A provision in trump's bill will destroy the court's oversight

[JimH52]

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

The provision would bar courts from enforcing contempt citations for violations of injunctions or temporary restraining orders unless a bond has been paid.

www.newsweek.com

"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 courts are one of the legs of our democracy's foundations that are keeping a fascist president from turning our country into an authoritarian regime. This bill chips away at the court's powers. Call and write your Senator to kill that provision.

 

[Oddball]

Yesterday's "news", Dudley.

 

[Jroc]

Yesterday's "news", Dudley.

But he's really passionate about it

 

[Lesh]

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

The provision would bar courts from enforcing contempt citations for violations of injunctions or temporary restraining orders unless a bond has been paid.

www.newsweek.com

"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 courts are one of the legs of our democracy's foundations that are keeping a fascist president from turning our country into an authoritarian regime. This bill chips away at the court's powers. Call and write your Senator to kill that provision.

As per Marbury v Madison… the Court should over rule this.

The current Court probably doesn’t have a the balls but a future more liberal court most certainly would

 

[Seymour Flops]

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

The provision would bar courts from enforcing contempt citations for violations of injunctions or temporary restraining orders unless a bond has been paid.

www.newsweek.com

"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.

Good.

The courts have no business enforcing a contempt citation on a member of the executive branch for following the orders of the executive.

Nor do they have any power whatsoever to levy fines, or otherwise deprive the Chief Executive of life, liberty, and property, for taking action as part of carrying out his duties.

The courts (leg of democracy that they are) have ruled that presidents have immunity for official acts. How could that be true, but their subordinates not be immune from carrying out orders the president issues as an official act?

The remedy for a sitting president violating the law, or lawful court orders is impeachment and removal.

This seems to be quite a foreign concept to you, but the Constitution envisions elected officials running the country, not appointed-for-life judges.

 

[Lesh]

Good.

The courts have no business enforcing a contempt citation on a member of the executive branch for following the orders of the executive.

Nor do they have any power whatsoever to levy fines, or otherwise deprive the Chief Executive of life, liberty, and property, for taking action as part of carrying out his duties.

The courts (leg of democracy that they are) have ruled that presidents have immunity for official acts. How could that be true, but their subordinates not be immune from carrying out orders the president issues as an official act?

The remedy for a sitting president violating the law, or lawful court orders is impeachment and removal.

This seems to be quite a foreign concept to you, but the Constitution envisions elected officials running the country, not appointed-for-life judges.

Tell that to Nixon

 

[Seymour Flops]

As per Marbury v Madison… the Court should over rule this.

The current Court probably doesn’t have a the balls but a future more liberal court most certainly would.

Marbury v Madison was itself a court ruling.

It would take "logic" of the most twisted kind to use it to rule that the House does not have the sole power to originate spending bills.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Tell that to Nixon

You're serious?

Nixon was threatened with impeachment and he resigned instead. He was never prosecuted for any official act.

 

[Lesh]

You're serious?

Nixon was threatened with impeachment and he resigned instead. He was never prosecuted for any official act.

Threatened with Impeachment… which he avoided by resigning.

His Impeachment would have been followed by prosecution which was also avoided by his resignation

 

[JimH52]

Just like the King he wants to be, trump is systematically removing barriers to he iron rule. The court will have no way to find him in contempt when he ignores their orders if this rule passes. trump, the wannabe King, has already been ignoring court order. He will be unstoppable in his quest to destroy our democracy. That is the MAGA plan. Bannon has already said he sees 50 years of MAGA rule. Our democracy will be gone long before then.

Steve Bannon predicts 50 years of MAGA

Cheers greeted the 'War Room' host to the stage at the CPAC event, at which Donald Trump is scheduled to speak later this week.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Clipper]

Good.

The courts have no business enforcing a contempt citation on a member of the executive branch for following the orders of the executive.

Nor do they have any power whatsoever to levy fines, or otherwise deprive the Chief Executive of life, liberty, and property, for taking action as part of carrying out his duties.

