Latest news with #Lunatic
Yahoo
03-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court Justice Gets Standing Ovation for Breaking Cover to Attack Trump
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson received a standing ovation on Thursday after denouncing the Trump administration's 'relentless attacks' on federal judges, calling them a threat to the rule of law. ' Across the nation, judges are facing increased threats of not only physical violence, but also professional retaliation just for doing our jobs,' Jackson told a conference of judges in Puerto Rico. 'And the attacks are not random. They seem designed to intimidate those of us who serve in this critical capacity.' Although she did not mention Donald Trump by name, Jackson's remarks were addressed to 'the elephant in the room' following repeated attacks on the judiciary by the president and his allies. Her 18-minute denunciation is the strongest statement yet by any member of the Supreme Court since the start of Trump's second term. In March, Trump derided Judge James Boasberg as a 'troublemaker' and a 'Radical Left Lunatic' after he ruled against the illegal deportation of Venezuelans to El Salvador. House Republicans have sought to impeach at least six judges who blocked key parts of the president's agenda. Earlier this month, a Wisconsin County Court judge was arrested by the FBI after allegedly helping an undocumented immigrant evade arrest. Other judges who defied the administration have faced bomb threats and threats of physical violence. Several judges have faced a slew of 'intimidation tactics' designed to send a message that their home addresses are publicly known, including a New Jersey judge who received a pizza addressed to her murdered son. Top Trump advisor Stephen Miller has also railed against a cabal of 'Communist' judges who are determined to keep 'terrorists' in the country, while Elon Musk called for judges who defy the president to be impeached in a post on X. 'The attacks are also not isolated incidents,' Jackson told the assembled judges on Thursday night. 'That is, they impact more than just individual judges who are being targeted. Rather, the threats and harassment are attacks on our democracy, on our system of government and they ultimately risk undermining our Constitution and the rule of law,' Politico reports. She added: ' A society in which judges are routinely made to fear for their own safety or their own livelihood due to their decisions is one that has substantially departed from the norms of behavior that govern a democratic system. 'Attacks on judicial independence is how countries that are not free, not fair, and not rule of law oriented, operate.' Jackson received a standing ovation from the room of legal insiders. She pointed to similar attacks on judges who issued controversial rulings during the Civil Rights Movement and the Watergate scandal. 'Other judges have faced challenges like the ones we face today, and have prevailed,' she said. Jackson is the newest member of the Supreme Court, and was appointed in 2022 after serving as a district court judge for eight years before being promoted to the appeals court. Following her prepared remarks, Jackson spent the remainder of the event engaged in a discussion about her life and career with a law clerk she once served under.
Yahoo
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
How Donald Trump tried to court the Atlantic – and why the liberal magazine landed an interview
Hell hath frozen over: At the White House the other day, Donald Trump "was launching a charm offensive, directed mainly at Goldberg," as in Jeffrey Goldberg, the Atlantic's editor-in-chief. "There was none of the name-calling or hostility he regularly levels at our magazine." That's according to Atlantic reporters Ashley Parker and Michael Scherer, who wrote the magazine's cover story, which was posted yesterday. For all the insights gleaned from the interview, nothing is more fascinating than how it came about. They called the president on his cell phone. (Wha? Who do I have to court to get that? The reporters ain't saying.) Trump says he did the initial phone interview to see if the liberal magazine could be fair. President Trump Tells The Atlantic He Runs The Country 'And The World' Read On The Fox News App So I'm here to pronounce that the entire, seemingly endless piece is fair. The president hasn't taken a shot at it on Truth Social, at least so far. He has, however, ripped new polls from the "Failing New York Times" and "ABC/Washington Post" as "FAKE POLLS FROM FAKE NEWS ORGANIZATIONS," saying they should be "investigated for ELECTION FRAUD, and add in the Fox News Pollster while you're at it." His lowest approval rating, in the Post-ABC survey, was 39 percent. Meanwhile, we may now look back on Trump's 2024 victory as inevitable, but after Jan. 6 it was anything but. On the cell call, "The president seemed exhilarated by everything he had managed to do in the first two months of his second term." And then came the transaction: "As ever, Trump was on the hunt for a deal. If he liked the story we wrote, he said, he might even speak with us again." Goldberg describes the session: "What I found in this particular meeting was a Trump who was low-key, attentive, and eager to convince us that he is good at his job and