The System Of Checks And Balances Doesn’t Work When One Branch Refuses To Play By The Rules
from the fuck-em-for-existing-I-guess dept
Technically — TECHNICALLY! — we still have a system that relies on three co-equal branches to ensure that any single branch can’t steamroll the rest of the system (along with the nation it’s supposed to serve) to seize an unequal amount of power.
Technically.
What we’re seeing now is something else entirely. The judicial branch is headed by people who are willing to give the executive branch what it wants, so long as the executive branch is headed by the Republican party. The legislative branch — fully compromised by MAGA bootlickers — has decided to simply not do its job, allowing the executive branch to seize even more power. The executive branch is now just a throne for a king — a man who feels he shouldn’t have to answer to anyone — not even his voting bloc — so long as he remains in power.
The courts can act as a check against executive overreach. But as we’ve seen time and time again, this position means nothing if you’re powerless to enforce it. And that has led to multiple executive officials telling the courts to go fuck themselves when they hand down rulings the administration doesn’t like. A current sitting appellate judge no less made a name for himself in the Trump administration by demonstrating his contempt for the judicial system he’s now an integral part of.
Only good things can come from this! MAGA indeed!
And while this is only one person’s retelling their experience of being caught in the gears of Trump’s anti-brown people activities, it’s illustrative of what little it matters that there are three co-equal branches when one branch makes it clear on a daily basis that it considers itself to be more equal than the rest of them. (via Kathleen Clark on Bluesky)
This is from a sworn statement [PDF] in ongoing litigation against the federal government, as told by “O.,” a Guatemalan resident of Minnesota who has both a pending asylum application as well as a Juvenile Status proceeding still undergoing in the US. None of that mattered to ICE officers, who arrested him in January 2026 and — within 24 hours — shipped him off to a detention center more than a thousand miles from his home.
O. was denied meals, access to phones, access to legal representation, stuffed into overcrowded cells, and generally mistreated by the government that once might have honestly considered the merits of his asylum application.
But the real dirt is this part of the sworn statement, which again exposes this administration’s complete disinterest in adhering to orders from US courts, much less even paying the merest of lip service to rights long considered to be derived from none other than the “Creator” himself.
ICE did not tell me that my attorney had been trying to call me and contact me while I was in Texas. They didn’t tell me my attorney Kim, had retained another attorney, Kira Kelley, to file a habeas petition on my behalf, or that a court had granted it and ordered my release. They just kept holding me there and occasionally trying to get me to self-deport.
[…]
I was put in a cold cell where I had to sleep on the bare cement floor. Around 10 in the morning my cellmate asked to speak to an ICE officer. Three officers came into the cell so I had a chance to speak to them too. One officer told me that I “had no chance of returning to Minnesota” and that “the best thing for [me] is self-deportation.” She told me that if I fought my case, I would spend two to three more months here in El Paso. She offered me $2600 to self-deport. I refused. I wanted to talk to my attorney. They didn’t tell me the judge had already ordered my release and return to Minnesota. If I hadn’t managed to talk to my attorney who told me a while back that I was ordered released, I might have given up at this point and signed the self deportation forms because the conditions were so unbearable.
So… you see the problem. A court can order a release. But the court relies on the government to carry out this instruction. If it doesn’t, the court likely won’t know for days or weeks or months. At that point, a new set of rights abuses will have been inflicted on people who should have been freed. When the government is finally asked to answer for this, it will again engage in a bunch of bluster and obfuscation, forcing the court system to treat the administration like a member of the system of checks and balances even when it’s immediately clear the executive branch has no desire to be checked and/or balanced.
While more judges are now treating the executive branch as a hostile force unwilling to behave honestly or recognize restraints on its power, the imbalance continues to shift in the administration’s favor, largely because it can engage in abusive acts at scale, while the court is restrained to the cases presented to it.
But if you’re outside of the system, you can clearly see what’s happening and see what the future holds if one-third of the government refuses to do its job (the GOP-led Congress) and the other third can’t handle the tidal wave of abuses being presented to it daily. The executive branch will become a kingdom that fears nothing and answers to no one. But the bigger problem is this: most Americans will see this and understand that this will ultimately destroy democracy. Unfortunately, there’s a significant number of voters who actually welcome these developments, figuring it’s better to lick the boots of someone who prefers to rule in hell, rather than serve the United States.
Filed Under: cbp, dhs, mass deportation, trump administration


Comments on “The System Of Checks And Balances Doesn’t Work When One Branch Refuses To Play By The Rules”
What’s new? Judges have been helping protect everyone from pedophiles to rich scammers for decades. Many judges aligned themselves with police abuse by acting as a rubber stamp. Others are part of creating modern day debtors prisons.
Our judicial branch is a joke, and is corrupt all the way up to the supreme court.
Re:
So, let’s remove the judicial branch and let the executive branch being the justice?
Nope, I’m not proud to say it but the actual judicial branch is the less broken of the three, because there is still competent educated people doing their job.
It will take more time for the person being held by ICE but the courts need to start demanding that the person in question actually physically appear in their courtroom. If the DoJ doesn’t have them there then it gets rescheduled. If the person isn’t there a second time they (the court) need to start handing out Contempts for ignoring their orders.
It has long gotten past the point where the courts can trust that the DoJ will do as they have been instructed.
Re:
Okay. Holding who in contempt, though? You keep saying “the DOJ” like it’s a guy.
The recent “This job sucks” hearing makes it pretty clear that often the attorney appearing before the judge is not the person responsible for disobeying the order and may be doing the best they can to carry it out.