The courts (leg of democracy that they are) have ruled that presidents have immunity for official acts. How could that be true, but their subordinates not be immune from carrying out orders the president issues as an official act?

The remedy for a sitting president violating the law, or lawful court orders is impeachment and removal.

This seems to be quite a foreign concept to you, but the Constitution envisions elected officials running the country, not appointed-for-life judges.

If courts don't have any power to levy fines etc etc than why did Trump's lackey Johnson & HIS ball washers in the HOR include this provision in that big beautiful pile of shit that they just railroaded thru?

 

[Clipper]

Just like the King he wants to be, trump is systematically removing barriers to he iron rule. The court will have no way to find him in contempt when he ignores their orders if this rule passes. trump, the wannabe King, has already been ignoring court order. He will be unstoppable in his quest to destroy our democracy. That is the MAGA plan. Bannon has already said he sees 50 years of MAGA rule. Our democracy will be gone long before then.

Steve Bannon predicts 50 years of MAGA

Cheers greeted the 'War Room' host to the stage at the CPAC event, at which Donald Trump is scheduled to speak later this week.

www.newsweek.com

Our Democracy will be gone by the end of this year. It's already headed over a cliff in just over four months. At the rate Trump is going & the way his asslickers in Congress are letting him get away with this we can forget about a POTUS election in 2028. That's why Trump is talking about doing another term.

Trump & his elected & unelected lackeys have done more damage to this Country in only four months than our enemies abroad only dreamt about.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Threatened with Impeachment… which he avoided by resigning.

Yes, that is what I said.

His Impeachment would have been followed by prosecution which was also avoided by his resignation

The prosecution was avoided by Ford's pardon.

It was a different court then, so the prosecution could have been successful. Just aking the CIA to call off the FBI would have been enough for a conviction.

Nixon has nothing to do with the current situation, which is post Trump v United States, 2024.

 

[Oddball]

Threatened with Impeachment… which he avoided by resigning.

His Impeachment would have been followed by prosecution which was also avoided by his resignation

His impeachment would have forced the scum who were framing him out into the open and under oath.

 

[Billiejeens]

Our Democracy will be gone by the end of this year. It's already headed over a cliff in just over four months. At the rate Trump is going & the way his asslickers in Congress are letting him get away with this we can forget about a POTUS election in 2028. That's why Trump is talking about doing another term.

Trump & his elected & unelected lackeys have done more damage to this Country in only four months than our enemies abroad only dreamt about.

SWEET!

 

[Lesh]

His impeachment would have forced the scum who were framing him out into the open and under oath.

“Framing him”??

You funny

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

The provision would bar courts from enforcing contempt citations for violations of injunctions or temporary restraining orders unless a bond has been paid.

www.newsweek.com

"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 courts are one of the legs of our democracy's foundations that are keeping a fascist president from turning our country into an authoritarian regime. This bill chips away at the court's powers. Call and write your Senator to kill that provision.

The court shopping needs to stop.

Cases need to be tried in the district that has jurisdiction.

Judgements should only be effective in the district where the ruling was made.

Allowing judges the power to issue nationwide injunctions effectively gives them power on par with the Supreme Court.

 

[TemplarKormac]

“Framing him”??

You funny

Unless you have proof otherwise...

Jack Smith is laughing at you.

 

[jknowgood]

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

The provision would bar courts from enforcing contempt citations for violations of injunctions or temporary restraining orders unless a bond has been paid.

www.newsweek.com

"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 courts are one of the legs of our democracy's foundations that are keeping a fascist president from turning our country into an authoritarian regime. This bill chips away at the court's powers. Call and write your Senator to kill that provision.

No, the courts are opening the opportunity for socialism. You good with Trump loading the courts with judges that will stop your agenda?

 

[Lesh]

Unless you have proof otherwise...

Jack Smith is laughing at you.

You realize he was saying Nixon was framed right?