good for the country. It isn't easy to escape the tractor beam of his charisma, but somehow we managed, and we asked him what needed to be asked. "But squaring Trump the Charmer with the Orcish Trump we more frequently see is difficult…Trump posted on the social-media platform he owns that Ashley is a 'Radical Left Lunatic' (she is not) and that Michael 'has never written a fair story about me, only negative, and virtually always LIES' (also false). It is our task at the Atlantic not to be bullied by these sorts of attacks." State Of War: How Trump Is Fighting A 9-Front Battle The most interesting Trump sound bite is his comparison of the two terms: "The first time, I had two things to do—run the country and survive; I had all these crooked guys. And the second time, I run the country and the world." Parker and Scherer did many other interviews, such as with Steve Bannon. "Our reality is that we won," and he cited the conspiracy theory that the FBI had incited the crowd on Jan. 6. The reporters said that was simply untrue. "Now, here's the interesting thing," Bannon said. "Who's won that argument? I think we have… "This time it's 'Hey, f**k you, Greenland's ours…When you've come back from such long odds, you clearly feel, 'I can do anything.' " What about the four criminal investigations, including the conviction on the weakest one – Alvin Bragg's hush money case? Trump says his numbers kept going up. Interviewing Donald Trump: A Last-minute Blitz And New Closing Message "Shockingly, yes," Trump said. "Normally, it would knock you out. You wouldn't even live for the next day. You know, you'd announce your resignation, and you'd go back and 'fight for your name,' like everybody says—you know, 'fight for your name, go back to your family.' …Yeah, it made me stronger, made me a lot stronger." He also said in the phone interview: "I got indicted five different times by five different scumbags, and they're all looking for jobs now, so it's one of those things. Who would have thought, right? It's been pretty amazing." After the 2016 election, Trump told oil executives at Mar-a-Lago: If I'm not president, you're f***ed. Look at your profit-and-loss statements. You realize what would have happened to you if she was president? What's wrong with you?") She was Kamala Harris, of course. One turning point: When he went to East Palestine, Ohio after the derailment of a train carrying toxic chemicals, while Joe Biden didn't do squat. On the Kennedy Center: "I didn't really get to go the first time, because I was always getting impeached or some bulls**t, and I could never enjoy a show." So he fired the Democrats and made himself chairman. All right, enough quotes. Wait, one more that captures the tone of the piece: "I got 38 percent of the male Black vote. Nobody knew that was possible. That's a lot. I got 56 percent of Hispanics. How about that one? Every county along the Texas border is Hispanic. I won every one of them." Though every single number he cited was wrong, the general thrust of his observation was correct." The reporters chronicled how things have gone south for the president, especially on tariffs and the economy, and how he pressured Hill Republicans into backing his nominees with primary threats. Subscribe To Howie's Media Buzzmeter Podcast, A Riff On The Day's Hottest Stories After the March phone interview, the reporters tried Trump's cellphone again. Just got voice mail. But at 1:38 am, he tried them back. No message. Trump believes he can win over even his worst enemies. In 2015 or 2016, I watched him make a beeline in the New York green room for Karl Rove, who was very rough on him. At worst, he thinks, he can neutralize the person. Or soften him or her up for the next time. He enjoys the challenge. The mainstream media almost uniformly can't stand Donald Trump. He does invite some of his own negative headlines, while providing unprecedented access, but much of the press is back in Resistance mode. Still, the Atlantic's original pitch is undeniable, that he's "The Most Consequential President of the 21st Century."Original article source: How Donald Trump tried to court the Atlantic – and why the liberal magazine landed an interview
TimesLIVE
25-04-2025
- Entertainment
- TimesLIVE
'This is for the underdogs' — K.O pens open letter in single with Young Stunna
K.O has shared an open letter in the form of song. The rapper released Pharadise featuring Young Stunna, the lead single from his upcoming project Phara City, set to be released on June 13. ' Pharadise is a reunion that feels like destiny. Young Stunna and I are back, reigniting the spark that birthed SETE — the 2022 juggernaut that owned South Africa's soul. That track didn't just break records, it broke barriers, racking up more than 14-million streams, holding the number one spot for 19 weeks, and snatching awards such as Best Video and Song of the Year at the SA Hip Hop Awards,' K.O said. 'It was more than a song — it was the sound of a generation refusing to be ignored. Now, with Lunatic on production, Afrotraction and Murumba Pitch co-crafting the vibe, Pharadise takes that legacy and runs further. It's bold, it's raw, it's us.' K.O, who first shot to stardom in the music industry with his former group Teargas, has been in the industry for 19 years, experiencing different areas of showbiz.
