Homelander Posted yesterday at 02:59 AM Posted yesterday at 02:59 AM Just as the Nazis cynically branded themselves “National Socialists” to obscure their true authoritarian agenda, the so-called “Big, Beautiful Tax Bill” being pushed by Trump and his allies disguises a deeply anti-democratic assault on the rule of law. It may market itself as a gift to the American people, but buried in its text is a stunning betrayal of constitutional checks and balances. Section 70302 is one of the most dangerous provisions in the bill. It effectively neuters the federal judiciary - the one branch of government tasked with holding power to account - and transfers even more unchecked authority to the Executive Branch. It states: 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. Section 70302 should not qualify for reconciliation under the Byrd Rule. If it stays in, it suggests either a partisan override of Senate norms or an alarming reinterpretation of reconciliation rules. This isn’t conservative governance. This is creeping authoritarianism dressed up in tax cuts and patriotic soundbites. The courts are supposed to represent the people, the final line of defense when the Executive overreaches. Stripping them of the power to enforce their own orders is not just reckless; it is a direct attack on the Constitution itself. 1 1
JFKjr Posted yesterday at 12:05 PM Posted yesterday at 12:05 PM Maybe the Dems will decide to run a better candidate next time.
Niagara Bill Posted yesterday at 12:43 PM Posted yesterday at 12:43 PM 5 hours ago, JDHillFan said: COUP!! lol If not, then what would be the purpose of the clause. 38 minutes ago, JFKjr said: Maybe the Dems will decide to run a better candidate next time. Deflection from the issue is always a trait of someone who has a devious agenda.
JFKjr Posted yesterday at 01:25 PM Posted yesterday at 01:25 PM 40 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said: If not, then what would be the purpose of the clause. Deflection from the issue is always a trait of someone who has a devious agenda. The Democrats' failure to run a viable candidate led DIRECTLY to the election of Trump. You'd rather discuss how you can "get Trump to change his policies" than how the "Democrats can win in 2028?" Great, how are you planning to get Trump to change his policies?
Niagara Bill Posted yesterday at 03:58 PM Posted yesterday at 03:58 PM 2 hours ago, JFKjr said: The Democrats' failure to run a viable candidate led DIRECTLY to the election of Trump. You'd rather discuss how you can "get Trump to change his policies" than how the "Democrats can win in 2028?" Great, how are you planning to get Trump to change his policies? If clauses now exist in law like this one there will be no need for the dems to gave a candidate, there will be no election. But if they need one, Rahm Emanual.
Doc Posted yesterday at 04:41 PM Posted yesterday at 04:41 PM 3 hours ago, JFKjr said: The Democrats' failure to run a viable candidate led DIRECTLY to the election of Trump. You'd rather discuss how you can "get Trump to change his policies" than how the "Democrats can win in 2028?" Great, how are you planning to get Trump to change his policies? No, it was largely their policies. Biden would have lost as well even it he had been compos mentis.
Recommended Posts