A provision “hidden” in the sweeping budget bill that passed the U.S. House on Thursday seeks to limit the ability of courts—including the U.S. Supreme Court—from enforcing their orders.
“No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued,” the provision in the bill, which is more than 1,000 pages long, says.
The provision “would make most existing injunctions—in antitrust cases, police reform cases, school desegregation cases, and others—unenforceable,” Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the University of California Berkeley School of Law, told Newsweek. “It serves no purpose but to weaken the power of the federal courts.”
The only solution left, the Blue States should secede to Canada.
We already have a basic problem
Governance ideally is people of good intentions coming together to make things better
Conservatives don’t have good intentions
Prosecutors control law enforcement
Courts have no way to enforce their rulingsSC should threaten to declare Trump an outlaw
to what end? he is already not following any of the SCOTUS orders that are not convenient to him and receiving no consequences for it
Several people the courts ordered released, were released. So it isn’t true that he isn’t following any of the scotus orders. People are saying that this law change will allow him to ignore all orders without threat of being held in contempt. I’m not sure that interpretation is correct. And even so, I imagine that scotus can just declare it unconstitutional. That will put the question in the hands of the people scotus asks to enforce their contempt rulling. I imagine if those people refuse, the court can ask for volunteers to be deputized. So all in all it isn’t clear where this is going.
I think this might be to make sure the defacto castration of the courts is now written into law
so he can be even more of a Dictator?
This protects him even if the Dems take back Congress or the Republicans finally turn on him.
Again, to what end? there is already enough to seriously consider actual treason charges with everything he has done in the last 8 years. If they wanted to actually go after him, they’d have enough to bury him for the rest of his, hopefully, short life…
If the Courts can’t enforce rulings against him l, then there isn’t even a theoretical check on his executive power. So even if he were impeached he could refuse to leave office, with no courts able to compelling the justice department to drag his ass out of the white house.
Americans need to start building guillotines
That would require effort.
Or at least exercising their constitutional right to brandish firearms.
The longer it takes to get there, the greater the harm to fix it.
The issue is a lot of the gun nuts fearing tyranny are fine with this cause it’s their team. Republicans have always been hypocrits, and now we can point to chances where they could have fulfilled their dream, but instead have become the bootlicking cowards we all knew them to be.
You can’t legislate Constitutional overrides. Legislation either conforms to the Constitution, or it is declared invalid and gets sent back to Congress for reworking. It doesn’t matter if it passes both Houses and gets signed by the President. If the Judiciary rules that it violates the Constitution, it gets thrown out. That’s how this works.
Yeah well congress is currently controlled by ass clowns so here we are.
A King, a priest, a rich man and a sellsword are in a room. Those three man tell the sellsword to kill the other two. Who lives and who dies?
I know how to do this, Astrid. The sell sword lives, and joins the brotherhood.
Yeah well the thing is:
If no one enforces the judiciary’s edicts, but they all say aye to whatever trump’s new decree of the day is then Judicial is just standing there foot in mouth …You might think so but there are many recent examples of things playing out counter to a plain reading of law so I’m not quite as confident.
Thats the whole point.
Its sent to the courts and SCOTUS will overrule prior decisions like segregation and Jim Crow law.
Technically, the consitution never explicitly gave the Supreme Court the power to overturn laws, its just a precedent set by Marbury vs Madison, and congress and the president at the time just went along with it. I could totally see the military use this logic and go “Hmm… seems legit” and proceed to ignore court orders.
Erm … So you actually don’t have a body whose job it is to make sure the government adheres to the constitution? It’s just a happy little accident?
What the actual fuck …
Well you see, we make them swear on a Bible and they wouldn’t defy God of course.
Someone with standing has to file a case in court, then get a ruling in their favor.
Until then, this would stand.
Makes you think about the headline. “Could disarm US Supreme Court” is at that point hyperbolic and misleading.
It’d be a shame if the Supreme Court found the whole bill unconstitutional cause of this one line and they wasted their one chance to pass a bill.
I don’t know how legislation works… but in legal documents there’s usually a provision that says if any part of this document is found to be invalid for legal reasons, only that part of the document is voided, and the rest remains in tact.
Literally their constitutionally mandated job, though at least the two usual suspects say otherwise and would dissent.
Even those two have ruled against the marmalade molester in at least one instance when it came to undermining judicial power.
There is a concept of severability, which has precedent. They would not call the whole bill unconstitutional, just the infringing part.
As the clause is 1000 pages long, the whole Act is likely be declared void.
The bill is a thousand pages, not this clause.
And I imagine they are motivated not do so given it basically shuts down their power.
Nah, it’s the perfect position, be able look like you’re pushing back while complaining you don’t have the power to do it. A certain political party perfected that tactic.
Who would have standing to bring a case?
Every citizen who relies on or expects the supreme court to do their job, because without it, well, no one will ever have standing for anything.
I think it would have to be more direct. But since it applies to federal courts, there are probably a lot of orders being ignored right now. So they should have thier pick.
It’s crazy that the Supreme Court need to have guns, but I wouldn’t expect anything else from the US
Everyone needs to have guns.
nazis wouldn’t be so emboldened if every leftist have guns to keep them in check
Lol buddy, this is America. If more people having guns was the solution, we wouldn’t be here right now.
Problem is not enough leftists. Most democratic voters are liberals that tend to be very anti-gun
Maybe if a certain political party hadn’t spent decades convincing its voters to disarm themselves, we wouldn’t have 90% of guns owned by fascists.
Guns are evil until you need them.
Incoming: voted for by all democrats
Not even one single Democrat voted for this bill in the House. What makes you think they’ll do it in the Senate? I understand Democrats suck, but come on.
I could see Fetterman voting for it.
Ok yeah actually that’s fair lmao.
Also Schumer will find some excuse to make it seem not as bad
A six figure excuse.
Didn’t they vote for cloture? That is basically passing the bill.
No.