New York Times
22-03-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Who Will Defend the Defenders of the Constitution?
The Domino's pizzas arrived at the homes of federal judges without explanation. The message was clear: We know where you live. The mysterious pizza deliveries are happening at the same time that President Trump, his aides and their allies have started an intimidation campaign against the legal system — through executive orders, social media posts, public comments and even articles of impeachment. The evident goal is to spread anxiety and fear among judges and keep them from fulfilling their constitutional duty to insist that the Trump administration follow the law. The campaign extends to private-sector lawyers, with Mr. Trump trying to damage the business of several firms he does not like. The scope of these tactics can sometimes get lost amid the pace of news, and we want to pause to connect the dots and explain the seriousness of what's happening. We also want to honor the people who are taking a public stand against this campaign, including Chief Justice John Roberts, and urge more lawyers to do so in the days ahead. Every time a judge or lawyer steps forward, it becomes easier for others to speak out and harder for Mr. Trump to isolate any one person standing up for the law. He is straining the American system of checks and balances in ways it has not been tested in many decades. The most effective way to protect that system starts with courage from more people who believe in it. The primary targets for intimidation have been federal judges, the latest being Judge James Boasberg. Last weekend, he ruled that the Trump administration could not send 261 migrants to a prison in El Salvador without first holding a hearing. The administration continued deportation flights nonetheless, and its lawyers have since dissembled about the timeline. In response, Mr. Trump described Judge Boasberg, who was appointed to the bench by George W. Bush and elevated by Barack Obama, as a 'troublemaker,' 'agitator' and 'Radical Left Lunatic' who should be impeached. A Republican House member filed articles of impeachment hours later, and Elon Musk announced he had made the maximum campaign contribution to several House members who supported the articles. The attempts to cow Judge Boasberg continue a pattern. Mr. Trump, in an interview with Fox News this week, said, 'We have rogue judges that are destroying our country.' Vice President JD Vance has claimed that 'judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power.' Mr. Musk has posted dozens of scathing social media messages about judges who have questioned the legality of his government cuts, describing them as evil and corrupt. Mr. Trump's allies outside government echo these attacks in even harsher ways. Media allies of Mr. Trump have published biographical details about judges' children. Federal marshals recently warned judges about an increase in personal threats. After Judge John Coughenour temporarily blocked the Trump administration's attempt to end birthright citizenship, he was the subject of a bomb threat hoax. No wonder that judges feel 'mounting alarm over their physical security,' according to interviews by Reuters. We want to emphasize that criticizing a judge's decision can be entirely reasonable. Joe Biden, Mr. Obama, Mr. Bush and other presidents inveighed against rulings. The Constitution establishes the judiciary as equal to the executive and legislative branches, not dominant over them. And Republicans are not the only ones who have crossed a line when unhappy with judges. Liberal critics of the Supreme Court have harassed justices at their homes, and in one extreme case, a man unhappy with the court's approach to abortion planned to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Yet Mr. Trump's efforts at judicial intimidation are of a different scale. As president, he is encouraging a campaign of menace. In case after case, he argues that the only reasonable result is a victory for his side — and that he alone can determine what is legal and what is not. His allies then try to dehumanize the judges with whom they disagree and make them fear for their safety. Mr. Trump's efforts to subdue law firms may seem separate, but they are connected. He has issued three executive orders removing the security clearances of lawyers