Trumps "Big Beautiful Bill"

[Jeff]

I can't wait until we I get into the "how much does the big beautiful bill add to the deficit" area of conversation. 

fissed   

[neurosis]

fissed   

That was more for MKD since he seems to be so worried about the deficit these days.   

 

[YoDoug]

I had to look it up, because I'm not a judge or attorney.

""Irreparable harm" is a well-established legal concept rooted in both law and legal precedent. It refers to harm or injury that cannot be adequately remedied by monetary damages or other traditional legal remedies, making it a necessary requirement for courts to grant equitable relief such as preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining orders."

Why have decisions based on this all of a sudden been considered "activist"?  No, I'm not trying to be difficult. Since I don't get my information from the same places, I've not seen this defined as being illegal, activist, or without precedent. 

You left out the rest

"Examples include harm to reputation, constitutional rights, or significant environmental damage".

So far I have yet to see in these rulings where they have justified any of these things. See this is the slippery slope. If no justification can be made then what is the irreparable harm. If they are not held to a standard then they can make up anything they want.

[neurosis]

You left out the rest

I'll post this from perplexity ai just because it seems to be a more complete answer, and it's sources are literally Congress.gov and documents from surpremecourt.gov

Yes, it is legal for circuit courts to use the concept of "irreparable harm" to block actions taken by President Trump, provided that the legal standards for injunctive relief are met. The requirement to show irreparable harm is a well-established principle in U.S. law for granting preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining orders, including against executive actions.

Federal courts—including circuit courts—routinely assess whether plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm if an action is not blocked while a case is pending. This standard is not unique to Trump; it has been applied to executive actions by presidents of both parties. Courts have blocked or suspended executive orders when they found that allowing them to proceed could cause harm that could not later be remedied, such as constitutional violations or significant policy changes with irreversible effects.

However, courts must balance this against potential irreparable harm to the government or the president, as seen in recent decisions where courts have found that injunctions themselves can inflict irreparable harm on presidential prerogatives, particularly in areas like national security. The legal debate often centers not on whether courts can use "irreparable harm" as a standard, but on whether the specific harms alleged meet the threshold, and whether the scope of the injunction (such as nationwide injunctions) is appropriate.

In summary, using "irreparable harm" as a basis for blocking presidential actions is grounded in established legal doctrine and precedent, and circuit courts have the authority to apply this standard when considering requests for injunctive relief against executive actions.

[YoDoug]

I'll post this from perplexity ai just because it seems to be a more complete answer, and it's sources are literally Congress.gov and documents from surpremecourt.gov

Yes, it is legal for circuit courts to use the concept of "irreparable harm" to block actions taken by President Trump, provided that the legal standards for injunctive relief are met. The requirement to show irreparable harm is a well-established principle in U.S. law for granting preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining orders, including against executive actions.

Federal courts—including circuit courts—routinely assess whether plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm if an action is not blocked while a case is pending. This standard is not unique to Trump; it has been applied to executive actions by presidents of both parties. Courts have blocked or suspended executive orders when they found that allowing them to proceed could cause harm that could not later be remedied, such as constitutional violations or significant policy changes with irreversible effects.

However, courts must balance this against potential irreparable harm to the government or the president, as seen in recent decisions where courts have found that injunctions themselves can inflict irreparable harm on presidential prerogatives, particularly in areas like national security. The legal debate often centers not on whether courts can use "irreparable harm" as a standard, but on whether the specific harms alleged meet the threshold, and whether the scope of the injunction (such as nationwide injunctions) is appropriate.

In summary, using "irreparable harm" as a basis for blocking presidential actions is grounded in established legal doctrine and precedent, and circuit courts have the authority to apply this standard when considering requests for injunctive relief against executive actions.

I get what you are saying and linking to. Do you feel that there should be no limit to how and when judges deem irreparable harm? Do you actually trust this process will be fair and impartial. Noting that these judges making these rulings against trump have been over 95% appointed by liberal presidents.

It is such a huge deal to you that this Big Bill limits their power but you don't seem to think they have an abuse of power issue. I'm saying both are a problem.

[neurosis]

It is such a huge deal to you that this Big Bill limits their power but you don't seem to think they have an abuse of power issue. I'm saying both are a problem.

I don't know enough to know if there *should* be a limit. All I know, is that if a judge feels that a President, no matter who it is, is overstepping, or violating the Constitution, they should have the authority to step in. That's the way it's supposed to work. I haven't looked in to the number of judges that were appointed by who. Maybe that can be my weekend project. 

And all I'm saying, is that I believe that these things will, and should, work themselves out in the court. It's also highly likely that I'm not going to like some of the decisions. I didn't like the SCOTUS decision on Presidential Immunity. I thought it was crazy, but here we are.

