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.
this post was submitted on 22 May 2025
524 points (98.7% liked)
politics
23600 readers
2803 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Literally their constitutionally mandated job, though at least the two usual suspects say otherwise and would dissent.
Even those two have ruled against the marmalade molester in at least one instance when it came to undermining judicial power.
There is a concept of severability, which has precedent. They would not call the whole bill unconstitutional, just the infringing part.
load more comments
(2 replies)
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.
I think it would have to be more direct. But since it applies to federal courts, there are probably a lot of orders being ignored right now. So they should have thier pick.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
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.
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 ...
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.
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 ...
Well you see, we make them swear on a Bible and they wouldn't defy God of course.
Yeah very similar vibes to Australia having political freedom of speech only thanks to it being "implied" in the constitution. :/
A King, a priest, a rich man and a sellsword are in a room. Those three man tell the sellsword to kill the other two. Who lives and who dies?
I know how to do this, Astrid. The sell sword lives, and joins the brotherhood.
Thats the whole point.
Its sent to the courts and SCOTUS will overrule prior decisions like segregation and Jim Crow law.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Americans need to start building guillotines
That would require effort.
We already have a basic problem
Governance ideally is people of good intentions coming together to make things better
Conservatives don't have good intentions
Prosecutors control law enforcement
Courts have no way to enforce their rulings
to what end? he is already not following any of the SCOTUS orders that are not convenient to him and receiving no consequences for it
I think this might be to make sure the defacto castration of the courts is now written into law
so he can be even more of a Dictator?
More like "I already am, but now I won't have to pretend as much"
and the "braves" aren't doing anything to save their home
It's amazing that it took the US 10 times less time than Russia to become a full dictatorship. Putin started openly cracking down on opponents in 2011, 11 years into his rule (technical Medvedev was prez at that time, but not really). It amuses me to no end that some americans believe that the US is going to turn back into a democracy on its own, without them taking up arms against maga.
This protects him even if the Dems take back Congress or the Republicans finally turn on him.
Again, to what end? there is already enough to seriously consider actual treason charges with everything he has done in the last 8 years. If they wanted to actually go after him, they'd have enough to bury him for the rest of his, hopefully, short life...
If the Courts can't enforce rulings against him l, then there isn't even a theoretical check on his executive power. So even if he were impeached he could refuse to leave office, with no courts able to compelling the justice department to drag his ass out of the white house.
they already cannot enforce their rullings on him
Several people the courts ordered released, were released. So it isn't true that he isn't following any of the scotus orders. People are saying that this law change will allow him to ignore all orders without threat of being held in contempt. I'm not sure that interpretation is correct. And even so, I imagine that scotus can just declare it unconstitutional. That will put the question in the hands of the people scotus asks to enforce their contempt rulling. I imagine if those people refuse, the court can ask for volunteers to be deputized. So all in all it isn't clear where this is going.
oh please, he is already ruling like a king and nobody is doing anything. This is another move of the goal post to justify inaction
"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."
This is the kind of legislation you would use to pave the way for fascism. It sets the stage for autocracy. It has in mind a ruler. There's no other explanation.
The only solution left, the Blue States should secede to Canada.
I don't remember inviting you guys.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›