Bidrohi
@bidrohi.blog
Believing in a world where justice thrives and compassion connects us all.
Why are the US & EU so obsessed with women’s hijabs? Real oppression is denying choice. Hijab shouldn’t be forced—but neither should its removal. Teach its spiritual meaning. And spare us the moral posturing from societies that enabled Epstein and looked away.
December 27, 2025 at 4:05 PM
Why are the US & EU so obsessed with women’s hijabs? Real oppression is denying choice. Hijab shouldn’t be forced—but neither should its removal. Teach its spiritual meaning. And spare us the moral posturing from societies that enabled Epstein and looked away.
Those cases are exceptions, not the rule. They don’t negate the core structure: courts still lack an independent enforcement arm. Sidestepping DOJ in rare situations doesn’t equal sustained enforcement power—that dependency remains.
Anyway, it’s nice debating with you.
Anyway, it’s nice debating with you.
December 19, 2025 at 8:02 PM
Those cases are exceptions, not the rule. They don’t negate the core structure: courts still lack an independent enforcement arm. Sidestepping DOJ in rare situations doesn’t equal sustained enforcement power—that dependency remains.
Anyway, it’s nice debating with you.
Anyway, it’s nice debating with you.
Donziger is the rare exception—and controversial for that reason. Even there, enforcement (custody, sentencing) still relied on executive machinery. One anomalous case doesn’t erase the structural reality: courts lack an independent enforcement arm.
December 19, 2025 at 8:00 PM
Donziger is the rare exception—and controversial for that reason. Even there, enforcement (custody, sentencing) still relied on executive machinery. One anomalous case doesn’t erase the structural reality: courts lack an independent enforcement arm.
We’re talking past each other. Courts can issue orders and apply pressure, but enforcement of fines, arrests, and detention runs through the executive. Without executive compliance, judicial remedies stall. That structural dependency is my point—and I’ll leave it there.
December 19, 2025 at 7:56 PM
We’re talking past each other. Courts can issue orders and apply pressure, but enforcement of fines, arrests, and detention runs through the executive. Without executive compliance, judicial remedies stall. That structural dependency is my point—and I’ll leave it there.
That authority is extremely narrow and mostly procedural. Special appointments can serve process or investigate, but criminal prosecution and detention still rest with the executive. Courts can escalate pressure—but they cannot replace DOJ as the enforcer of federal law.
December 19, 2025 at 7:52 PM
That authority is extremely narrow and mostly procedural. Special appointments can serve process or investigate, but criminal prosecution and detention still rest with the executive. Courts can escalate pressure—but they cannot replace DOJ as the enforcer of federal law.
Those are pressure tools, not enforcement. Fines still require collection by the executive, and disbarment punishes lawyers—not the agency or leadership. They raise costs, yes, but they still don’t force DOJ compliance if DOJ decides to stonewall.
December 19, 2025 at 7:35 PM
Those are pressure tools, not enforcement. Fines still require collection by the executive, and disbarment punishes lawyers—not the agency or leadership. They raise costs, yes, but they still don’t force DOJ compliance if DOJ decides to stonewall.
That’s the hope we all share. But if institutions fail or decline to act, the last real accountability rests with the people—through elections. Ultimately, voters are the only force that can remove those who choose protection over justice.
December 19, 2025 at 7:26 PM
That’s the hope we all share. But if institutions fail or decline to act, the last real accountability rests with the people—through elections. Ultimately, voters are the only force that can remove those who choose protection over justice.
A judge can cite DOJ for contempt—but enforcement still runs through the executive. Marshals are DOJ. Courts can order, clerks can issue papers, but if DOJ refuses to act against itself, contempt has no teeth. That’s the gap I’m pointing out.
December 19, 2025 at 7:22 PM
A judge can cite DOJ for contempt—but enforcement still runs through the executive. Marshals are DOJ. Courts can order, clerks can issue papers, but if DOJ refuses to act against itself, contempt has no teeth. That’s the gap I’m pointing out.
Not quite accurate. Marshals are part of DOJ—squarely within the executive branch. Judges don’t command them independently. Local police don’t enforce federal contempt that way, and clerks can issue subpoenas or warrants, but service isn’t enforcement. If DOJ declines to act, the court hits a wall.
December 19, 2025 at 7:15 PM
Not quite accurate. Marshals are part of DOJ—squarely within the executive branch. Judges don’t command them independently. Local police don’t enforce federal contempt that way, and clerks can issue subpoenas or warrants, but service isn’t enforcement. If DOJ declines to act, the court hits a wall.
I agree—no one is above the law. But what recourse exists when the law is simply disregarded? In cases of gross negligence or defiance, impeachment is the remedy—but we all know the outcome when the Senate majority is loyal to the president.
December 19, 2025 at 7:09 PM
I agree—no one is above the law. But what recourse exists when the law is simply disregarded? In cases of gross negligence or defiance, impeachment is the remedy—but we all know the outcome when the Senate majority is loyal to the president.
That’s not the point. Congress and the courts can issue orders and hold someone in contempt, but they lack independent enforcement power. They rely on the executive—DOJ—to act. If DOJ refuses, those powers become effectively symbolic, immunity or not.
December 19, 2025 at 6:54 PM
That’s not the point. Congress and the courts can issue orders and hold someone in contempt, but they lack independent enforcement power. They rely on the executive—DOJ—to act. If DOJ refuses, those powers become effectively symbolic, immunity or not.
