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
552 points (98.8% liked)
politics
24024 readers
3998 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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Americans need to start building guillotines
Or at least exercising their constitutional right to brandish firearms.
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?
load more comments
(1 replies)
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...
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
"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)
It's crazy that the Supreme Court need to have guns, but I wouldn't expect anything else from the US
Everyone needs to have guns.
nazis wouldn't be so emboldened if every leftist have guns to keep them in check
Lol buddy, this is America. If more people having guns was the solution, we wouldn't be here right now.
Maybe if a certain political party hadn't spent decades convincing its voters to disarm themselves, we wouldn't have 90% of guns owned by fascists.
Guns are evil until you need them.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Problem is not enough leftists. Most democratic voters are liberals that tend to be very anti-gun
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›