As satisfying as it would be to just hold Bondi personally responsible, that’s not really how it works in court. The judges have to work their way up the chain and keep calling people in until they can make a determination as to who’s responsible. Maybe that’ll be Bondi. More likely it’ll be some fall guy. But it’s a slow process and Trump’s always been very good at taking advantage of that.
Re: Re:
Sure. Let’s do that.
I get that it’s not easy, but when strong evidence of unlawful behavior appears, authorities sometimes need to conduct in-depth criminal investigations. People who are a lot more skilled at crime than these assholes have been caught. Pick them off one by one, until we’re left with an executive branch that obeys the law—or, anyway, has nobody left to break the law. Offer low-level people deals to turn on each other and their superiors, as is common when dealing with other criminal enterprises, and keep going till the leaders are caught with no reasonable doubt to raise.
Re: Re:
The problem is not enough fall guys are falling fast enough that other potential fall guys might have second thoughts about doing so.
I am completely unsympathetic to lawyers who cannot make this happen. If your client does not listen to the court’s instructions and goes rogue you should not work for them. You should report to the court who is responsible for not following their instructions and inform the bailiff where and when they can be picked up for incarceration.
Re: Re: Re:
If you’re trying to pretend you read the transcript, you’re not doing a very good job.
Re: Re: Re:2
I read the transcript, and Ms. Le should (have) know(n) better. It’s her professional job to know better. That is what lawyers are for. If you cannot cajole your client into complying with the court then at some point you, yourself, become complicit in their failure. As terrible a position as she is in, she put herself there by continuing to work for ICE and she actively continues to make her own situation worse by not throwing her clients under the bus.
Re: Re:
The DOJ is a guy. The government is a guy, corporations are a guy, every bit of society everywhere is just a guy. Things only happen because a guy chooses to do those things.
The process is slow merely because the courts choose to allow it to be slow. Order the release, call the facility head with the order, someone walks down to the cell and opens the door. The release occurs or you get a refusal and the marshalls dispatched with an arrest warrant: 10 minutes either way.
Let’s be real though: no court has even bothered to do what you claim is the “correct” thing. It’s laughable when people like you pretend that the courts are trying so damn hard: they’ve tried nothing and they’re all out of ideas.
Or, when the other two branches have the presidents tool in their mouths and can’t speak up
If checks and balances don’t function when one side isn’t voluntarily complying then you don’t have checks or balances. You have voluntary compliance. Perhaps a different branch of the government should be in charge of enforcing the executive branch compliance since self policing never works.
Re:
Like a “different branch” that would obey to the government? Yes, it would be a great idea, because the current government likes very much to be said what to do.
Well, no, one branch refusing to play by the rules is exactly what checks and balances are for.
The problem is when two branches refuse. In this case, when the executive refuses to follow a court order and the legislative refuses to impeach.
Re:
Even if they did remove trump after impeachment, would trump leave? I dont think the military would protect trump if he was removed but ice might try to do it.
Re:
Yeah, it’s not one branch. It’s two. The executive does whatever the fuck it wants and tells citizens to go pound sand and the legislative has shown no interest in trying to restrain it.
Re:
Technically it’s all three where the executive refuses to follow laws and court orders, the legislature refuses to impeach, and SCOTUS refuses to hold the executive accountable through the shadow docket by dismissing injunctions from lower courts while dragging their feet on final rulings.
Re:
But that’s still fixable, because those people could be gone after next the election, and then the new people can impeach and (where not pardoned) criminally charge everyone who deserves it. Maybe. If they also refuse to leave, or somehow the elections don’t happen or are seriously interfered with, well, then things will really be fucked—as people in other countries have often found out the hard way, many times in living memory.
This article was hard enough to read. Then I read the actual sworn statement. I wanted to cry. I wanted to throw up. I wanted to scream. I wanted to do something to purge the anger and horror I felt on behalf of this individual from my consciousness. It is mentioned in the article that this person has both an asylum case and a Juvenile Status proceeding pending. So we are talking about someone who is probably in high school (there are a couple of mentions of a teacher or teachers trying to communicate or send things to this individual. It was ultimately a teacher who picked them up when they were released.) There is no mention of a crime having been committed. We are treating these people worse than criminals for simply not being born here. It is not hyperbole to call these detention centers concentration camps. Great post for those who have the stomach for it.
Re:
A daily occurrence for many people watching the news lately, in the U.S. or from outside.
Many of the things mentioned here are crimes, such as unlawfully imprisoning people. Once the court has ordered someone released, it is unlawful imprisonment, whether or not it had already been.
For all the comparisons to Nazi Germany, nobody’s yet talking about a refugee crisis, but I’m starting to wonder what the U.S. will do if people start leaving. Build some border walls, maybe, to stem the “brain drain”? It’s not like Trump’s never promised to.
more than one branch...
More than one branch is ‘not playing by the rules’. We would not need the Congress to step up, which they are so egregiously neglecting due to Republicans’ spineless sycophancy, if the Executive branch were not so single-mindedly intent on eviscerating the Constitution and replacing the ‘rule of law’ with the ‘law of the jungle’ – or as so eloquently put by Stephen Miller “strength, power, and force.” Were the Executive branch to abide by the Constitution and the current laws, while it would still have a lot of power, perhaps more than it should… it would not be a crisis of democracy-threatening seriousness. But anyone who doesn’t think we are in clear and present danger of losing our democracy to autocracy and tyranny is just not paying attention.
Not just one
I disagree. It takes more than one branch to ignore the rules to break down the system.
If Congress wasn’t subservient to the Executive too, they’d impeach everyone involved.