The bill doesn't just limit their power. It eliminates it. They can make whatever judgment they want, but have no power to enforce it.

[YoDoug]

They can make whatever judgment they want, but have no power to enforce it.

As opposed to they can make any ruling they want and there no method to stop them from overstepping.

[neurosis]

As opposed to they can make any ruling they want and there no method to stop them from overstepping.

These cases don't end in the Circuit court? If they did, I might be closer to agreeing with you. These blocks are just temporary unless the SCOTUS decides otherwise? Unless you think the SCOTUS is activist too?

[Bucky Cornstarch]

As opposed to they can make any ruling they want and there no method to stop them from overstepping.

Have you ever bothered asking yourself why there are so many rulings against Trump?

Here's a hint: It's not because of "activist judges."

[neurosis]

Interesting opinion from a former US Court of Appeals judge and conservative legal scholar.

Could he be considered a liberal activist?

[YoDoug]

These cases don't end in the Circuit court? If they did, I might be closer to agreeing with you. These blocks are just temporary unless the SCOTUS decides otherwise? Unless you think the SCOTUS is activist too?

There are 833 active federal judges in the US. There are just as many Dem funded legal groups filing lawsuits. There is no reasonable way the Scotus could actually handle all of this in a timely manner. Their intention is to shut down the executive branch by overloading lawsuits against it. This is their tactic.

[neurosis]

There are 833 active federal judges in the US. There are just as many Dem funded legal groups filing lawsuits. There is no reasonable way the Scotus could actually handle all of this in a timely manner. Their intention is to shut down the executive branch by overloading lawsuits against it. This is their tactic.

Trumps plan was to flood the system with constitutional challenges. This was his plan all along.

I know that you and I will never agree on this, but this is the guardrails working. Except that in my opinion, they're not working well enough.

[neurosis]

Project 2025 - Not just your mother's left wing talking point anymore.

I'm posting this because at this point, everyone knows that this is their playbook and it points out " a flurry of executive orders and directives on Day One" which is why we're seeing so many challenges.

Implementation in 2025
Many of these Project 2025 recommendations have already appeared in Trump's 2025 executive orders, often using language nearly identical to the Heritage Foundation's document. This includes swift action on immigration, energy, government staffing, and efforts to centralize power and reduce regulatory oversight.

Project 2025 is a comprehensive policy blueprint developed primarily by the Heritage Foundation and other conservative organizations to guide a potential second Trump administration in rapidly reshaping the federal government and executive branch. The "Swift Action" component of Project 2025 refers to its detailed, step-by-step plan for immediate implementation of major policy changes within the first 180 days of a new administration.

Key Elements of Project 2025's Plan for Swift Action
1. Immediate Executive Orders and Agency Directives

The plan calls for a flurry of executive orders and directives on Day One to roll back previous administration policies and implement new priorities, particularly on immigration, energy, and federal workforce management.

Examples include ending "weaponization" of the Justice Department, freezing federal hiring except for loyalists, and pausing or rescinding funds from the Inflation Reduction Act and infrastructure law.

2. Restructuring the Federal Workforce

Project 2025 advocates reclassifying federal employees to make it easier to remove those deemed unsupportive of the administration's agenda, and installing loyalists in key senior positions.

This includes abolishing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) offices across agencies, especially in the Department of Defense and Homeland Security.

3. Aggressive Immigration Actions

The plan proposes mass deportations, ending birthright citizenship, dismantling the asylum system, and mandating cooperation between federal, state, and local law enforcement on immigration enforcement.

Executive orders have already reflected these priorities, such as authorizing state and local law enforcement to participate in immigration actions and detaining migrants to the maximum extent allowed by law.

4. Energy and Environmental Rollbacks

Project 2025 calls for rapid expansion of domestic energy production, including expedited permitting for mineral and energy projects, and withdrawal from international climate agreements like the Paris Accord.

The plan includes revoking Biden-era climate and environmental executive orders and eliminating efficiency requirements for appliances to increase consumer choice.

5. Centralized Control and Rapid Policy Implementation

The blueprint emphasizes consolidating procurement and administrative functions under central agencies (like the GSA) and requiring immediate policy reviews and revisions across the executive branch.

It also outlines the development of a National Resilience Strategy and a National Risk Register within the first year.

[Bucky Cornstarch]

There are 833 active federal judges in the US. There are just as many Dem funded legal groups filing lawsuits. There is no reasonable way the Scotus could actually handle all of this in a timely manner. Their intention is to shut down the executive branch by overloading lawsuits against it. This is their tactic.

Good.

[Newbeeee™]

LMFAO @ Bucky - H E L L O, they're ignoring you