It’s sad, but hardly surprising. DOJ will protect its boss & interests, & nothing can be done. The Constitution was written in good faith, assuming Article II would faithfully execute the decisions of the other two branches. The framers never seriously grappled with the question: what if it doesn’t?
December 19, 2025 at 4:20 PM
It’s sad, but hardly surprising. DOJ will protect its boss & interests, & nothing can be done. The Constitution was written in good faith, assuming Article II would faithfully execute the decisions of the other two branches. The framers never seriously grappled with the question: what if it doesn’t?
Please give me a break, Mr. Congressman. Yes, you can vote to hold someone in contempt, but you know full well that Congress and the courts have no direct enforcement power here. No one will go to jail or pay a fine—DOJ will simply ignore it.
December 19, 2025 at 4:04 PM
Please give me a break, Mr. Congressman. Yes, you can vote to hold someone in contempt, but you know full well that Congress and the courts have no direct enforcement power here. No one will go to jail or pay a fine—DOJ will simply ignore it.
Isn’t this the same woman who once claimed Sandy Hook was a hoax?
December 17, 2025 at 3:56 AM
Isn’t this the same woman who once claimed Sandy Hook was a hoax?
Stephen Miller reduces entire nations to stereotypes to mask his racism. People fleeing war and poverty aren’t “importing failure”; they’re rebuilding their lives. Immigrants strengthen this country — something he’ll never admit.
December 9, 2025 at 11:36 PM
Stephen Miller reduces entire nations to stereotypes to mask his racism. People fleeing war and poverty aren’t “importing failure”; they’re rebuilding their lives. Immigrants strengthen this country — something he’ll never admit.
How can a president with that kind of wealth truly understand the suffering and everyday struggles of ordinary citizens?
November 23, 2025 at 12:46 AM
How can a president with that kind of wealth truly understand the suffering and everyday struggles of ordinary citizens?
Holy cow! America is completely broken!! A country with full sovereignty over its own currency talking about “remaining liquid”? If it wanted to, the U.S. could balance its books with a few keystrokes — it’s not a household budget, it’s the issuer of the dollar!
November 7, 2025 at 7:15 PM
Holy cow! America is completely broken!! A country with full sovereignty over its own currency talking about “remaining liquid”? If it wanted to, the U.S. could balance its books with a few keystrokes — it’s not a household budget, it’s the issuer of the dollar!
Now you’re making some sense — at least you admit everyone came from somewhere. But calling all immigrants “invaders” or “illegals” is just wrong. If that’s your standard, then your ancestors were “invaders” too. Most of us came here legally, worked hard, and became citizens — just like yours did.
November 6, 2025 at 1:11 AM
Now you’re making some sense — at least you admit everyone came from somewhere. But calling all immigrants “invaders” or “illegals” is just wrong. If that’s your standard, then your ancestors were “invaders” too. Most of us came here legally, worked hard, and became citizens — just like yours did.
Are you serious? You think immigrants aren’t “American citizens”? Unless you’re Indigenous, your ancestors were immigrants too — some who wiped out the very people who truly were here first. Don’t rewrite history just to sound clever.
November 5, 2025 at 7:30 PM
Are you serious? You think immigrants aren’t “American citizens”? Unless you’re Indigenous, your ancestors were immigrants too — some who wiped out the very people who truly were here first. Don’t rewrite history just to sound clever.
Congratulations, Zohran Mamdani — unbought, unafraid, and unapologetically authentic. A Muslim mayor in one of America’s biggest cities! This win belongs to every immigrant, every Muslim, and everyone who still believes courage can beat money and fear.
November 5, 2025 at 3:28 AM
Congratulations, Zohran Mamdani — unbought, unafraid, and unapologetically authentic. A Muslim mayor in one of America’s biggest cities! This win belongs to every immigrant, every Muslim, and everyone who still believes courage can beat money and fear.
This is our President talking—his top job is to ensure the safety and security of citizens, yet he’s blaming Democrats for SNAP issues? I thought executive orders were his tool to act, not to shift blame.
October 31, 2025 at 6:24 PM
This is our President talking—his top job is to ensure the safety and security of citizens, yet he’s blaming Democrats for SNAP issues? I thought executive orders were his tool to act, not to shift blame.
Those who oppose the ACA keep claiming they have a “better plan,” yet after all these years, nothing. Instead, they’ve worked hard to sabotage it and make it seem broken—ignoring the fact that 20 million people now benefit from it, and they’re trying to take that away.
October 31, 2025 at 6:12 PM
Those who oppose the ACA keep claiming they have a “better plan,” yet after all these years, nothing. Instead, they’ve worked hard to sabotage it and make it seem broken—ignoring the fact that 20 million people now benefit from it, and they’re trying to take that away.
I’m sick and tired of seeing this man dominate every news feed. He’s a criminal, a child predator who deserves prison — not headlines. Why should anyone care what happens to a pedophile? And honestly, a royal family in the 21st century? It’s time to move on.
October 31, 2025 at 3:09 PM
I’m sick and tired of seeing this man dominate every news feed. He’s a criminal, a child predator who deserves prison — not headlines. Why should anyone care what happens to a pedophile? And honestly, a royal family in the 21st century? It’s time to move on.