3mo ago

'Hidden' provision in Trump's big bill could disarm US Supreme Court

www.newsweek.com

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."

BrainWorms @lemm.ee

DeadWorld @lemm.ee

3mo ago

The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” bill includes provision that would ban judicial system from enforcing contempt orders against court violations

www.newsweek.com /hidden-provision-trump-bill-court-2075769

politics @lemmy.world

MuskyMelon @lemmy.world

3mo ago

'Hidden' provision in Trump's big bill could disarm US Supreme Court

www.newsweek.com /hidden-provision-trump-bill-court-2075769

59 comments

- 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 ...
- 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 ...
- 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.
- 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.
- Yeah well congress is currently controlled by ass clowns so here we are.
- This only works if everyone is honorable and defends their power. Just the writing of this bill (and others) shows the legislature's willingness to cede their own power. I have little confidence that the current SCOTUS bench will do anything to keep their own. Add to that a weakness in our 3 branch system that only one branch has the power of force.
Americans need to start building guillotines
- Or at least exercising their constitutional right to brandish firearms.
  
  The longer it takes to get there, the greater the harm to fix it.
- That would require effort.
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 rulings
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.
  
  Didn't they vote for cloture? That is basically passing the bill.
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
- 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?
  
  It's amazing that it took the US 10 times less time than Russia to become a full dictatorship. Putin started openly cracking down on opponents in 2011, 11 years into his rule (technical Medvedev was prez at that time, but not really). It amuses me to no end that some americans believe that the US is going to turn back into a democracy on its own, without them taking up arms against maga.
- 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.
  
  oh please, he is already ruling like a king and nobody is doing anything. This is another move of the goal post to justify inaction
- 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...
"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."
This is the kind of legislation you would use to pave the way for fascism. It sets the stage for autocracy. It has in mind a ruler. There's no other explanation.
The only solution left, the Blue States should secede to Canada.
- I don't remember inviting you guys.
- What if we don't want you?
  
  We don’t, for the record.
  
  We already know you're all exceptionally friendly.
- 180%. Minnesota etc need to seriously look at how to do so, despite the precedent set by the traitors nearly two centuries ago.
SC should threaten to declare Trump an outlaw
- Which would do what?
  
  an outlaw is somebody who is not protected by the law
It's crazy that the Supreme Court need to have guns, but I wouldn't expect anything else from the US
- Lol buddy, this is America. If more people having guns was the solution, we wouldn't be here right now.

59 comments