A provision āhiddenā in the sweeping budget bill that passed the U.S. House on Thursday seeks to limit the ability of courtsāincluding the U.S. Supreme Courtāfrom enforcing their orders.
āNo 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,ā the provision in the bill, which is more than 1,000 pages long, says.
The provision āwould make most existing injunctionsāin antitrust cases, police reform cases, school desegregation cases, and othersāunenforceable,ā Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the University of California Berkeley School of Law, told Newsweek. āIt serves no purpose but to weaken the power of the federal courts.ā
Erm ā¦ So you actually donāt have a body whose job it is to make sure the government adheres to the constitution? Itās just a happy little accident?
What the actual fuck ā¦
We do, supreme judicial authority is given to the SC in article 3 of the Constitution. This person youāre replying to isnāt being very clear that the explicit power to overturn laws was established in Marbury v Madison.
This power is called Judicial Review and it was understood to be the way the SC is supposed to work. A Federalist power grab by John Adams forced the SC to be explicit and say āwe can overturn laws because thatās the only way the SC is coequal to the other branchesā.
In other words, Judicial Review was always an IMPLIED POWER of the court, but a court case made them spell it out.
Well you see, we make them swear on a Bible and they wouldnāt defy God of course.
Yeah very similar vibes to Australia having political freedom of speech only thanks to it being āimpliedā in the constitution. :/