How many court orders has ICE violated so far this year (it's still January)?

[goaded]

This is on the record in a court filing: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.230171/gov.uscourts.mnd.230171.10.0_1.pdf (Vote first!)

None

1-20

21-50

51-90

90+

No idea, see results

[Twalli]

Last count they've ignored almost 80. It's hard to tell how many, because most of the time they just follow them late. If we count the number they ignored until pressured, it's all but a few. I think there's almost 100 that have been issued. They're hovering around 20% compliance, and that includes all the ones they followed late and only after being pressured.

[David318578]

Federal laws take precedent over state laws. So a state judge trying to block ICE when ICE is following federal laws would be unconstitutional.

[goaded]

Strange how actual judges seem to know the law better than you, isn't it?

[beefcakebradybatson]

YEAH, BUDDY !!!

[David318578]

@goaded sorry but its in the constitution, so a bunch of liberal judges not following the laws or understanding the laws isn't surprising.

[goaded]

Ah, my fault for believing anything you say. They're federal judges, not state. This particular one was appointed as a judge of the federal district court in 2006 by President George W. Bush.

"Late Monday, Chief U. S. District Judge Patrick J. Schiltz (District of Minnesota) did something federal judges almost never do: he ordered the acting director of ICE, Todd Lyons, to appear in person and explain why he should not be held in contempt. Schiltz’s makes the blunt conclusion that ICE has repeatedly failed to comply with bond-hearing orders in Minneapolis immigration detention cases—despite assurances from government counsel that compliance problems had been fixed."
michaeldsellers.substack.com/.../the-courts-patience-is-at-an-end

(They finally released the plaintiff, rather than face the court.)

[David318578]

So in your question about ICE ignoring court orders and me saying state laws do not take precedent over federal laws.

You post a link to a federal judge given an order that ICE followed.. and this is somehow a counter to what I said? Lol

[goaded]

"Respondents have continually assured the Court that they recognize their obligation to comply with Court orders" - something you're pretending they don't have to.

It's a FEDERAL judge talking about FEDERAL court orders. All you're doing is trying to distract.

They ignored every one of his orders until there would have been personal consequences for the head of department.

"This Court has been extremely patient with respondents, even though respondents decided to send thousands of agents to Minnesota to detain aliens without making any provision for dealing with the hundreds of habeas petitions and other lawsuits that were sure to result. Respondents have continually assured the Court that they recognize their obligation to comply with Court orders, and that they have taken steps to ensure that those orders will be honored going forward. Unfortunately, though, the violations continue."

storage.courtlistener.com/.../...nd.230171.7.0.pdf

[David318578]

I can only assume you either are completely confused by what I said or your responding to the wrong person.

[goaded]

No, you're just doing your usual thing of pretending not to understand reality, court documents, the way the law in the US works, etc..

[David318578]

Goaded your not making any sense. I said that federal laws take precedent over state laws, with your question about ICE ignoring judges.

So you posting a link from a federal judge giving an order and ICE followed it doesn't counter what I said. And it doesn't support what you said.

A federal Judge is at the... Federal level... Not the state level... Again what is your point your trying to make?

[goaded]

Been on holiday. Once more: Federal Judges and laws. Not state, that's you trying to distract. Only complying with a final order that will result in the boss being hauled in front of a judge and potentially jailed is still violating court orders.

[goaded]

files.mastodon.online/.../c70fb00d9c8d346f.jpeg

[David318578]

ICE has completely ignored almost 100 court orders in MN alone.. how many ICE agents have been arrested? 0? Amazing when you make an unconstitutional court order and you ignore it nothing happens..

[goaded]

You, in 10 minutes: “Mr. [Schiltz] has made his decision, now let him enforce it.” as the kidnapping and murders continue, just as nearly 200 years ago in the lead up to the Trail of Tears.

You're lying about the court orders being unconstitutional, just as you did pretending they were state judges and laws. If the court orders were unconstitutional, they would be challenged in court, not simply ignored.

[David318578]

Im not lying about anything, i didn't say that all the court orders where from the state, so your lying about what I said.

The facts are that the vast majority of the court orders in MN the courts have no authority to make any court orders about immigration. Which is why there is almost 100 court orders that have been completely ignored without any consequences.

Let me put it in simple terms that you could understand. I live in Chicago, if a MN judge made a court order that I need to do a driving test every year to renew my drivers license, I can completely ignore that court order because a MN judge has no authority over how IL handles its citizens renewing a drivers license.
When you step outside your authority and get ignored.. nothing happens.

[goaded]

You're lying about the court orders being unconstitutional, and implying that they were state judges or laws when they're not. You're lying when you say the reason for no consequences is that the courts have no authority.

[goaded]

"ICE is not a law unto itself. ICE has every right to challenge the orders of this Court, but, like any litigant, ICE must follow those orders unless and until they are overturned or vacated."

You're lying about the court orders being unconstitutional, and implying that they were state judges and laws when they're not. You're lying when you say the reason for no consequences is that the courts have no authority.

[David318578]

@goaded the only one lying here is you Goaded. You have lost the argument so your only actions are to lie. Your lying about what I actually said.. so sad.

[goaded]

Look at that, you're doing it again. Your whole argument has been one red herring and a pack of lies.

Red herring: "Federal laws take precedent over state laws. So a state judge trying to block ICE when ICE is following federal laws would be unconstitutional.".

LIE: "liberal judges not following the laws or understanding the laws".

LIE: Ignoring the preceding ignored court orders: "You post a link to a federal judge given an order that ICE followed.. and this is somehow a counter to what I said?". Following one final order does not prove the others were followed.

LIE: that the court orders were unconstitutional: "ICE has completely ignored almost 100 court orders in MN alone.. how many ICE agents have been arrested? 0? Amazing when you make an unconstitutional court order and you ignore it nothing happens..".

