I find it strange a number of people here say Trump is not listening to the courts and is in number violation of the law.

So if he not listening to the courts why don’t they go after him and press charges?

What is he doing that he is in number of violation of the law and not listening to the courts.

55 minutes ago, Moon99 said:

I find it strange a number of people here say Trump is not listening to the courts and is in number violation of the law.

So if he not listening to the courts why don’t they go after him and press charges?

The only remedy for “going after him” personally is impeachment, which won’t happen because his party controls both houses of congress and have shown loyalty to him rather than to the country.

His actions have been opposed in court to the extent that they can. But some judges he’s appointed have shown similar loyalties as congress.

55 minutes ago, Moon99 said:

What is he doing that he is in number of violation of the law and not listening to the courts.

Are you incapable of reading news yourself? I’m not sure why this has to be spoon fed to you. You might get a pass for mot understanding the details of US government if you live elsewhere, but this is basic reporting, and you have internet access. You need to put forth some effort here.

19 hours ago, swansont said:

The only remedy for “going after him” personally is impeachment, which won’t happen because his party controls both houses of congress and have shown loyalty to him rather than to the country.

His actions have been opposed in court to the extent that they can. But some judges he’s appointed have shown similar loyalties as congress.

Are you incapable of reading news yourself? I’m not sure why this has to be spoon fed to you. You might get a pass for mot understanding the details of US government if you live elsewhere, but this is basic reporting, and you have internet access. You need to put forth some effort here.

Why do you think courts can do this?

Gentle reminder that he was impeached twice and nothing changed.

Who's going to "go after him"? What court is going to prosecute him? How would they prosecute him when SCOTUS has already given him immunity?

It's too late for the legal process to do anything.

11 minutes ago, Moon99 said:

Why do you think courts can do this?

Gentle reminder that he was impeached twice and nothing changed.

Who's going to "go after him"? What court is going to prosecute him? How would they prosecute him when SCOTUS has already given him immunity?

It's too late for the legal process to do anything.

Ask yourself who it is that enforces court orders in the USA. And who they report to.

22 hours ago, Moon99 said:

why don’t they go after him and press charges?

Because the US president can order the murder of hundreds of thousands of people, the extermination of women and children, even their own US soldiers who are being held captive, by dropping a nuclear bomb on them, and no one accuses him of war crimes or anything like that..

When someone like Gaddafi orders the killing of hundreds of people, or someone like Hussein orders the killing of thousands of people, they are called “war criminals” and so on. But when someone like Franklin Delano Roosevelt makes such a decision, and later someone like Harry Truman continues it, they are called “war heroes.”..

4 hours ago, Moon99 said:

Why do you think courts can do this?

Gentle reminder that he was impeached twice and nothing changed.

Who's going to "go after him"? What court is going to prosecute him? How would they prosecute him when SCOTUS has already given him immunity?

It's too late for the legal process to do anything.

His actions have been opposed in court because it’s not directly against him. He’s not being prosecuted and it’s not a criminal proceeding. Impeachment happens on congress, not the court system. Those are all distinct things.

Again, this is reported in the news. You could do us the courtesy of being at least minimally informed if you're going to have this conversation.

5 hours ago, exchemist said:

Ask yourself who it is that enforces court orders in the USA. And who they report to.

Could a court judge not take it to the Supreme Court and Supreme Court issue contempt of court for Trump?

On 7/24/2025 at 8:59 PM, swansont said:

Are you incapable of reading news yourself? I’m not sure why this has to be spoon fed to you. You might get a pass for mot understanding the details of US government if you live elsewhere, but this is basic reporting, and you have internet access. You need to put forth some effort here.

I don’t read all the news like some. Just headlines of others and big news stories.

But I do remember Trump deporting illegal immigrants with out a court case with each immigrant reviewing each case. Than Trump going after immigrants that got citizenship and removing their citizenship. Also Trump going after born citizens and removing their citizenship.

I also read that he sues the media outlet that says bad things about him.

This seems violation of the law.

49 minutes ago, Moon99 said:

I also read that he sues the media outlet that says bad things about him.

