this post was submitted on 22 May 2025

549 points (98.8% liked)

politics

23603 readers

3816 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

549

'Hidden' provision in Trump's big bill could disarm US Supreme Court (www.newsweek.com)

submitted 2 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

76 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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."

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 day ago

"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.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 day ago (3 children)

The only solution left, the Blue States should secede to Canada.

[–] sugarfoot00 7 points 17 hours ago

I don't remember inviting you guys.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago (7 children)

What if we don't want you?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 14 hours ago

We don’t, for the record.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

We already know you're all exceptionally friendly.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 day ago

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

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 day ago (6 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I think this might be to make sure the defacto castration of the courts is now written into law

[–] [email protected] 1 points 16 hours ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

so he can be even more of a Dictator?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

More like "I already am, but now I won't have to pretend as much"

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

and the "braves" aren't doing anything to save their home

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

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

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

SC should threaten to declare Trump an outlaw

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Which would do what?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

an outlaw is somebody who is not protected by the law

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

AKA, if someone does to him something which will be remembered up there with John Brown, there is nothing they can do about it 🥰

[–] [email protected] 143 points 2 days ago (13 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

I know how to do this, Astrid. The sell sword lives, and joins the brotherhood.

[–] [email protected] 64 points 2 days ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 41 points 1 day ago

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 ...

load more comments (10 replies)

[–] [email protected] 175 points 2 days ago (8 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 92 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Literally their constitutionally mandated job, though at least the two usual suspects say otherwise and would dissent.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago

Even those two have ruled against the marmalade molester in at least one instance when it came to undermining judicial power.

[–] [email protected] 55 points 2 days ago (2 children)

There is a concept of severability, which has precedent. They would not call the whole bill unconstitutional, just the infringing part.