Yesterday 12:29 pm
we have lost america when this bill passes.Cannonpointer » Yesterday, 8:16 pm » wrote: ↑ Are ya sure?
Which ones are the bad guys again? I've lost track, what with TPP, transpolitics, and the opening of our borders to third world brown people exclusively.
I guess when we started imprisoning women with men in violation of the Geneva Conventions and 80 years of international treaties to which we are signatory and which comprise settled international law, I just forgot how the democ rats were morally superior. But this bill your making reference to, I'm sure THAT element of the show will help me understand that the democ rats are - while not perfect, - the lesser evil.
I mean, **** women and kids - it's this particular bill that matters, even though it could never have passed without the democ rats' tacit support while pretending to resist. Which bill are we referring to, by the way? The OP doesn't mention any bills.
----------------------------------
Now is not the time to limit the ability of federal courts to enforce their judicial orders. But in light of dozens of federal courts finding actions by President Donald Trump to be unconstitutional, some House Republicans are trying to do exactly that. A provision in the proposed spending bill would restrict the authority of federal courts to hold government officials in contempt when they violate court orders. Without the contempt power, judicial orders are meaningless and can be ignored.
There is no way to understand this except as a way to keep the Trump administration from being restrained when it violates the Constitution or otherwise breaks the law. The House and the Senate should reject this effort to limit judicial power. Hopefully recent public opinion survey data — showing vast majorities want the Trump administration to stop an action if a federal court ruled it illegal – will guide these legislators to the right outcome. If this anti-democratic legislation is adopted, the courts should declare it unconstitutional as violating separation of powers.
The provision in the proposed budget reconciliation bill states: “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 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), whether issued prior to, on, or subsequent to the date of enactment of this section.”