This seems violation of the law.

Civil suits are legally permitted, even if they are frivolous or falsely represent a cause of action. Trump is misusing this legal process to intimidate media and misrepresent accurate reporting as libel or slander. It stinks, and it erodes democracy and the Constitution, but a rich person can flood the courts with garbage suits. The slender hope is that some judges will dismiss these suit filings or rule against them (or a jury will do so). The problem is media organizations who opt to settle because they cannot afford a prolonged legal battle or because they fear some retaliation from the government directed by its MAGA goons.

1 hour ago, Moon99 said:

Could a court judge not take it to the Supreme Court and Supreme Court issue contempt of court for Trump?

Let’s say the Supreme Court issues contempt. Does the court have its own police to enforce their ruling?

It's obvious Mr Trump "listens" to the courts since he has something to say about virtually every ruling. What he won't do is follow a court order if it doesn't suit him. I guess SCOTUS could send Ketanji Brown Jackson to bust the President. 🤪

16 hours ago, Moon99 said:

Could a court judge not take it to the Supreme Court and Supreme Court issue contempt of court for Trump?

That’s not how it works. People bring cases, using lawyers. Judges render decisions. Sometimes the loser of the case will appeal to a higher court, but judges don’t do that. Cases going to the supreme court have to be justified in going to that level - such as an appeal from a circuit court, or conflicting results from two circuit courts

And, as iNow implies, even if the Supreme Court found him in contempt (not likely with the justices favoring him), the US Marshals aren’t going to do anything. But that’s moot, since the court has already decided that the president isn’t subject to legal action, because the proper procedure is impeachment.

On 7/26/2025 at 3:00 PM, swansont said:

That’s not how it works. People bring cases, using lawyers. Judges render decisions. Sometimes the loser of the case will appeal to a higher court, but judges don’t do that. Cases going to the supreme court have to be justified in going to that level - such as an appeal from a circuit court, or conflicting results from two circuit courts

And, as iNow implies, even if the Supreme Court found him in contempt (not likely with the justices favoring him), the US Marshals aren’t going to do anything. But that’s moot, since the court has already decided that the president isn’t subject to legal action, because the proper procedure is impeachment.

I thought there was number of times Judge said no to Trump or said this and Trump not listening to the Judge orders. Would that not make it contempt it would happen to any other person?

Could Judge not issue arrest warrant to appear in court for not listing to Judge orders and possibly of jail time for not listening to Judge orders?

Edited July 27Jul 27 by Moon99

1 hour ago, Moon99 said:

I thought there was number of times Judge said no to Trump or said this and Trump not listening to the Judge orders. Would that not make it contempt it would happen to any other person?

Could Judge not issue arrest warrant to appear in court for not listing to Judge orders and possibly of jail time for not listening to Judge orders?

You are not paying attention to the earlier responses in this thread. Who is going to arrest Trump? The judge himself? No, it is the marshals. And they are controlled by……the Dept of Justice, which is headed by……a Trump appointee.

Now do you understand the problem?

3 hours ago, Moon99 said:

I thought there was number of times Judge said no to Trump or said this and Trump not listening to the Judge orders. Would that not make it contempt it would happen to any other person?

Could Judge not issue arrest warrant to appear in court for not listing to Judge orders and possibly of jail time for not listening to Judge orders?

I do wish you would put forth the effort to do a minimal familiarization with the topic before you jump in. People shouldn’t have to spoon-feed you US politics 101 and then explain the news. If you are going to be interested in US politics you have an obligation to be minimally informed if you want to participate. (no different from someone being interested in science needing to understand the basics)

Also there was previous mention of the SCOTUS decision on presidential immunity from prosecution. If they can't prosecute contempt, why bother to issue an arrest warrant for it?

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

You are not paying attention to the earlier responses in this thread. Who is going to arrest Trump? The judge himself?

Also, the contempt would not be levied at Trump- while he might (or might not, there are other folks like Miller who are more likely to be involved in the details) be in charge, it is ultimately lawyers from the DOJ who will argue in court. This is directly connected to the resignations of high level DOJ officials in a number of lawsuits, including in the Garcia case.

