8 Comments
User's avatar
Politics and Sausage Making's avatar

Great article by a modern-day Cassandra (a person whose valid warnings or concerns are disbelieved by others). Paul Ryan once called the ever-growing debt the slowest train wreck in history. We all see it coming, yet no one is doing anything to stop it. When the day of reckoning occurs, no political leader will be able to say they were surprised.

Expand full comment
TheGoldenMean's avatar

Why is no one is congress vehemently screaming at the top of their lungs about the provision in the recent passed house Bill “One Big Beautiful Bill Act"/HR1 that grants TRUMP the power to subvert the rulings of the lower federal courts?

This is the whole enchilada. If this passes in the Senate there will be NO stopgaps. He can do whatever he pleases. Democracy is on life support, this is it. WE must stop this by all means necessary. THIS IS THE DEADLINE which cannot be crossed. PLEASE, speak to any and all media and all social media outlets.

Expand full comment
Kelly D Johnston's avatar

Please share that provision because I haven't seen it, and if it exists, there's no way is survives the "Byrd Rule" in the Senate.

Expand full comment
TheGoldenMean's avatar

70302 Restriction of Funds

Expand full comment
TheGoldenMean's avatar

provision "hidden" in the sweeping budget bill that https://www.newsweek.com/trumps-big-beautiful-bill-passed-us-house-2075670 on Thursday seeks to limit the ability of courts—including the U.S. Supreme Court—from enforcing their orders.

"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."

Expand full comment
Kelly D Johnston's avatar

Two strikes against you include quoting 1) Newsweek and 2) the often-wrong-never-in-doubt Erwin Chemerinsky, a very left-wing "constitutional scholar." The provision, which I continue to study, is designed to stop the abuse of nationwide injunctions by district court judges. There are better ways to achieve this than the appropriations process, but we'll see if this approach survives. Nationwide injunctions are an abuse of power by the lower courts. Regardless, there is a good chance this will be ruled out of order by the Senate's Parliamentarian. The Administration has already affirmed its support for judicial supremacy in arguments before the Supreme Court, and I'm not buying into your alarmism.

Expand full comment
TheGoldenMean's avatar

So Robert Reich is progressive far left extremist in your view…..and there’s nothing in your mind that would place this outside just “alarmist”?

Expand full comment
Penny Rafferty Hamilton, Ph.D.'s avatar

Helpful information about a very complicated issue.

Expand full comment