3 ms·
[flagged]
by duxup 1y ago
[flagged]
- klipt 1y agoBetter hope this bill that house republicans have passed dies in the senate, since in effect it lets Trump override the courts: https://robertreich.substack.com/p/the-hidden-provision-in-the-big-ugly https://robertreich.substack.com/p/the-hidden-provision-in-t...
- cardamomo 1y agoWhoa. It is scary, but not surprising, to me that GOP representatives slipped that into the bill.
- boroboro4 1y agoI think it might be struck down by Byrd rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_provision#Budget_Act_and_the_Byrd_Rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_provision#Budget_Act_an...)
- deepsquirrelnet 1y agoThat sounds like immediately forcing a constitutional crisis. It’s essentially a coup of two branches against the third.
- fknorangesite 1y ago> It’s essentially a coup of Republicans Do not pretend otherwise.
- joshkel 1y agoI'm not sure how much difference that bill's clause makes in practice. As I understand it (courtesy of the "Advisory Opinions" legal podcast, but any misunderstandings are my own), the problem is that, if the executive branch is going to ignore the courts, then they're going to ignore the courts. A court can recommend prosecution for contempt, but prosecutors are part of the executive branch. A court could try and appoint their own prosecutor, but then the court is both judge and prosecutor - which goes against the US system's goal of an impartial and independent judiciary. The court could issue a fine for contempt, but then the government is paying a fine to the government? It could issue a sentence of jail time, but the executive branch administers the prisons and has the pardon power. I'm disgusted with the executive branch's actions and congressional GOP's enablement. And, since the administration at times seems to want a fig leaf of legality, maybe the bill would make a difference after all by giving them more coverage. But, overall, I'm not sure that it's the "game over" step change that some commentary makes it sound like it is. I could be misunderstanding - comments / counterarguments welcome.
- hn_acker 1y ago> And, since the administration at times seems to want a fig leaf of legality, maybe the bill would make a difference after all by giving them more coverage. Justice Alito and Justice Thomas in particular latch on to any fig leaf of legality to excuse the administration's out-of-court admissions of intent to break the law [1]: > If courts pay more attention to out-of-court presidential and Administration statements, that will be another example of how the “presumption of regularity”—”the courts’ baseline assumption that government officials act lawfully and in good faith,” as Alan Rozenshtein puts it—is in serious jeopardy. Justice Alito’s dissent to the A.A.R.P. order, in which Justice Thomas joined, shows that those two justices remain content to rely on the Government’s representation’s in court—and vexed that their colleagues apparently feel differently. > I'm not sure how much difference that bill's clause makes in practice. There are at least three massive problems aside from undermining the role of courts in enforcing their interpretations of the law. - The clause applies to both government-associated defendants and non-governmental defendants. [2] - Federal Rule 65(c) does not apply to final injunctions, but the wording of the clause might apply to final injunctions. [2] - The clause applies retroactively. [1] https://blog.dividedargument.com/p/in-the-trump-20-era-the-courts-are https://blog.dividedargument.com/p/in-the-trump-20-era-the-c... [2] https://blog.dividedargument.com/p/the-house-judiciary-committee-moves https://blog.dividedargument.com/p/the-house-judiciary-commi...
- megaman821 1y agoUsually I think saying both-sides is pretty lazy, but has any Congress in the last few decades done anything but delegate more of their authority to someone else? One party always complains about Executive Orders and interference when the other party is President, but then never curtails the power when they get a chance.
- yieldcrv 1y agoThere are things both sides do and it is valid for those things to annoy you and be your primary cause Campaign finance Trading on privileged information Voting as a bloc and not in favor of their constituents Being a useless and ignorable vocal opposition when their bloc is not in power, ignoring indiscretions when their bloc is in power
- MichaelZuo 1y agoHow does this relate to the parent comment? It seems like the parent is clearly asking for a concrete example.
- nkrisc 1y agoIn that regard, yes, both. However in that time they were never really faced with any president who would take the power granted anywhere near the extreme we see today. When that happened, one party recoiled in horror and the other cheered it on.
- megaman821 1y agoStuff like the Muslim ban was pretty bad the first round of Trump, but it didn't seem to motivate the Democrats to start limiting the Executive branch in any way when they got back to power. I am pretty sure, it will be the same next time they regain power.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- 1y ago
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 1y agoIsn't that every party currently in power?