I am also a bit confused as OP seemed to acknowledge the situation somewhat:

On 7/25/2025 at 2:36 PM, Moon99 said:

Why do you think courts can do this?

Gentle reminder that he was impeached twice and nothing changed.

Who's going to "go after him"? What court is going to prosecute him? How would they prosecute him when SCOTUS has already given him immunity?

It's too late for the legal process to do anything.

But to summarize, AFAIK, contempt can be held against officials of the administration (other than Trump himself), but enforcing it is a different matter. It is also not trivial but in the case of unlawful deportation of folks to El Salavador, the judge specifically required officials to provide regularly updated and signed reports on high they facilitated their return. Lying on these documents could at minimum lead to contempt charges (and were likely to set up this way exactly for that purpose). This is actually still ongoing :https://www.reuters.com/world/us/abrego-garcias-return-should-not-end-trump-contempt-probe-lawyers-say-2025-06-09/

Critics also said the administration's failure to bring him back, even after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Xinis' order that it facilitate his return, suggested the Trump administration was willing to defy unfavorable court rulings even though the judiciary is a co-equal branch of government under the U.S. Constitution.

Xinis on April 15 demanded U.S. officials provide documents and answer questions under oath about what it had done to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return, in an investigation that could result in officials being held in contempt.

The only remedy against unlawful actions against the president according to SCOTUS is impeachment, which won't happen for as long as Reps are in charge.

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

Also, the contempt would not be levied at Trump- while he might (or might not, there are other folks like Miller who are more likely to be involved in the details) be in charge, it is ultimately lawyers from the DOJ who will argue in court. This is directly connected to the resignations of high level DOJ officials in a number of lawsuits, including in the Garcia case.

I am also a bit confused as OP seemed to acknowledge the situation somewhat:

But to summarize, AFAIK, contempt can be held against officials of the administration (other than Trump himself), but enforcing it is a different matter. It is also not trivial but in the case of unlawful deportation of folks to El Salavador, the judge specifically required officials to provide regularly updated and signed reports on high they facilitated their return. Lying on these documents could at minimum lead to contempt charges (and were likely to set up this way exactly for that purpose). This is actually still ongoing :https://www.reuters.com/world/us/abrego-garcias-return-should-not-end-trump-contempt-probe-lawyers-say-2025-06-09/

The only remedy against unlawful actions against the president according to SCOTUS is impeachment, which won't happen for as long as Reps are in charge.

Are you saying you can’t contempt president only a government employee? That president has powers that you can’t contempt?

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

Also, the contempt would not be levied at Trump- while he might (or might not, there are other folks like Miller who are more likely to be involved in the details) be in charge, it is ultimately lawyers from the DOJ who will argue in court. This is directly connected to the resignations of high level DOJ officials in a number of lawsuits, including in the Garcia case.

I am also a bit confused as OP seemed to acknowledge the situation somewhat:

But to summarize, AFAIK, contempt can be held against officials of the administration (other than Trump himself), but enforcing it is a different matter. It is also not trivial but in the case of unlawful deportation of folks to El Salavador, the judge specifically required officials to provide regularly updated and signed reports on high they facilitated their return. Lying on these documents could at minimum lead to contempt charges (and were likely to set up this way exactly for that purpose). This is actually still ongoing :https://www.reuters.com/world/us/abrego-garcias-return-should-not-end-trump-contempt-probe-lawyers-say-2025-06-09/

The only remedy against unlawful actions against the president according to SCOTUS is impeachment, which won't happen for as long as Reps are in charge.

It seem to be more than Garcia case as Trump is doing things that are in violation of the law.

Trump going after immigrants that got citizenship and removing their citizenship. Also Trump going after born citizens and removing their citizenship. I’m sure all this is illegal

Sending people to jail in other country. All this seems illegal the same with suing media outlets that say bad things about Trump all seem very illegal.

So where is the courts doing about this? NOTHING?

