usernamesAreTricky

If the Marshall Service does not enforce contempt, it is possible for the courts to appoint others to enforce for them if they are willing to do so. It would be unprecedented, but well within the bounds of what the law states

The rule begins in section (a) by instructing that, as a general matter, process “must be served by a United States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially appointed for that purpose.”

[...]

Thus, by its plain terms, Rule 4.1 contemplates that the court may appoint individuals other than the marshals to enforce civil contempt orders.

[...]

Even a rogue marshal’s service, in other words, is not an insurmountable obstacle to courts enforcing the rule of law. If courts have the courage, the legal tools are there.

https://www.democracydocket.com/opinion/if-the-marshals-go-rogue-courts-have-other-ways-to-enforce-their-orders/

Join global protests against Tesla in much of the US, various parts of Europe, part of Canada, etc.

(and there are multiple upcoming across the UK, if you are in the UK and disappointed at this graph)

https://www.teslatakedown.com/

They aren't just protesting Trump here? I mean the tour itself is called "Fighting Oligarchy" which is about a system

Strange indeed, but this has been part of a long push. Didn't happen by magic

Edit: On a closer reading, it looks like it might actually mean “if you use AI/other non-animal methods we’ll let you skip some safety testing” (“”“streamlined review”“”). Less animal murder so still good ofc, but :/

Their 11 page roadmap document does not read that way at all. Looking the FDA press documents look very different than the implementation details documents. I mean part of their roadmap is actually to encourage people - if already doing animal studies - to perform additional non-animal studies at the same time and submit that along side to get better data about accuracy and such

https://www.fda.gov/media/186092/download?attachment

* for press releases and announcements

Headline makes it sound like internal communications, but that's not the case at least currently. Still, we shouldn't rely on third party services for important info - especially one that sometimes requires login to view

I think it's unlikely they will do so directly given their other actions. Senate Majority Leader Thune has been pretty adamant about keeping it even stating he wanted to keep it in his very first speech this year as the new senate majority leader. I think the bigger threat to the filibuster at the moment is Republicans abusing reconciliation beyond what is supposed to be in there. Republicans appear likely to test the waters with bending the rules in the near future. This would be one of those piece by piece kinds of things, so more of a medium-term to longer-term issue

Reconciliation is supposed to be strictly for budget related policies and allows a strict majority vote without going through the filibuster and is only allowed to be used a limited number of times among other restrictions. The senate parliamentarian is the one who is supposed to interprets the senate rules and procedures including what's allowed in reconciliation. One of the requirements the Byrd Rule gives to reconciliation is that the bill passed through the senate it may not add to the deficit overall.

Republicans appear likely to ignore the senate parliamentarian and declare by themselves that extending Trump's 2017 tax cuts for the rich that will expire are "current policy" and not counted in deficit computations. By itself that doesn't sound that interesting, but the reason that's a little concerning is that the senate parliamentarian is also the one who decides if the bills are strictly budget related. For instance, in 2021 the senate parliamentarian was the one who frustratingly ruled that a minimum wage increase to $15/hr couldn't be included via reconciliation. If ignoring the senate parliamentarian becomes the norm, they could stuff non-budget thing into these massive reconciliation spending packages without anyone to say no

(It's also possible the Senate parliamentarian rules in their favor and they don't override what they say)

Before we preemptively doom about it, it also needs to pass the senate filibuster meaning 7 senate dems need to vote in favor. Call your senators and tell them to vote against it

The bill appears to face long odds in the Senate, where it would need 60 votes to overcome an expected Democratic filibuster.

[...]

“I am leading the fight in the Senate to push back against this effort to disrupt our already safe and secure elections. This bill cannot pass the Senate — and I will fight every step of the way to block it,” Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said in a statement.

[...]

Last year, the House passed a similar bill but it stalled in the Senate and then-President Joe Biden vowed to veto it

Passed the house not the senate. The filibuster in the senate is the main hurdle for the bill. That's what requires 60 votes meaning it'd take at least 7 votes from dems

Dems have shot plenty of things down this term via the filibuster though the CR was a notable horrible exception. For instance, they successfully filibustered an anti-trans legislation earlier in march. There is no threat of a shutdown here if they don't let this bill get through. It's a tall order for it to get through. Still call your senator and tell them to vote against cloture for it

Yes, what they are trying to do is bad, but note that it needs 60 in the senate to pass the filibuster

Senate Dems were pretty vocal against it last year when they tried to get that through. Still make sure to call your senator and tell them to vote no on cloture for it, but don't preemptively doom about it passing the house

Full quote of what he said was

"We are all Canadians, but we all have different identities and distinctions, and one of the great strengths of this country is recognizing that people can be who they are, they can love who they love, they can live where they are, and it's fundamentally important that the federal government is the defender of those rights, defender of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and access to health care in Canada is a fundamental right for all Canadians without exception."

Was asked in the context of Alberta's anti-trans bills/legislation

Hope does live on - with the people. That's where the power has always lived if we the people are willing to use it

Right now they're thinking the 5 million protesting last Saturday was a fluke. Let's show them it's not. Sat April 19th is the next day of nationwide protest

It's not been limited to this. Some Republicans in Montana lately have started crossing sides to shoot down some other bills attacking trans people too (though not all bills unfortunately)

For instance, in March a ban on drag that would likely have been extended to apply to trans people was shot down with 13 republicans crossing sides

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/07/montana-anti-trans-bills-defeated

Before that, 10+ republicans flipped to kill an attempt to make certain limitations on trans care for 25 years and instead ammended it downwards to 4 years. Still was a shitty bill even with that change, but still

https://bsky.app/profile/erininthemorning.com/post/3ljo33fl2mc2a