I wondered about the $1.00 tactic myself. Then I decided not to suggest it openly because I don’t want to give the MAGAts an idea to change the wording for the worse. Agreed. Performative. But also demonstrative. They’re degrading the courts, but also digging at Roberts whom they have threatened by suggesting control of the SCOTUS purse can will be legislated away.
I’m not good at deciphering Bull Shit. Why is it in the bill if it’s harmless? Don’t trust these facists and delete it from the bill while the Senate has the chance. The Senate needs to be told their asses are on the line if they give Trump the final step to Full Immunity without any Accountability.
As always Allison, I (and I go out on a limb and say a collective we), am so truly appreciative of the time you take to look at all of the shit that the fascists are slinging to let us know what the true implications are.
Text of the provision reads: (note the final line)
“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.”
Use this spreadsheet as a resource to call/email/write members of Congress. Reach out to your own, as well as those in other states on a specific committee important to a topic you’re sharing. Use your voice and make some “good trouble.”
Thanks for stating exactly what I've been pondering. The amount of the bond is solely up to each judge in each case. The language in the bill has virtually no real-world force or effect. It's either utter cluelessness or a sophomoric attempt at misdirection.
The $1 tactic is okay, but how can this bill possibly get away with saying it applies to court orders that were given before it was passed (like Abrego Garcia)? Isn't that text book ex post facto?
I am wondering about something quite basic: can a provision like this be included in a budget bill? I thought there were restrictions on that. I know. This administration doesn't care about restrictions. But I am wondering if the Parliamentarian might.
The $1.00 ploy would not work for TRO’s or preliminary injunctions already issued since the security must have been given “ when the injunction or order was issued.” You can’t retroactively give security to make a previously issued order or injunction enforceable.
I thank you for explaining since I'm not smart enough to figure this stuff out. I'm not as worried, but these guys are sneaky as fuck. I can't relax and won't relax until these guys are all voted out of office forever!!!
I wondered about the $1.00 tactic myself. Then I decided not to suggest it openly because I don’t want to give the MAGAts an idea to change the wording for the worse. Agreed. Performative. But also demonstrative. They’re degrading the courts, but also digging at Roberts whom they have threatened by suggesting control of the SCOTUS purse can will be legislated away.
I get that thinking entirely.
Reading what I wrote now later in the day, I wonder how the heck you discerned anything from that paragraph. 😆
Hahaha. It makes total sense to me.
Very reassuring—thank you!
I’m not good at deciphering Bull Shit. Why is it in the bill if it’s harmless? Don’t trust these facists and delete it from the bill while the Senate has the chance. The Senate needs to be told their asses are on the line if they give Trump the final step to Full Immunity without any Accountability.
As always Allison, I (and I go out on a limb and say a collective we), am so truly appreciative of the time you take to look at all of the shit that the fascists are slinging to let us know what the true implications are.
You do amazing work. Thank you!
The problem is that provision in the bill makes it retroactive so trump's lawyers can get away with all the contempt they've already committed.
Generally speaking, laws cannot be retroactive (it's rare and unusual) and this provision does not specifically state that it's retroactive.
I agree that most laws cannot be enforced retroactively. However, the language does include cases that were in place before the passage of the bill.
Text of the provision reads: (note the final line)
“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.”
Use this spreadsheet as a resource to call/email/write members of Congress. Reach out to your own, as well as those in other states on a specific committee important to a topic you’re sharing. Use your voice and make some “good trouble.”
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13lYafj0P-6owAJcH-5_xcpcRvMUZI7rkBPW-Ma9e7hw/edit
Thanks for stating exactly what I've been pondering. The amount of the bond is solely up to each judge in each case. The language in the bill has virtually no real-world force or effect. It's either utter cluelessness or a sophomoric attempt at misdirection.
The $1 tactic is okay, but how can this bill possibly get away with saying it applies to court orders that were given before it was passed (like Abrego Garcia)? Isn't that text book ex post facto?
I am wondering about something quite basic: can a provision like this be included in a budget bill? I thought there were restrictions on that. I know. This administration doesn't care about restrictions. But I am wondering if the Parliamentarian might.
Good question. But Thune can just fire her if Trump tells him to.
The $1.00 ploy would not work for TRO’s or preliminary injunctions already issued since the security must have been given “ when the injunction or order was issued.” You can’t retroactively give security to make a previously issued order or injunction enforceable.
It was my take as well; that the language of the rule makes the courts determination of the amount of the bond discretionary.
So, I'm scratching my head, and trying to figure what advantage is gained by § 70302.
I thank you for explaining since I'm not smart enough to figure this stuff out. I'm not as worried, but these guys are sneaky as fuck. I can't relax and won't relax until these guys are all voted out of office forever!!!
Glad this is getting attention.
But what about MAGA judges? Will they take $1? Not likely.
Why not a penny?
Updates on the Trump Disqualification case nobody is following (yet).. the game is afoot!
https://randoliberal.substack.com/p/updates-on-trump-disqualification?r=u47dz