at three large firms: Covington & Burling, Perkins Coie and Paul, Weiss. In each case, the motivation is political. The firms have employed lawyers who represented Democrats, investigated Mr. Trump and sued Jan. 6 rioters. The orders against Perkins Coie and Paul, Weiss were broad, barring their lawyers from entering federal buildings and discouraging federal employees from interacting with them. In doing so, the administration tried to devastate the firms: They cannot represent clients if their lawyers cannot speak with federal regulators, investigators and prosecutors. These orders are not merely revenge, though. They are attempts to undermine the legal system and freedom of speech. If it becomes onerous for anybody who dares question Mr. Trump to hire a lawyer, fewer people will challenge him. Those who do will find themselves at a severe disadvantage in court. 'An informed, independent judiciary presumes an informed, independent bar,' as Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in a 2001 decision. On March 12, Judge Beryl Howell temporarily blocked part of the order against Perkins Coie, calling it 'retaliatory animus' that 'sends little chills down my spine.' The initial response from many law firms has been a disappointing mixture of silence and capitulation. The clearest example is Paul, Weiss. During Mr. Trump's first term, it helped sue the Trump administration for its separation of migrant children from their parents, and the firm's chairman, Brad Karp, boasted that the firm fought 'to protect the liberties and freedoms of the most vulnerable among us.' In the past few days he reversed course. He traveled to the White House and agreed that the firm would donate $40 million in legal services to causes Mr. Trump favors. In exchange, Mr. Trump said he would drop the executive order against Paul, Weiss. It is easy to imagine that Mr. Karp and his colleagues justify this surrender in the name of protecting their business against a powerful bully, much as media companies like Disney and Meta have agreed to settlements with Mr. Trump. But these executives are ignoring the consequences of their decisions. By caving, Paul, Weiss has increased the chances that Mr. Trump will attack other firms. More than 600 associates at top firms have signed an open letter that captures the larger dynamic: Mr. Trump is trying to create a chilling effect among law firms. The letter — signed by lawyers at stalwart firms like Cravath, Kirkland & Ellis and Skadden Arps, along with Paul, Weiss — criticizes their own firms' partners for not speaking up. 'These tactics only work if the majority does not speak up,' the letter says. There are some signs of bravery. Williams & Connolly, a firm where Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Elena Kagan previously worked, has sued the Trump administration on behalf of Perkins Coie. We hope that more large firms display such courage. The response from judges has been stronger, despite the threats that they face. During court hearings, they have tried to ascertain the facts of cases and confronted Mr. Trump's lawyers about their dubious assertions. Chief Justice Roberts, for his part, released an admirable statement the same day that the president called for Judge Boasberg's impeachment, saying that impeachment was 'not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.' Even though the chief justice did not name Mr. Trump, the speed and directness of the response were highly unusual. As Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown University, said, 'The courts' behavior to this point has been spot on.' Mr. Trump's testing of America's legal system has probably only begun, and it will require a more vigilant response in coming months. If he continues to defy court orders, judges may need to begin holding his lawyers and aides in contempt. Chief Justice Roberts, as well as his Supreme Court colleagues, may have to become bolder about protecting the legal system they oversee. Law firm leaders would do well to summon more patriotism and courage. Members of Congress can do the same by asserting their own constitutional powers. Mr. Trump, for all his bluster, does sometimes respond to political and legal pressure and pull back in the face of opposition. The more people who come forward to defend the Constitution, the greater their chances of success will be.
