deliveries in the name of the son of the US district of Esther Salas, Daniel Anderl, were made, who pretended to be a delivery person in 2020 by a lawyer, according to an April broker from Salas and lawyer Paul Kiesel.

Elsewhere and more than two dozen other ex-judges on the Jurisstag this month gave a strong explanation in which a new article III coalition was announced that is connected to the impartial group to support our republic to support legal independence, and warn of the dangers of the judges of Trump administration.

In a related trace, more than 150 former and state judges of both parties signed a letter to Bondi and Patel at the beginning of May, who had arrested the increasing attacks by the government on the judiciary and the unusual arrest of a judge of Milwaukee, who was charged with dominant agents, an unexpected arrest in Wisconsin.

A federal grand jury on May 13 accused the judge for the disability of a procedure and for the arrest of a person before arrest.

“The circumstances of the arrest of the Milwaukee judge – her arrest, the perpetrator, the image of her handcuffs, the comments of the FBI director and the Attorney General – were so far above the accepted practice and the rules of Nancy Gertner, a former judge who is now teaching at the Harvard Law School.

“It should clearly intimidate other judges;

Gertner's concerns were underlined when Bondi threatened other judges shortly after the judge was arrested who could possibly look back on their legal agenda. “You are disturbed,” Bondi told Fox News. “I think some of these judges believe that they are beyond the law, and they are not. We will come after them and we will follow them.”

Gertner emphasized: “I hear where the judges are concerned about their own security. There are people who have been inflamed by the fire comments of our president and members of the congress.

Some judges from Trump and other judges appointed by the President of both parties have annoyed the administration with their decisions and excited Trump's anger.

Trump pushed the DC Federal James James Boasberg in March and incorrectly branded him as a “radical Lunatic” after making a decision to hire the deportation to El Salvador with numerous Venezolan immigrants with alleged gang gangs.

Although he did not mention Trump's attack on Boasberg, Chief Justice John Robert's hours later criticized political attacks on the judiciary And warned of the calls to complain about judges because of their decisions.

In a year of the year, Roberts warned clearly of threats that aimed at judges in December and found that there had been a considerable increase in threats to violence, the defense of court certificates and disinformation.

In a further dust, the US district judge Beryl Howell issued a determined decision in May that an executive regulation for the Perkin's Coie law firm, which Hillary Clinton's campaign had represented in 2016, had violated the first, fifth and sixth changes.

Howell described the Trump order as “blunt power exercise”, which “is not a legitimate use of the powers of the US government or an American president”.

A Trump representative, the Texas judge Fernando Rodriguez, repeated two further decisions this month to prevent the Trump administration from the use of the law on alien enemies from 1798 -which had only been applied three times -to the alleged members of a Venezolan gang that distributed a Trump attack on social media.

“Can it be the case that the judges do not allow the USA to deport criminals, including murderers, outside of our country and back there? If so, as we know, our country is done!” Trump wrote in a social contribution of truth.

Despite the increase in undesirable decisions, the Trump government receives some court leave that at least support part of their arguments.

A federal judge in Pennsylvania on May 13 decided for the first time that Trump can use the alien enemy law to accelerate the deportation of the accused, accused gangs, but clearly stated that targeted migrants have to be in the foreground and have to question the opportunity for the challenge of their distances.

Skip the past newsletter -promotion

After newsletter promotion

Nevertheless, legal scientists and ex-judges warn that the Trump administration has created an enemy climate with many judges by promoting factually and legally dubious cases and tried to smear judges that ruled against them.

“Federal courts have always been ready to blame a lawyer of the Ministry of Justice”. Now the judges are increasingly being presented with the Trump administration emitted, who are difficult to support courts, and who like to respond when their leaders react to adverse decisions by attacking judges personally.

Former Republican Congressman Charlie Dent from Pennsylvania said that the Trump government's setbacks were associated with their legally incorrect cases.

“It seems that the president is regularly hit in court because many of his executive regulations are legally and constitutionally questionable,” said Dent. “His lawyers try to argue weak cases and that's why they lose.”

Dent added that Trump had “thrown mud against the wall to see what sticks. If it doesn't stick, he accuses the dishes.

Gertner emphasized: “Trump has gone constitutional and legal boundaries beyond recognition, especially with regard to the law on the extraterrestrial enemies … Everyone has the rights of the constitution on the US floor, which means at least one hearing.”

Some judges who have involved themselves with Trump and the Federal Prosecutor's Office about the radical deportation policy of the government were involved in extended court battles to obtain direct answers and facts from state lawyers.

Boasberg, which was appointed by the President of both parties at different times, opened a hearing against the administration after blocking an injunction to blocking the use of the Ania Enemies Act by shifting dozens of alleged Venezuelan gang members.

In response to this, the Trump government blocked the state secret law to block its investigation, whether it opposed a Boasberg command to turn airplanes over, deported the Venezolan immigrants to El Salvador.

Another top-class deportation decision, which the Trump government led upset and led to lengthy court battles, affects a man from Maryland, who was wrongly deported to a dangerous prison in El Salvador, was an error.

Despite judicial orders, including the Supreme Court to “facilitate” the return of the man, the government did not do this while he offers dubious excuses.

The dangerous failure from the administration of court findings and attacks on judges by the government seems to have led to the anonymous pizza deliveries to the houses of the judges.

Durbin's letter to Bondi and Patel applied for a complete accounting of how many anonymous or pseudonyms pizza deliveries to judges or their families have been carried out since the Trump administration took office, the number of judges and the districts or circuits in which these judges were based.

The pizza deliveries began towards the end of February, when the government's lawyers tried to thwart the increasing legal challenges of Trump's politics, and as Trump and Maga allied frequent attacks against judges, the decisions of which they relaxed.

The US Marshals Service, which offers security for federal judges and courthouse, examined the deliveries. However, it is unclear what role the headquarters of the Ministry of Justice and the FBI have played so far.

Many of the pizzas have been reported to the residences of judges that are available due to cases in which the administration defended.

In the Durbin letter to Bondi and Patel, they were asked to report by May 20, whether they identified suspects, have initiated law enforcement measures or have found evidence that the deliveries were coordinated and describe the steps their agencies have taken to protect judges and their families.

For ex-Judge Jones, the reports of pizza deliveries that aim to scare judges are “disgusting.

In a broader sense, some former rehearsal recutors also speak alarms about the increasing political attacks on the judges. The ex-PRO district of Paul Rosenzweig has blown up intimidation against judges as “shameful expressions of authoritarian attacks on the rule of law”.