- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
A provision “hidden” in the sweeping budget bill that passed the U.S. House on Thursday seeks to limit the ability of courts—including the U.S. Supreme Court—from enforcing their orders.
“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 provision “would make most existing injunctions—in antitrust cases, police reform cases, school desegregation cases, and others—unenforceable,” Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the University of California Berkeley School of Law, told Newsweek. “It serves no purpose but to weaken the power of the federal courts.”
You must log in or register to comment.
Americans need to start building guillotines
That would require effort.
Or at least exercising their constitutional right to brandish firearms.
The longer it takes to get there, the greater the harm to fix it.
You can’t legislate Constitutional overrides. Legislation either conforms to the Constitution, or it is declared invalid and gets sent back to Congress for reworking. It doesn’t matter if it passes both Houses and gets signed by the President. If the Judiciary rules that it violates the Constitution, it gets thrown out. That’s how this works.
Thats the whole point.
Its sent to the courts and SCOTUS will overrule prior decisions like segregation and Jim Crow law.
Yeah well the thing is:
If no one enforces the judiciary’s edicts, but they all say aye to whatever trump’s new decree of the day is then Judicial is just standing there foot in mouth …You might think so but there are many recent examples of things playing out counter to a plain reading of law so I’m not quite as confident.
Technically, the consitution never explicitly gave the Supreme Court the power to overturn laws, its just a precedent set by Marbury vs Madison, and congress and the president at the time just went along with it. I could totally see the military use this logic and go “Hmm… seems legit” and proceed to ignore court orders.
Someone with standing has to file a case in court, then get a ruling in their favor.
Until then, this would stand.
Makes you think about the headline. “Could disarm US Supreme Court” is at that point hyperbolic and misleading.
It’d be a shame if the Supreme Court found the whole bill unconstitutional cause of this one line and they wasted their one chance to pass a bill.
Literally their constitutionally mandated job, though at least the two usual suspects say otherwise and would dissent.
There is a concept of severability, which has precedent. They would not call the whole bill unconstitutional, just the infringing part.
As the clause is 1000 pages long, the whole Act is likely be declared void.
And I imagine they are motivated not do so given it basically shuts down their power.
Nah, it’s the perfect position, be able look like you’re pushing back while complaining you don’t have the power to do it. A certain political party perfected that tactic.
Who would have standing to bring a case?
Every citizen who relies on or expects the supreme court to do their job, because without it, well, no one will ever have standing for anything.
It’s crazy that the Supreme Court need to have guns, but I wouldn’t expect anything else from the US
Everyone needs to have guns.
nazis wouldn’t be so emboldened if every leftist have guns to keep them in check
Incoming: voted for by all democrats
Not even one single Democrat voted for this bill in the House. What makes you think they’ll do it in the Senate? I understand Democrats suck, but come on.
I could see Fetterman voting for it.
Ok yeah actually that’s fair lmao.
Also Schumer will find some excuse to make it seem not as bad
A six figure excuse.
Didn’t they vote for cloture? That is basically passing the bill.
No.
