this post was submitted on 22 May 2025
531 points (98.7% liked)

politics

23602 readers
2197 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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."

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 21 points 1 day ago

"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.

[–] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago (3 children)

The only solution left, the Blue States should secede to Canada.

[–] sugarfoot00@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 day ago

I don't remember inviting you guys.

[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 5 points 1 day ago (7 children)

What if we don't want you?

[–] trungulox@lemm.ee 3 points 1 day ago

We don’t, for the record.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

We already know you're all exceptionally friendly.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] visikde@lemmings.world 26 points 1 day ago

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

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 23 points 1 day ago (5 children)

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

[–] meep_launcher@lemm.ee 13 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I think this might be to make sure the defacto castration of the courts is now written into law

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

so he can be even more of a Dictator?

[–] meep_launcher@lemm.ee 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

More like "I already am, but now I won't have to pretend as much"

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

and the "braves" aren't doing anything to save their home

[–] intheformbelow@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

This protects him even if the Dems take back Congress or the Republicans finally turn on him.

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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...

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

they already cannot enforce their rullings on him

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Archangel1313@lemm.ee 138 points 2 days ago (9 children)

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.

[–] krashmo@lemmy.world 62 points 2 days ago

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.

[–] Dragomus@lemmy.world 40 points 2 days ago

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 ...

[–] Don_alForno@feddit.org 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.works 19 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Don_alForno@feddit.org 5 points 1 day ago (3 children)

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 2 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours 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 "we can overturn laws because that's the only way the SC is coequal to the other branches".

In other words, Judicial Review was always an IMPLIED POWER of the court, but a court case made them spell it out.

Yeah very similar vibes to Australia having political freedom of speech only thanks to it being "implied" in the constitution. :/

[–] Soggy@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

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

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 164 points 2 days ago (7 children)

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.

[–] ptz@dubvee.org 91 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] MolecularCactus1324@lemmy.world 52 points 2 days ago (2 children)

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)
[–] Binky@lemmy.sdf.org 16 points 2 days ago (1 children)

And I imagine they are motivated not do so given it basically shuts down their power.

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 15 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] psmgx@lemmy.world 77 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Americans need to start building guillotines

[–] SuiXi3D@fedia.io 34 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Or at least exercising their constitutional right to brandish firearms.

[–] GuyFawkes@midwest.social 15 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The longer it takes to get there, the greater the harm to fix it.

[–] mjhelto@lemm.ee 3 points 1 day ago

The issue is a lot of the gun nuts fearing tyranny are fine with this cause it's their team. Republicans have always been hypocrits, and now we can point to chances where they could have fulfilled their dream, but instead have become the bootlicking cowards we all knew them to be.

[–] D_C@lemm.ee 7 points 2 days ago

That would require effort.

load more comments
view more: next ›