Let’s say the court rules against the president. Does the court have its own police to enforce their ruling?

10 minutes ago, Moon99 said:

Are you saying you can’t contempt president only a government employee? That president has powers that you can’t contempt?

The president isn’t being taken to court. So how would he be in contempt?

Whoever is carrying out the president’s wishes - the head of the department of <whatever> - is doing something they can’t legally do. (Let’s say they are withhold funding from some grant or contract they’ve issued. The recipient sues and the court says they must be paid. But the government doesn’t pay anyway. The department head probably could be held in contempt.

The president orders people to do something but it’s top-level/big picture - he isn’t directly involved in the smaller things. Not a lot of people work directly for the president, out of the ~3 million federal civilian employees and ~2 million military (and all the contractors above and beyond that)

Pretty sure your own government is similarly structured.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

The president isn’t being taken to court. So how would he be in contempt?

Whoever is carrying out the president’s wishes - the head of the department of <whatever> - is doing something they can’t legally do. (Let’s say they are withhold funding from some grant or contract they’ve issued. The recipient sues and the court says they must be paid. But the government doesn’t pay anyway. The department head probably could be held in contempt.

The president orders people to do something but it’s top-level/big picture - he isn’t directly involved in the smaller things. Not a lot of people work directly for the president, out of the ~3 million federal civilian employees and ~2 million military (and all the contractors above and beyond that)

Pretty sure your own government is similarly structured.

So would it be supreme court or DOJ that would go after Trump for violation the law?

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Let’s say the court rules against the president. Does the court have its own police to enforce their ruling?

Most likely someone just giving Trump papers to appear in court by orders of the judge. I doubt Trump would get arrested.

papers just saying you in contempt orders by judge to appear in court some thing along those lines.

The president isn’t being taken to court. So how would he be in contempt?

No but that would be the next thing judge would do for not listening to judge orders.

37 minutes ago, Moon99 said:

Most likely someone just giving Trump papers to appear in court by orders of the judge.

Like someone from the justice department?

8 hours ago, Moon99 said:

So would it be supreme court or DOJ that would go after Trump for violation the law?

No, it would have to be congress, via impeachment, as has already been explained.

8 hours ago, Moon99 said:

No but that would be the next thing judge would do for not listening to judge orders.

But the one the judge is ordering is not the president.

This Yale journal lays it all out, in terms of presidential immunity having no umbrella powers for those who might implement a presidential directive.

https://www.yalejreg.com/nc/even-if-the-president-is-immune-his-subordinates-are-not-by-zachary-s-price/

By immunizing Presidents against criminal liability in some circumstances, the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. United States limited one form of potential accountability for lawless presidents.  Whatever the scope of this immunity, however, the decision left in place one of the most important constraints on the American presidency:  the need to act through subordinates to carry out most government functions.  Because those subordinates lack the same criminal immunity as the President, this constraint may now be all the more important—but its renewed salience could bring other untested questions to the fore.

Even before Trump, Presidents’ need to act through subordinates was a key constraint on their power.  Many governmental powers are not actually vested in the President personally but instead in other federal officers.  The Attorney General, for example, holds statutory authority to control most litigation on behalf of the United States (including criminal prosecutions), and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency holds authority to promulgate important pollution limits.  By structuring the executive branch in these ways, Congress ensures that Presidents must act through other officers to achieve key policy goals.  Furthermore, even when Presidents do personally hold the relevant legal authorities, they are often practically dependent on subordinates to carry out their wishes.  

Such dependence on subordinates helps maintain the rule of law because subordinate officers may resist unlawful directives—and when personal integrity and reputational concerns fail to induce such resistance, legal restraints on such officers create an important backstop.

Edited July 28Jul 28 by TheVat
bolding added

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

This Yale journal lays it all out, in terms of presidential immunity having no umbrella powers for those who might implement a presidential directive.

https://www.yalejreg.com/nc/even-if-the-president-is-immune-his-subordinates-are-not-by-zachary-s-price/

By immunizing Presidents against criminal liability in some circumstances, the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. United States limited one form of potential accountability for lawless presidents.  Whatever the scope of this immunity, however, the decision left in place one of the most important constraints on the American presidency:  the need to act through subordinates to carry out most government functions.  Because those subordinates lack the same criminal immunity as the President, this constraint may now be all the more important—but its renewed salience could bring other untested questions to the fore.

