Trumps "Big Beautiful Bill"

[neurosis]

I know that at this point, everyone expects this to pass.

One thing in the bill that should make everyone nervous -

"    "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...."

Translated: No federal court may enforce a contempt citation. "


Effectively neutering the legislative branch and any guardrails against this admin violating the Constitution. I'm sure that might make some of the Trumpsters happy, but once again, this opens the door for the other party to do the same in the future.

"    'Without the contempt power, judicial orders are meaningless and can be ignored. There is no way to understand this except as a way to keep the Trump administration from being restrained when it violates the Constitution or otherwise breaks the law. ...

    'This would be a stunning restriction on the power of the federal courts. The Supreme Court has long recognized that the contempt power is integral to the authority of the federal courts. Without the ability to enforce judicial orders, they are rendered mere advisory opinions which parties are free to disregard.""

[YoDoug]

It is unfortunately an over reaction to the complete lawless activist liberal judges that keep blocking everything the Admin is doing without any legal standing. I do agree though that you always need to consider what will future admin/lawmakers do when creating legislation.

[Bucky Cornstarch]

It is unfortunately an over reaction to the complete lawless activist liberal judges that keep blocking everything the Admin is doing without any legal standing. I do agree though that you always need to consider what will future admin/lawmakers do when creating legislation.

You're aware that there are three branches of government for a reason, aren't you? And if the "complete lawless activist liberal judges" are doing things that don't hold up to the Constitution, their rulings will be overturned, right?

Why is it that Trumpsters are so opposed to the rule of law, unless it rules in their favor?

[neurosis]

It is unfortunately an over reaction

You could have stopped right there. It's a massive overreach.

The guardrails were put in place for a reason. Sometimes I don't agree with judges decisions either, but my response has never been to remove them from the equation. What they're doing is completely insane and I have a feeling that, just like the Democrats coming to regret Harry Reid paving the way for abolishing the filibuster for non-Supreme Court federal appointments, Republicans will come to regret this in the future.

[YoDoug]

You could have stopped right there. It's a massive overreach.

The guardrails were put in place for a reason. Sometimes I don't agree with judges decisions either, but my response has never been to remove them from the equation. What they're doing is completely insane and I have a feeling that, just like the Democrats coming to regret Harry Reid paving the way for abolishing the filibuster for non-Supreme Court federal appointments, Republicans will come to regret this in the future.

Ok, how do you propose that activist judges be stopped. If any judge can just rule anything they want without citing any legal precedence or law, then the judiciary becomes all powerful and corrupt.

[neurosis]

Ok, how do you propose that activist judges be stopped. If any judge can just rule anything they want without citing any legal precedence or law, then the judiciary becomes all powerful and corrupt.

That's why we have a SCOTUS (and a very right leaning SCOTUS at that). And I get the feeling that any time a judge does something the right doesn't approve of, they're labeled "activist". That might be true in some cases, but to claim that Trump hasn't challenged the constitution is, what I would call, less than accurate.

[MIL-TFP-41]

You could have stopped right there. It's a massive overreach.

The guardrails were put in place for a reason. Sometimes I don't agree with judges decisions either, but my response has never been to remove them from the equation. What they're doing is completely insane and I have a feeling that, just like the Democrats coming to regret Harry Reid paving the way for abolishing the filibuster for non-Supreme Court federal appointments, Republicans will come to regret this in the future.

Agreed 100%. That is the problem with the recent administrations, this one included. Basically governing by executive order, there is NOTHING to stop some future administration from undoing everything on day 1. And it will happen.

Neutering the judicial branch....yea that won't backfire.

[YoDoug]

(and a very right leaning SCOTUS at that).

LOL, very right leaning if you are liberal.

The judiciary protects the judiciary. It's like saying the command structure of police forces are going to fix all the problems with abusive police forces.

This law is definitely going too far, but something needs to be done. The judiciary in this country is out of control. Judges make rulings out of thin air and never get held accountable. They shape and guide trials to the outcome they want to see even if it doesn't actually follow the law. Example; the constitution says you are be be judged on a particular crime by a jury of 12. On each charge there has to be unanimous agreement. Unless you are Trump, then the judge says you don't have to agree on what charges he is guilty, just that you think he is guilty.

[neurosis]

LOL, very right leaning if you are liberal.

No, it's very right leaning if you're not also very right leaning.

You think the current SCOTUS isn't a right leaning SCOTUS?

[neurosis]

The judiciary protects the judiciary. It's like saying the command structure of police forces are going to fix all the problems with abusive police forces.

The judicial branch is there to make sure that Presidents who can't say whether they're supposed to uphold the constitution or not, actually uphold the constitution.

[YoDoug]

The judicial branch is there to make sure that Presidents who can't say whether they're supposed to uphold the constitution or not, actually uphold the constitution.

So then all of the rulings against DOGE and ICE that only sited "irreparable harm" or other bs are not valid rulings in your opinion?

[neurosis]

So then all of the rulings against DOGE and ICE that only sited "irreparable harm" or other bs are not valid rulings in your opinion?

That's not my decision to make. What did Jim (or was it James?) say in here not long ago. The only opinion that matters is the SCOTUS.

[YoDoug]

That's not my decision to make. What did Jim (or was it James?) say in here not long ago. The only opinion that matters is the SCOTUS.

So if the strategy of a political party is go file as many lawsuits as they can in friendly districts to stop their opposition from doing their elected responsibilities, so many that most will not be heard or considered by the SCOTUS, you consider that all good?

[YoDoug]

Here is a great article about the number of injunctions against presidents in the history of the US. Spoiler, more injunctions from liberal appointed judges against Trump than all other presidents combined. This is 100% a tactic of the left to override the peoples elected Administration. They lost but they wont' accept it so they resort to lawlessness.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/number-injunctions-halting-trump-policies-trounces-predecessors-double

[neurosis]

So if the strategy of a political party is go file as many lawsuits as they can in friendly districts to stop their opposition from doing their elected responsibilities, so many that most will not be heard or considered by the SCOTUS, you consider that all good?

I didn't say that. But it's a strategy that is used when either party is in office. Obviously, this has been the highest number of challenges seen in such a short amount of time during any presidency that I can remember, but I'm not sure that a lot of isn't justified? I mean, the Trump admins plan from the start was to start challenging the constitution and force rulings on some of this stuff.