Federal judge said prosecutors picked to replace Alina Habba repeated error of bypassing congressional approval

Three prosecutors installed by Donald Trump’s administration to lead the New Jersey attorney general’s office after the president’s former personal lawyer was disqualified from the role in December were also illegally appointed, a federal judge has ruled.

Pam Bondi, the US attorney general, handpicked the three to replace Alina Habba, who resigned after a succession of district and appeals court rulings that she was serving illegally because she never received Senate confirmation.

On Monday, federal judge Matthew Brann said Bondi’s actions repeated the same error of bypassing congressional approval for the appointments. He stopped short of ordering their removal pending a government appeal – but, in a blistering 130-page ruling, said overreach by the executive branch could jeopardise all of its cases before him.

  • DandomRude@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    12 hours ago

    I think the Supreme Court was just a means to an end. The establishment of an autocracy, however, will essentially be achieved through ICE, an agency that was introduced under Bush Jr. and now serves as a secret police force with exclusive loyalty to the head of the fascist conspiracy. To me this seems obvious by now, given that this agency operates beyond the law and even executes people in the open street. Another very obvious indication is its astronomical budget, which is equivalent to the military spending of a medium-sized country, or, in US terms, more than the cumulative budget of all other federal US-agencies such as the FBI, CIA, etc.

    Please note: This is nothing more than my opinion as a reasonably interested observer from afar.

    • MediumSizedSnack@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Oh god, yes. Still, between Habeas petitions, lawsuits against administration hirings and firings, and many others. The litigants are flooding the judiciary and the Supreme Court logistically can’t overrule everything.

      • DandomRude@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        10 hours ago

        What makes you think that a Supreme Court that has ruled that the US president is effectively above the law would make any decision that is compatible with a democratic constitution - this decision is certainly not compatible with any democratic constitution in any country that I am aware of.

        The rest of what I describe has little to do with the legal system, because ICE already exists in the form described.

        Again, I should point out that I am from Europe and this is merely my opinion, but against the backdrop of recent events, I cannot see how anyone can still have any faith left in the US legal system. To me, it seems more like an accomplice that enables organized crime on this absurd scale in the first place, rather than a system that serves the good of the people.

    • lechekaflan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      I think the Supreme Court was just a means to an end.

      Together with the executive and the legislature, that court served as a third means of what it’s called a system of checks-and-balances which by principle are supposed to limit the powers of either three, and that power is never invested in the person but in the office.

      However, besides they’re holding the position for life, Supreme Court justices are chosen by the president and thus became heavily dependent on party alignment and some personal biases than impartiality.