Die Republikaner schlichen eine Bestimmung in ihren Megabill, der Trump den Gerichten widersetzen ließ
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/05/big-beautiful-bill-donald-trump-judges-courts-contempt.html
Die Republikaner schlichen eine Bestimmung in ihren Megabill, der Trump den Gerichten widersetzen ließ
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/05/big-beautiful-bill-donald-trump-judges-courts-contempt.html
28 Kommentare
Complicit Fascists.
Oh Slate just say it without the polite propaganda = „Trump wants to ignore one of the three branches of government and separation of powers as laid out in our Constitution that we all currently live under“
„An act that is wholly illegal and could lead to dissolving our union of states through civil war,The collapse of the federal government or just through the citizenry giving up on the rule of law“
See that’s not so hard!
Of course they did.
He is already defying the courts.
[Alternate link to bypass paywall.](https://removepaywalls.com/https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/05/big-beautiful-bill-donald-trump-judges-courts-contempt.html)
>*Just the section on the provision:*
„It is a huge threat. This provision, if enacted into law, would prevent courts from enforcing contempt orders when the courts did not force the plaintiffs to post bond. But as Erwin Chemerinsky, Samuel Bray, and other experts have explained, courts do not traditionally require plaintiffs to post bond when they’re suing the government, especially over violations of civil rights and constitutional law. There is a long-standing tradition that most federal courts don’t force plaintiffs to post bond in those cases. And so, right now, there are thousands of injunctions that would be rendered totally unenforceable if this provision passes into law. And they are disproportionately injunctions against the federal government prohibiting violations of civil rights and constitutional liberties. If this provision passes into law, then none of those could be enforced, because in none of these cases did the district court require the plaintiffs to post bond.
That would mean that Judge James Boasberg could not enforce a contempt order against the government. It would mean that Judge Paula Xinis, who is overseeing the Abrego Garcia case, could not enforce a contempt order. It would mean that Judge Murphy, in this very case, could not enforce contempt against officials who defied him. It would mean that basically all of the federal judges who have ruled against the Trump administration so far would not be able to enforce contempt orders if the government defies their injunctions, because they did not require the plaintiffs to post bond.“
Round of applause for Slate for being one of the few outlets talking about this instead of Biden.
It only restricts enforcement of contempt if there’s no bond put up when the injunction is filed for. A savvy judge can just require a $1 bond. Problem solved.
True to American exceptionalism we won’t have just one enabling act, we’ll have two!
Not that anybody is enforcing such things…. But wouldn’t such an a provision violate the constitution, and thus be unenforceable?
This bill also included multiple sections which completely neuter the entire judicial branch. It specifically makes it impossible to stop Trump or ANY of his appointed agency heads from enacting harmful actions. It makes it illegal for judges to issue injunctions and illegal to sue them in court. This bullshit cannot be allowed on the Senate floor under reconciliation!!!
EVERY REPUBLICAN JUST VOTED FOR AMERICA’S FIRST DICTATORSHIP!!!
This is the provision, btw: “It is a huge threat. This provision, if enacted into law, would prevent courts from enforcing contempt orders when the courts did not force the plaintiffs to post bond.”
The GOP snuck in a requirement under which no contempt finding’s enforcement can be funded unless the other party secured a bond. Such a requirement is unconstitutional on its face.
First, it purports to be retroactive; compare USC Art I § 9 “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”
Second, it conditions the security of a person’s rights (in this case, due process rights against violation by a contemptuous party) on monetary security, compare:
*(Note: Following summaries generated by ChatGPT 4o but human-confirmed)*
– Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections 383 U.S. 663 (1966) The government may not condition the exercise of a constitutional right on the payment of a fee.
– Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971) A state cannot deny access to its courts for divorce proceedings based solely on inability to pay court fees.
– Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956) Access to appellate review must not depend on one’s ability to pay, because equal justice requires that indigents be treated the same as those with means.
– M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996) A state may not condition appeal of parental termination on payment of record-preparation fees.
I haven’t heard that the parlamentarian has approved it in the Senate, yet. I’m naively hoping that can stop it, and the GOP will honor that, but expecting the worse.
It’s likely to be remove in the Senate by the parliamentarian with Byrd Rule BUT the Republicans could try to overrule it like they did for California Clean Cars program but it may be harder to do it here.
Call your Senators
Implying any level of government is even willing to *question* Trump doing exactly just that.
This is just retroactive justification for someone who is already, literally, above the law.
Looks like more in there than just that. Facebook there was a post showing what is part of 2025 the Trump claims to know nothing about. The found another post that can prove Trump lies on purpose.
Good 👍
See- they have no intentions of allowing future elections as they lick the boots of their King.
I fucking hate liberals
Seems to me Trump is defying the courts quite well already – I don’t think he needs the help from Congress.
And Mods WTF DO YOU MEAN THAT I CAN’T POST PRO TRUMP ARTICLES
„new bill says the rule of law is really just Calvinball and you’re a heretic if you’re not okay with it“
The republicans who were holding out on this vote initially caved since they got what they wanted: immediate work requirement on Medicare and more roadblocks and red tape on clean energy initiatives going forward. Also there are clauses that officially eliminate the DOE, limit food aid to citizens, formalize DOGE so every regulatory agency has a presidential appointee monitoring them ,and gives the executive branch and president even more powers than ever before (which isn’t even legal in a bill like this to my knowledge).
Do republicans know how to govern? Are they really this ignorant? Let’s look at a hypothetical: Massive deficit spending (still) and no tax income, recession caused by Trumps disjointed and antagonistic economic tariff policy, no government subsidies to US businesses, no grants to research and development, green energy and infrastructure projects HALTED in the middle with sunk costs…. All of these happening at once.
Recession leads to bad job market and lay offs, lay offs and low new hires lead to high unemployment, high unemployment leads to significant amounts of people left without health insurance, they get sick, they go into debt, they lose it all, they become destitute…. It’s a disgusting thing to think about but a real possibility if this bill isn’t blocked.
Can SCOTUS hold up passage of the bill while investigates the legality of it
Because of course they did
I don’t know why they even bother to insert this ridiculous stuff in their bills, Trump can’t legally defy the courts, and neither can the legislative branch.
The 2024 election will go down in history as the time Americans willingly sold out their country to a criminal fascist. The stupidest election ever after Hitler. We and the globe will pay a high price for the dumbfucks in this country who made this happen.