Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Trump doesn't have morals. He has lawyers. nt (Original Post)
Midnight Writer
May 2025
OP
BOSSHOG
(44,738 posts)1. Reminds me of a line from Paper Moon
When Little Addy Pray said, I dont know what scruples are but if you have them you stole them from somebody else.
LetMyPeopleVote
(181,598 posts)2. 'Oh, come on': Trump's DOJ hamstrung by loss of credibility with judges
The trump DOJ have been assholes in court and may be held in contempt at some point. In addition, the courts are now paying less attention to the trump DOJ. If you lie to a court repeatedly, the courts tend to discount your arguments.
'Oh, come on': Trump's DOJ hamstrung by loss of credibility with judges https://twp.ai/4inNt3
— #TuckFrump (@realtuckfrumper.bsky.social) 2025-05-04T11:56:22.000Z
Link to tweet
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-2671889484/
The deference that judges have traditionally extended to lawyers representing the Department of Justice (DOJ) has quickly evaporated under Donald Trump and his Attorney General Pam Bondi.
According to a report from the Washington Post, it has become a common occurrence for DOJ lawyers to be admonished by judges over specious claims, "shoddy work" and their inability to answer simple questions from the bench.
As former federal Judge John E. Jones III, appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, put it the deference that judges would give to attorneys from Main Justice is evaporating, and they have lost a fair measure of their credibility.
According to the Post's Mark Berman and Jeremy Roebuck, Lawyers defending Trump administration policies are "encountering mounting criticism and frustration from federal judges, a sign of deepening tension between the executive branch and courts weighing its aggressive uses of power," adding the example of U.S. District Judge John D. Bates berating a DOJ lawyer with "Oh, come on," during a hearing this past week.
Noting that Trump told ABC News this past week, Were not being treated fairly by all judges, the Post report pointed out that "the pushback from the bench has come from judges appointed by Republican as well as Democratic presidents including by Trump himself suggesting the issue is more about the Justice Departments evidence and court arguments than judicial activism."
According to a report from the Washington Post, it has become a common occurrence for DOJ lawyers to be admonished by judges over specious claims, "shoddy work" and their inability to answer simple questions from the bench.
As former federal Judge John E. Jones III, appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, put it the deference that judges would give to attorneys from Main Justice is evaporating, and they have lost a fair measure of their credibility.
According to the Post's Mark Berman and Jeremy Roebuck, Lawyers defending Trump administration policies are "encountering mounting criticism and frustration from federal judges, a sign of deepening tension between the executive branch and courts weighing its aggressive uses of power," adding the example of U.S. District Judge John D. Bates berating a DOJ lawyer with "Oh, come on," during a hearing this past week.
Noting that Trump told ABC News this past week, Were not being treated fairly by all judges, the Post report pointed out that "the pushback from the bench has come from judges appointed by Republican as well as Democratic presidents including by Trump himself suggesting the issue is more about the Justice Departments evidence and court arguments than judicial activism."