Politico
20-03-2025
- Politics
- Politico
Judges, rankled by Trump's impeachment calls, agree: ‘It's not a great strategy'
President Donald Trump's call to impeach judges who've ruled against his aggressive use of executive power is prompting alarm and dismay from the jurists who ultimately hold the fate of his policies in their hands. As Trump's allies have intensified the impeachment movement in recent weeks, current and former judges are rebuking the tactic as unjustified and dangerous, pointing to the availability of a robust appeals process in the courts. They've also highlighted the heated environment in which verbal attacks can escalate into physical threats. And, as a matter of political strategy, some judges question how singling out individual jurists advances the president's end-game. The vitriol Trump and the MAGA faithful lob at the judiciary is likely to rankle the Supreme Court justices who can deliver the ultimate go-ahead or death knell for stalled aspects of Trump's agenda. 'It's a really bizarre way to do business. If he thinks he can intimidate judges, it's not going to be a successful strategy,' said one sitting federal judge, who was granted anonymity to avoid harassment and retaliation. 'It's not the way to win cases … Maybe it will appeal to the public, maybe from a public relations perspective, but it's not a great strategy for the judges that I know.' The judge also said his colleagues were braced for the escalation because of a series of prior pro-impeachment comments from Trump adviser Elon Musk and the introduction of impeachment resolutions by the president's allies in Congress. 'It's kind of disappointing, but I can't say I'm surprised,' the judge said. 'It was obviously all orchestrated.' Trump resisted joining the impeachment drive for several weeks as some of his most strident supporters railed against judges on social media, but he jumped on the bandwagon Tuesday. In a post on Truth Social, Trump called U.S. District Judge James Boasberg a 'Radical Left Lunatic' and urged he be removed from office for blocking deportation of Venezuelan alleged gang members under a rarely invoked wartime legal authority. Trump's escalation of his challenge to the judiciary drew an immediate, if slightly oblique, response from Chief Justice John Roberts. 'For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose,' Roberts said in a statement that did not mention by name either Trump or Boasberg. White House Deputy Chief of Staff James Blair defended Trump's call for impeaching Boasberg in an interview with POLITICO on Wednesday. 'What we're encouraging is a public debate and I think it's a reasonable public debate,' Blair said. Under the Constitution, federal judges have life tenure — as long as they display ' good behavior .' Impeachment and conviction by Congress is the only way to remove judges from the bench, and the process is the same for removing presidents: A majority of the House must vote to impeach and two-thirds of the Senate must vote to convict. That's an extraordinarily high bar that is politically unrealistic even in the current GOP-controlled Congress. Throughout history, the House has impeached just 15 federal judges , and only eight of them have been convicted by the Senate. Virtually all of those impeachments involved allegations of unethical or illegal conduct, not simply disagreement over the judges' rulings. One former federal judge, Nancy Gertner, said none of the recent rulings against Trump policies comes close to triggering the standard for impeaching a judge. 'The threats of impeachment are nothing short of horrifying,' said Gertner, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton and spent 17 years on the district court in Massachusetts. 'The distance between what we impeach for and what he's accusing these judges for is enormous … It's preposterous.' Musk and other Trump allies have called for impeachment of judges who have blocked key pieces of the president's agenda, including lifting a broad freeze the administration tried to impose on grants and contracts, limiting access by Musk's Department of Government Efficiency team to Treasury Department payment databases and requiring health agencies to restore web pages about vaccines and transgender health care. Gertner said Trump is precipitating the conflict with the judiciary by insisting on rapidly carrying out his agenda on issues like immigration, the federal workforce and government spending, often without following legally required steps. 'He could have done all of these cases normally and, you know, respectfully, and is likely to have won in some cases, but he doesn't want to do it that way. He wants to prove his power. And that's the frightening part,' Gertner said. Former federal judge Bernice Donald, who spent nearly three decades on the bench, first as a district judge in Memphis appointed by Clinton and then appointed to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals by President Barack Obama, said she couldn't recall similar campaigns of invective against judges. 'I don't think you've seen this from the highest levels of government,' she said. 'Laws are not self-executing,' Donald said. 'We also need a fair and independent judiciary who can look at, interpret and apply those laws, and we need to be worried about undermining the judiciary's ability to enforce the laws that Congress passes.' Retired Justice Stephen Breyer publicly endorsed Roberts' statement Wednesday, saying impeachment should be reserved for cases of misconduct, not for disagreement with a judge's rulings. 'He's trying to explain to the people of this country how the legal system works and how it doesn't work,' Breyer said on CNN. 'It doesn't work by impeaching a judge because you don't like his decision.' Breyer also gave a disturbingly ambiguous answer when anchor Wolf Blitzer asked if the nation is approaching a constitutional crisis. 'No one really knows. No one really knows. People have different views on that,' the justice said. 