A provision ā€œhiddenā€ 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.

ā€œNo 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 ā€œwould make most existing injunctions—in antitrust cases, police reform cases, school desegregation cases, and others—unenforceable,ā€ Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the University of California Berkeley School of Law, told Newsweek. ā€œIt serves no purpose but to weaken the power of the federal courts.ā€

  • Don_alForno@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    Ā·
    6 days ago

    Erm … So you actually don’t have a body whose job it is to make sure the government adheres to the constitution? It’s just a happy little accident?

    What the actual fuck …

    • RedAggroBest@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      Ā·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      We do, supreme judicial authority is given to the SC in article 3 of the Constitution. This person you’re replying to isn’t 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 ā€œwe can overturn laws because that’s 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.

    • Soggy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      Ā·
      6 days ago

      Well you see, we make them swear on a Bible and they wouldn’t defy God of course.