General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHidden in Trump's big, beautiful bill is this:
No court of the United States may 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.
This provision, called section 70302, would effectively block courts from enforcing injunctions without the party bringing the suit paying a bond. Its an expansion of current rules, which require a bond equal to the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained that courts often waive when they determine the case is in the public interest. This would have enormous consequences for the courts and the presidency. Liberal activists and blue states often sue for nationwide injunctions to stop President Donald Trumps policies. For a nationwide case, bonds could theoretically add up to billions of dollars.
Source: Washington Post Daily Brief
markie
(23,868 posts)and understand!!
Omnipresent
(7,308 posts)Courts have the unquestionable right to determine whether something is constitutional or not.
What kind of crap are they trying to pull?
Initech
(107,463 posts)Freddie
(10,062 posts)Every item in the bill must be related to or affect the budget. This certainly does not. Hopefully the parliamentarian removes this and any other non-budget related BS.