'The best thing, I think, for the judges is: You follow the law. You simply follow the law.' Some judges said Trump's call for impeachments was part of a series of moves that seemed strategically unwise because they were particularly likely to antagonize the chief justice. Even allowing for Trump's often overheated rhetoric, his description of Boasberg, an appointee of Obama, as a 'radical left lunatic' has been dismissed out of hand by many of the judge's colleagues. Boasberg is a former homicide prosecutor with more than two decades of judicial experience at both the local and federal level. He became the chief judge of the district court in Washington in 2023, and he is well respected by lawyers and fellow judges who work at the federal courthouse in the nation's capital. He is not seen as a leftist. Some judges noted that Roberts himself appointed Boasberg to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in 2014, which handles highly sensitive surveillance applications and delicate civil-liberties questions. Trump's executive orders targeting large law firms with prominent Democratic clients have also troubled lawyers of various political persuasions and could alienate some members of the Supreme Court. Conservative lawyers in particular have complained in recent years that attorneys representing conservative causes, including Trump himself, have had to leave their law firms when they came under pressure. 'The Rule of Law depends upon lawyers being free to advocate for all causes, to represent those in need of legal representation, and to challenge government actions that may violate statutory and constitutional norms,' the American College of Trial Lawyers said in a statement last week addressing Trump's actions against Covington & Burling and Perkins Coie . 'The White House's retaliating against a law firm merely because it represented a client against whom the Executive Branch has a grievance, threatens the bedrock principles of our system of justice.' Roberts and Trump seemed to have a friendly interaction earlier this month when the president addressed a joint session of Congress. The chief justice voted against Trump in some big first-term fights, but backed him last year in a challenge to his presence on the presidential ballot and in a crucial battle over presidential immunity. The big legal battles of Trump's second term still lie ahead, but Roberts has already voted with Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett to turn down the administration's request for emergency relief in a dispute over foreign aid funding. And when the administration brought an urgent petition to the court last week asking the justices to effectively end the practice of judges issuing nationwide injunctions , Roberts gave the administration's opponents three weeks to respond — an unusually long time for a case on the court's so-called emergency docket. Though Trump's call for impeachment referred only to Boasberg, the president's supporters in Congress in recent weeks have introduced articles of impeachment against other federal district court judges. They include Judge Paul Engelmayer, an Obama appointee in New York who last month blocked most administration officials from accessing sensitive Treasury records; Judge John Bates, a George W. Bush appointee in Washington who ordered the restoration of federal web pages about transgender health care and vaccines; and Judge Amir Ali, a Joe Biden appointee in Washington who ordered the administration to pay bills for completed work on foreign-aid projects. The furor around Engelmayer's order and the calls for his impeachment resulted in what his colleague, fellow Obama appointee U.S. District Judge Paul Oetken, described earlier this month as 'really disturbing communications' aimed at Engelmayer and his family. There were 'some at the level of threatening,' Oetken said at an American Bar Association conference in Miami earlier this month. 'And that's really troubling.' Musk made clear Wednesday he still wants to see multiple judges impeached, despite the lack of any indication that there are the votes to do that, let alone remove them from office. He also sent campaign donations to at least six House members pressing for judicial impeachments, the New York Times reported . 'For more than two centuries, there has never such [sic] extreme abuse of the legal system by activists pretending to be judges,' Musk wrote on his social media site, X . 'Impeach them.' On his X account, Musk has posted about impeachment more than a dozen times this week. On Thursday, he reposted what he called an 'accurate' message denouncing Roberts for pushing back against Trump's call for impeaching judges. One fact overlooked by the White House and Trump allies: On the same day Boasberg blocked Trump's deportations of Venezuelans rand ordered planes carrying them turned around, another federal judge — appointed by Trump — blocked the deportation of an individual Venezuelan whose lawyers claim he was being sent out of the country 'due to an order from the President.' But that judge has not generated any of the ire from the right that Boasberg has. U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr., who was nominated by Trump in 2017 and confirmed the following year, granted the emergency relief Saturday at the request of attorneys for Daniel Zacarias Matos. He was, and is, being held at the same south Texas detention center where some or all of the more than 200 Venezuelans deported Saturday were kept just before they were flown out of the U.S. Rodriguez's order covers only Zacarias Matos and makes no mention of turning planes around, but says he can't be transferred from that detention center without a further order of the court. The judge has set a hearing for next Wednesday on whether Trump has the power under the Alien Enemies Act to deport Zacarias Matos even though he has no final deportation order from an immigration court.
