Winston
Platinum Member
Like the magician, directing your eyes one way while he slyly pulls of the "gimmick", the part that makes the magic trick work. A 1,000 page Trojan Horse with two gimmicks hid from sight. The purpose of those gimmicks, installing the Republican party as the single party in a totalitarian government.
The first of these outrageous policies — buried in Section 70302 of the legislation— would severely restrict federal courts’ authority to hold government officials in contempt if they violate judicial orders.
A court’s ability to hold bad actors in contempt is a vital enforcement power that judges can use to compel compliance with their rulings.
When somebody chooses to violate a court order, the judge who issued the ruling has a few different options to force them to comply, including holding them in contempt and issuing sanctions, fines, or even jail time until the order is followed.
But the reconciliation bill would require anyone suing the government to pay a bond before the court can use its contempt power to enforce injunctions or restraining orders meant to halt illegal actions.
By restricting this authority, the House bill threatens the power of the judicial branch. On its own, that represents an attack on the rule of law and the separation of powers that underlies our democracy. But in the context of our current political moment, a more specific goal is unfortunately clear.
Courts have already ruled at least 170 times against the Trump administration, including a preliminary injunction sought by CLC that halted Trump’s unconstitutional attempt to change the rules for federal elections. In response to many of these rulings, the president has resisted compliance and waged intimidation campaigns targeting the judges responsible.
In light of all this, the House bill seems squarely and unacceptably focused on shielding the Trump administration from accountability when it breaks the law.
To make matters worse, the new rule would be so broad that it could allow any government actor to escape being held accountable for violating court rulings. It would also apply to court orders and injunctions issued before the law takes effect. This would render thousands of prior orders across the country immediately unenforceable through contempt proceedings, no matter how the public has already relied on them.
campaignlegal.org
Read those last two paragraphs carefully. If we are going to start locking members of Congress up I would suggest that we lock up whoever proposed that particular component of the big beautiful bill, treason, plain and simple. A clear violation of their oath, to protect and defend the Constitution. The Trump administration would be free to ignore court orders without consequences. An almost immediate elimination of the very foundation of our Republic, checks and balances. And to add insult to injury, it retroactively applies to all court orders.
The second problematic provision — found within Section 43201(c) of the House reconciliation bill — would impose a 10-year ban on the enforcement of all state and local laws that regulate artificial intelligence (AI), including rules for AI’s use in political campaigns and elections
---snip---
Simply put, a 10-year ban on enforcing AI laws across the country could mean a decade of false information that undermines voters’ right to make informed decisions. It would be more than misguided, and outright dangerous for the future of truth and trust in our elections.
WTF--AI given free range? Who wants that? Is that what you voted for? I mean look at these two provisions. I was raised up with a simple mantra, right is might. Do what is right, stand up for what is right, then even a tiny ant can move a rubber tree plant. But that is not what is happening here. In fact, it turns that on its head. It is not about wrong or right, it is about might, period.
See, if Trump and his supporters knew their actions were "right", they wouldn't need the first provision. They could defend themselves against those contempt charges appealing them all the way to a SCOTUS that they virtually own. But evidently, not to the extent they desire. And if Trump and his supporters knew that Trump won the election without AI manipulating the weak and the ignorant, they wouldn't need the second provision.
In a fully functioning Republic, well neither of those two provisions would have even been proposed. In a slightly functioning Republic, well they might get proposed but would probably be shot down during debate, and certainly, no bill containing those provisions could have passed the House. We have one last hope.
And no, it is not the Senate. It is the Senate parliamentarian. She has raised concerns that those two proposals would prevent the passage of the Big Beautiful Bill on a simple majority vote, the Byrd rule. The Republic is hanging on by a thread, and the Republican Senate has already ignored guidance from the parliamentarian in this term.
The first of these outrageous policies — buried in Section 70302 of the legislation— would severely restrict federal courts’ authority to hold government officials in contempt if they violate judicial orders.
A court’s ability to hold bad actors in contempt is a vital enforcement power that judges can use to compel compliance with their rulings.
When somebody chooses to violate a court order, the judge who issued the ruling has a few different options to force them to comply, including holding them in contempt and issuing sanctions, fines, or even jail time until the order is followed.
But the reconciliation bill would require anyone suing the government to pay a bond before the court can use its contempt power to enforce injunctions or restraining orders meant to halt illegal actions.
By restricting this authority, the House bill threatens the power of the judicial branch. On its own, that represents an attack on the rule of law and the separation of powers that underlies our democracy. But in the context of our current political moment, a more specific goal is unfortunately clear.
Courts have already ruled at least 170 times against the Trump administration, including a preliminary injunction sought by CLC that halted Trump’s unconstitutional attempt to change the rules for federal elections. In response to many of these rulings, the president has resisted compliance and waged intimidation campaigns targeting the judges responsible.
In light of all this, the House bill seems squarely and unacceptably focused on shielding the Trump administration from accountability when it breaks the law.
To make matters worse, the new rule would be so broad that it could allow any government actor to escape being held accountable for violating court rulings. It would also apply to court orders and injunctions issued before the law takes effect. This would render thousands of prior orders across the country immediately unenforceable through contempt proceedings, no matter how the public has already relied on them.
These Hidden Provisions in the Budget Bill Undermine Our Democracy
President Donald Trump’s so-called “One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act” includes two provisions that would severely harm voters and threaten the rule of law.
Read those last two paragraphs carefully. If we are going to start locking members of Congress up I would suggest that we lock up whoever proposed that particular component of the big beautiful bill, treason, plain and simple. A clear violation of their oath, to protect and defend the Constitution. The Trump administration would be free to ignore court orders without consequences. An almost immediate elimination of the very foundation of our Republic, checks and balances. And to add insult to injury, it retroactively applies to all court orders.
The second problematic provision — found within Section 43201(c) of the House reconciliation bill — would impose a 10-year ban on the enforcement of all state and local laws that regulate artificial intelligence (AI), including rules for AI’s use in political campaigns and elections
---snip---
Simply put, a 10-year ban on enforcing AI laws across the country could mean a decade of false information that undermines voters’ right to make informed decisions. It would be more than misguided, and outright dangerous for the future of truth and trust in our elections.
WTF--AI given free range? Who wants that? Is that what you voted for? I mean look at these two provisions. I was raised up with a simple mantra, right is might. Do what is right, stand up for what is right, then even a tiny ant can move a rubber tree plant. But that is not what is happening here. In fact, it turns that on its head. It is not about wrong or right, it is about might, period.
See, if Trump and his supporters knew their actions were "right", they wouldn't need the first provision. They could defend themselves against those contempt charges appealing them all the way to a SCOTUS that they virtually own. But evidently, not to the extent they desire. And if Trump and his supporters knew that Trump won the election without AI manipulating the weak and the ignorant, they wouldn't need the second provision.
In a fully functioning Republic, well neither of those two provisions would have even been proposed. In a slightly functioning Republic, well they might get proposed but would probably be shot down during debate, and certainly, no bill containing those provisions could have passed the House. We have one last hope.
And no, it is not the Senate. It is the Senate parliamentarian. She has raised concerns that those two proposals would prevent the passage of the Big Beautiful Bill on a simple majority vote, the Byrd rule. The Republic is hanging on by a thread, and the Republican Senate has already ignored guidance from the parliamentarian in this term.
