[U] Astonishing! In Which Trump's Political Appointee Lawyers Seek "Ethics" Sanctions -- AGAINST ACLU Lawyers?!

UPDATED 12.20.2017 @ 10 AM EST: -- new post coming shortly. The whole case has been mooted. [End updated portion.]

The facts of this ongoing abusively unconstitutional prosecutorial tragedy bear a full-repeating, but I will save a more complete telling, for another, quieter, day (between Christmas and New Years, most likely). Suffice it to say that the US Government has in custody two 17 year old now pregnant women -- and the political appointees for Trump claim that the ACLU is required to notify the GOVERNMENT of the teens' movements. [The government asserts that the two are "deport-able" -- and are being held.]

Okay -- I can't even believe I have to type this out -- which part of "in custody" is not clear? These young women are in the full custodial control of, and are now the charge of. . . an arm of the federal government. And 45's lawyers say preposterously that instead of the government keeping track of its own INS detainees, that "tracking" -- is the duty of the ACLU's lawyers -- on pain of a potential US Supreme Court disciplinary order, for ethical misconduct.

I'll let that sink in. Here is the filing (read page 26!), plucked from the Supremes' window (as filed by Trump lawyers), overnight:

. . . .[I]n light of the extraordinary circumstances of this case, the government respectfully submits that this Court may wish to issue an order to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against respondent’s counsel [the ACLU] — either directly by this Court or through referral to the state bars to which counsel belong — for what appear to be material misrepresentations and omissions to government counsel designed to thwart this Court’s review. . . .

Well, that's. . . entirely fatuous.

Let's put aside for the moment whether the federal US Government has a right to force pregnant detainees to carry to term (but that is what this case is all about, "on the merits", such as they are). [Hint: that would be a radical departure from Supreme Court precedents, dating back to 1972.] It is extremely significant here that only Mr. Trump's political appointees have signed on to this filing -- none of the career, non-political AUSAs or US Attorneys have. It would be laughable -- if weren't so patently dangerous -- to have ill-educated ideologues in positions of immense federal prosecutorial power. Now it turns out one of the two already secured an abortion.

Now you know. Onward -- singing "Messiah" tonight, to forget that my country has lost at least part of her mind. . . . [Graphic shortly.]

नमस्ते