Trump grab the arm with the judiciary: democracy at risk?

The President of the United States ignores the judicial decisions that contest the measures of his government and the threat of impeachment of the judges. Is the rule of law in danger in the cradle of democracy? Venezuelani.

The complaint, filed via social networks on March 19, was followed by another message, published hours later. In the logic of Trump, the order of judge James Boasberg, a “planegrane and agitator”, would not have supported, since the magistrate, unlike him “did not win with the popular vote”.

“I won for many reasons […]But the fight against illegal immigration could have been the main reason for this historic victory.

Because Bomberg has questioned the deportation of immigrants

In mid -March, the Trump administration deported hundreds of Venezuelani, claiming to be members of a criminal gang – an accusation questioned by the family members and defenders of some deportas. Despite the protests of the Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro, the group was sent to the maximum cecota of safety arrest to El Salvador.

The deportation order was justified on the basis of a law of 1798, which allows “foreign enemies”. Federal judge James Bomberg of Washington had prohibited deportation, claiming that it is necessary to analyze whether the law could be applied in this case. But the Trump government still deported the Venezuelans, claiming that the decision came out when the plane was already outside the American airspace.

This is not the first time that the judiciary questions Trump

But this was not the first time that the Trump government is collision with the judiciary. Usaid’s dissolution, the United States government agency for international cooperation, was also braked by a federal judge, as well as the expulsion of trans people from the armed forces.

It was also in the courts that three climatic protection organizations obtained the decision to force the White House to pass $ 14 billion in funding.

“We have judges who came out of control, that destroy our country,” Trump said to the American broadcaster Fox News. But he denied that he intended to violate the orders of the court: “No, you can’t do it”.

Deportations to the thrill of the law?

“At the moment, Trump suffered one defeat after another in court,” says Johannes Timm, researcher at the German institute for international business and security (SWP) in Berlin. Especially in the case of deportations, the impression would be that the republican is ignoring, or perhaps even judicial decisions openly challenging.

On March 14, US officials expelled Dr. Rasha Alawieh, a teacher at Brown University, when she returned to the United States from a trip to Lebanon, her homeland. The deportation was conducted despite an contrary decision of a Federal Court of Boston.

Similar destination can have the Palestinian student of Syrian nationality Mahmoud Khalil, held on March 8 by the migratory authorities for participating in the protests Filosinse in Columbia University. Khalil’s deportation has also been suspended in court.

Recent declarations reveal the contempt that republicans and his assistants have these judicial decisions. Tom Homan, Trump’s “Zar of the Border”, told Fox News not to worry about what the judges think and that the expulsion of terrorists “should be a source of celebration in this country”.

In turn, the American prosecutor Pam Bondi also classified the suspension of the orders for the expulsion of “lack of respect for the consolidated authority of President Trump”, claiming that this would endanger the population and law enforcement.

Separation of powers at risk

Johannes Thimm sees the alert signs at stake, with the United States power separation system. It evaluates that the congress, now a republican “almost 100% faithful to Trump”, has practically resigned himself to his prerogative to control the presidency.

The judiciary remains. “And there the problem is that the courts cannot impose their decisions effectively, even less against the government. Because they do not have their own police force. The entire system is based [na ideia] Respect for other powers to the authority of the courts “, explains Thimm.

And it is precisely this respect that it crumbles at a frightening rhythm, underlines: “The fact that Trump now starts ignoring judicial decisions or refuses to conform to them can unleash a constitutional crisis”.

Thimm recalls that, in a rule of law, there are police and security agencies, at the forefront, to ensure compliance with the law. But from the American hierarchy, these institutions are subject to the president. What if they receive contradictory orders, which one satisfies?

React from the Supreme Court

Perhaps this is one of the reasons why the president of the American Supreme Court John Roberts reacted so hard for Trump’s desire to fire magistrates who regret him. “For more than two centuries, it has been established that the impeachment is not the adequate response to the disagreement regarding a court decision. The normal appeal process exists for this [permitir a revisão de decisões em instâncias superiores]”Roberts said in a statement on March 18th.

Three days after Roberts’ reproach, Trump denied responsibility for the deportation of the Venezuelans, contrary to a declaration issued by the White House at the time. “I don’t know when I was signed, because I have not signed. Other people took care of the matter,” he said, suggesting that the deportation would be the responsibility of Marco Rubio, his secretary of state. “Rubio did an excellent job and wanted them [venezuelanos] outside.”

For SWP Thimm, it would be a mistake “to think that a supreme mostly conservative will vote for Trump in all cases”. This evaluation will not fail to ballast in the past and justice has strengthened its independence.

The researcher ranking as “a kind of game of power” what is happening now: “Trump is testing the boundaries. And therefore he will really depend on the fact that the Supreme Court will find himself with the courts, just as John Roberts did now.”

Do you use to autocracy?

Thimm does not believe that Trump bets on an open clash with the Supreme Court, whose current composition has contributed to determining with the appointments made during his first term to the White House.

“But the fundamental problem – that the Supreme Court cannot impose the fulfillment of its decisions on the basis of force – is the same as that of other courts. Theoretically, Trump could also tell him [Suprema Corte]: “I don’t recognize this or that verdict”.

After the cheating with the deportation of immigrants to El Salvador, Thimm does not exclude “that Trump simply ignores justice and does not do certain things, and nobody knows what to do or what can be done”. “And then the United States will have taken a big step towards the dissolution of the state of democratic law.”

Source: Terra

Rose

Rose James is a Gossipify movie and series reviewer known for her in-depth analysis and unique perspective on the latest releases. With a background in film studies, she provides engaging and informative reviews, and keeps readers up to date with industry trends and emerging talents.