Even before Trump, Presidents’ need to act through subordinates was a key constraint on their power.  Many governmental powers are not actually vested in the President personally but instead in other federal officers.  The Attorney General, for example, holds statutory authority to control most litigation on behalf of the United States (including criminal prosecutions), and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency holds authority to promulgate important pollution limits.  By structuring the executive branch in these ways, Congress ensures that Presidents must act through other officers to achieve key policy goals.  Furthermore, even when Presidents do personally hold the relevant legal authorities, they are often practically dependent on subordinates to carry out their wishes.  

Such dependence on subordinates helps maintain the rule of law because subordinate officers may resist unlawful directives—and when personal integrity and reputational concerns fail to induce such resistance, legal restraints on such officers create an important backstop.

Why does it have to be the Attorney General that goes after Trump?

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

This Yale journal lays it all out, in terms of presidential immunity having no umbrella powers for those who might implement a presidential directive.

https://www.yalejreg.com/nc/even-if-the-president-is-immune-his-subordinates-are-not-by-zachary-s-price/

  Whatever the scope of this immunity, however, the decision left in place one of the most important constraints on the American presidency:  the need to act through subordinates to carry out most government functions.  Because those subordinates lack the same criminal immunity as the President, this constraint may now be all the more important—but its renewed salience could bring other untested questions to the fore.

Even before Trump, Presidents’ need to act through subordinates was a key constraint on their power.  Many governmental powers are not actually vested in the President personally but instead in other federal officers.  The Attorney General, for example, holds statutory authority to control most litigation on behalf of the United States (including criminal prosecutions), and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency holds authority to promulgate important pollution limits.  By structuring the executive branch in these ways, Congress ensures that Presidents must act through other officers to achieve key policy goals.  Furthermore, even when Presidents do personally hold the relevant legal authorities, they are often practically dependent on subordinates to carry out their wishes.  

Such dependence on subordinates helps maintain the rule of law because subordinate officers may resist unlawful directives—and when personal integrity and reputational concerns fail to induce such resistance, legal restraints on such officers create an important backstop.

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

By immunizing Presidents against criminal liability in some circumstances, the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. United States limited one form of potential accountability for lawless presidents.

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

By immunizing Presidents against criminal liability in some circumstances, the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. United States limited one form of potential accountability for lawless presidents.

Why would the founding fathers allow the president to control the DOJ and the Supreme Court? That is conflict of interest if president can break law and the DOJ and Supreme Court can’t go after Trump because they take orders from Trump.

Why would the founding fathers allow the system to be set up like this?

7 hours ago, swansont said:

No, it would have to be congress, via impeachment, as has already been explained.

Does the founding fathers know own party will not impeached the president for breaking the law? It seems not democracy at all and flawed if that what founding fathers did not know could happen.

Edited July 28Jul 28 by Moon99

45 minutes ago, Moon99 said:

Why would the founding fathers allow the president to control the DOJ and the Supreme Court?

The DoJ is part of the executive branch, but it's supposed to be independent wrt law enforcement activities. POTUS isn't supposed to use it to get back at enemies or take the heat off themselves. Nixon tried that with the Watergate scandal prosecutor. TFG, being an enormous hypocrite, started this latest term by claiming Biden weaponized the DoJ, so he's going to weaponize it even more to root out injustice. So far, he's only investigating the people who investigated him last time, like Jack Smith. Not sure what makes this any different from Nixon.

SCOTUS is supposed to be impartial, using legal knowledge to interpret the Constitution and federal law. They are NOT under the control of the executive branch. Nevertheless, they are horribly partisan right now, and have lost the faith of the American people wrt justice. Most see them now as part of the Christo-fascist regime in power currently, helped by the Heritage Foundation and lots of billionaires who want the majority of us to just die.