Here's what the actual federal judge said: "ICE is not a law unto itself. ICE has every right to challenge the orders of this Court, but, like any litigant, ICE must follow those orders unless and until they are overturned or vacated." But you know the law better than federal judges.

LIE: "the only one lying here is you Goaded"
LIE: "You have lost the argument".
DARVO: "You have lost the argument so your only actions are to lie. Your lying about what I actually said.. so sad."

[David318578]

@goaded you screaming lie over and over again does not make it a lie. All it does is make you look unhinged.

[goaded]

Right back at you. But I have receipts. You just have more lies. The one thing you got right: lying makes you look unhinged.

Remember: Your whole argument has been one red herring and a pack of lies.

Red herring: "Federal laws take precedent over state laws. So a state judge trying to block ICE when ICE is following federal laws would be unconstitutional.".

LIE: "liberal judges not following the laws or understanding the laws".

LIE: Ignoring the preceding ignored court orders: "You post a link to a federal judge given an order that ICE followed.. and this is somehow a counter to what I said?". Following one final order does not prove the others were followed.

LIE: that the court orders were unconstitutional: "ICE has completely ignored almost 100 court orders in MN alone.. how many ICE agents have been arrested? 0? Amazing when you make an unconstitutional court order and you ignore it nothing happens..".

Here's what the actual federal judge said: "ICE is not a law unto itself. ICE has every right to challenge the orders of this Court, but, like any litigant, ICE must follow those orders unless and until they are overturned or vacated." But you know the law better than federal judges.

LIE: "the only one lying here is you Goaded"
LIE: "You have lost the argument".
DARVO: "You have lost the argument so your only actions are to lie. Your lying about what I actually said.. so sad."

[David318578]

@goaded non of what you posted is me lying. Thats not "receipts" thats examples of you being confused, not me lying. Do you understand what the world lying means?

[David318578]

@goaded if you want to have a debate then we can have a debate. You putting "lie" in front of a quote from me does not make it a lie. All you are doing now is trolling, i have removed your last troll post and will keep removing them going forward.
If you want to have a debate then we can have a debate, but i have no interest in you having temper tantrum and trolling

[David318578]

@goaded removed, stop trolling and we can debate, if all your going to do is troll im going to keep removing your posts

[goaded]

Like I said, all you're doing is making it look like you're talking to yourself. That's all you do anyway, facts be damned.

[Sal_Monella]

Ice is part of the executive branch of the US government. Ice does not have to conform to any state or federal court orders. But you know that. Because you're a constitutional scholar.

[goaded]

You're clearly not. Of course the executive branch has to conform to court orders. You lot were delighted whenever it stopped Biden doing something you didn't like, like helping citizens.

[AngryCarl2]

The executive branch is still subject to the Rule of Law. With the sole exception of the President, thanks to SCOTUS.

[Sal_Monella]

Okay, einstein. Show me in the Constitution or anybody a federal law that the president of the United States has to conform to any court order or any federal law.

[Sal_Monella]

Conforming to the so-called rule of law is an emotional issue not a legislated or constitutional one.

[Sal_Monella]

President Trump is waiting until after the midterm elections suggests say no to all Court orders.

[Sal_Monella]

You morons are going to have to come to the conclusion that there is no requirement for president Trump to follow any federal law even the ruling of the US Constitution except on constitutional grounds. For example, he cannot run for president again. Besides, the justice department and the courts have no enforcement capacity. To paraphrase another national figure, how many divisions do the judicial or legislative branches have?

[Sal_Monella]

There was a transcription error here. It is the ruling of the United States supreme Court. I should proofread before I post.

[goaded]

The president literally takes an oath to uphold the law and the constitution.

[Sal_Monella]

The President's oath of office:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Article Two, Section One of the Constitution. In Part.
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America

Article II, Section Three. In Part.
... he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States. This implies a role in ensuring the law is enforced by other officials. It does not require that the president conforms to all of them.

Can you briefly tell me which laws Obama and Biden did not execute and did not conform to? I have all day. It might take you that long. And regardless, the Constitution does not give the courts or legislators the power. to enforce the law except through impeachment.

I have been over this with you before. I will not do it again.

[goaded]

I'm loving the lie that the entire executive branch is immune to the law while quoting where the constitution says the president shall preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, from which all those laws stem. Faithfully executing the laws means following the laws, not ignoring them.

[Sal_Monella]

@AngryCarl2 Like Obama, the citizen killer and Biden the immigration law nonenforcer?

[Sal_Monella]

A liar, Einstein, is when you know that you're stating an untruth when the truth is completely available.
"Faithfully executing the laws means following the laws, not ignoring them."

Tell me about the laws that Obama upheld when he killed American citizens with drones. Tell me about the laws that Biden enforced When he allowed millions of illegal aliens to come into the country in spite of immigration law. Oh. Stupid me. Only Republicans have to conform to the law, but Democrats do not. Isn't that right?

[goaded]

So now you're saying you were completely wrong and the executive branch has to abide by the law after all?

[AngryCarl2]

@Sal_Monella Neither Obama nor Biden were given blanket immunity, they simply worked within the same paradigm as Bush and Reagan. Was everything they did strictly legal? Probably not. Could they commit crimes with absolute impunity? Not with 100% confidence.

[msc545]

According to the federal judge, I think it was something like either 64 or 94. Let's put it this way: anything more than zero is too many.

[goaded]

96, plus any they missed. "This list should give pause to anyone—no matter his or her political
beliefs—who cares about the rule of law. ICE has likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence."

[beefcakebradybatson]

Scores, maybe hundreds !!!

[goaded]

There's a very good chance it's over 100, yes.

[AngryCarl2]

All of them.

[goaded]

Pretty much.