Public discourse following the Supreme Court's ruling indicates strong criticism and concern regarding the power dynamics affecting state governance and democracy. Many commenters express feelings of frustration, fear, and anger directed towards the judiciary's decision, perceiving it as an empowerer of governors over elected representatives, particularly in non-BJP states. While some express a glimmer of hope or recognize the necessity of judicial oversight, the predominant sentiment leans heavily towards discontent regarding perceived biases and threats to federalism and democratic integrity.

Supreme Court

Governor

BJP Government

if it is a bill that could benefit the common people? then "no timelines for Governor/ President to act on bills"  
BUT if it is a bill that could benefit the rich elites and the politicians? passed overnight!

hudi_baba

The interpretation of law changes with the whims and fancies of the prevailing Govt . 
Good job mee lardsss , u are truely a peeler of  Democracy .

Aggressive-Office301

The President and the Court have given in to the whims of this government. Sad day for Indian democracy and federalism.

Bangers_n_Mashallah

RIP to federalism which was already in the ICU..

AAPkeMoohMe

Is there no logic, reasoning and consistency in law? Jo man kare wahi judgement do. Totally arbitrary.

modemrider

GG to Tamil Nadu. R M Ravi is going to sit on all the Anti BJP bills till the CM brings it to court

Impossible_Raise2416

It's over. The collapse is way more apparent now

Leo2000Immortal

I don't see how this and all the bs that is happening won't lead to a country's collapse. I mean, crony capitalism is one thing but removal of state rights and blatant corruption is going to piss people off sooner or later. Yes, you can blame CIA or some other foreign interference to fan the fires but the fires are there, and this is a very dangerous precedent. Recently tamil nadu government filed a case against the governor due to this same issue, the court verdict was different then, I wonder what changed.

RationalPsycho42

The Constitution should work for the common people, not for the convenience of those in power.

Everyone gets to live once; if people have to wait their entire lifetime for the government to do the bare minimum so they can just survive that life, then that’s a failure of the system. Fuck nationalism when the system wouldn’t work for the people.

dshivaraj

Good judgment i know people will come hating on it cause it is with the govt, however thats a sign of competent judiciary its independent in a sense when it can decide against but also in favour of the govt. 

Scared_Platform3756

Icy-Price-

Most of the state govt love to pass bills (especially on reservations) which they hope/pray that Supreme Court  strikes down or president sleeps on it. They make unnecessary promises to people and then are under pressure. I have not seen any decent law which was passed by state govt and the president rejected it.

ridersofthestorms


As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)

In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. 

If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.

 For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
 
 We are actively looking for new moderators.  If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
 

***


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

From Article:

A provision "hidden" in the sweeping budget bill that passed the U.S. House 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.

Why It Matters 

The provision would prohibit courts from enforcing contempt citations for violations of injunctions or temporary restraining orders—the main types of rulings that have been used to rein in President Donald Trump's administration—unless the plaintiffs have paid a bond, something that rarely happens when someone sues the government.

What To Know 

If enacted, it would be a "stunning" restriction on the power of federal courts, Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the University of California Berkeley School of Law, wrote in an article for Just Security.

"The Supreme Court has long recognized that the contempt power is integral to the authority of the federal courts," he wrote. "Without the ability to enforce judicial orders, they are rendered mere advisory opinions which parties are free to disregard."

Chemerinsky wrote that federal courts rarely require a bond to be posted by "those who are restraining unconstitutional federal, state, or local government actions" as those seeking such orders "do not have the resources to post a bond, and insisting on it would immunize unconstitutional government conduct from judicial review."

Representative Joe Neguse, a Colorado Democrat, said in an interview that the provision was added because the Trump administration is "losing in virtually every court in the land."

District Judge James E. Boasberg said he will initiate hearings and may refer the matter for prosecution if the administration does not act to remedy the violation. The administration has also removed immigrants against court orders in other cases.

The provision in the House bill "would make the court orders in these cases completely unenforceable," according to Chemerinsky.
"Indeed, the bill is stunning in its scope. It would apply to all temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, and even permanent injunctions ever issued."

What's Next

The House approved the bill in a 215-214 vote early Thursday. It now heads to the Senate, where it could face revisions before a final vote.


———

OP Here:

This Provision must be removed or defanged during Committee meetings or struck down by the Byrd Rule which can remove Non-Budgetary Inclusions that don’t directly tie into Budgetary Matters.

A single Senator can invoke it, letting the Parliamentarian review and then recommend having it be removed.

An upheld Byrd Rule can only be struck down by a 60 vote majority.

Remind your Senators of the Danger and spread the word any and everywhere you can!

The more voices covering this, the better!

Also legal experts have pointed out that it can be declared by the courts as unconstitutional for a variety of reasons but you should still do all that you can for now.

———

Yeah, I ain’t responding to anymore comments.

Anoth3rDude

The provision is essentially as the same effect as the [German 1933 Enabling Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933)

&gt;was a law that gave the German Cabinet—most importantly, the Chancellor, Adolf Hitler—the power to make and enforce laws without the involvement of the Reichstag or President Paul von Hindenburg. By allowing the Chancellor to override the checks and balances in the constitution, the Enabling Act was a pivotal step in the transition from the democratic Weimar Republic to the totalitarian dictatorship of Nazi Germany.

If courts can't use injunctions against Trump....they have zero power to push back. Can't push back against EO's and god know the R held congress aint gonna do shit except get outta his way

Unique-Egg-461

MAGA is very quickly chipping away the "checks and balances" of the Constitution.

The end game is creating an all powerful Executive branch that answers to no one.

BlotchComics

At what point should we stop viewing Republicans as politicians acting in the best interest of the country and its people and start viewing them as the incompetent tyrants that they have become?

skawn

There's so much stuff in this bill that would never be passed on its own.

We tried to lay it all out over here:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/BillSentinel/comments/1ksr3yp/hr1\_one\_big\_beautiful\_bill\_act/](https://www.reddit.com/r/BillSentinel/comments/1ksr3yp/hr1_one_big_beautiful_bill_act/)

vucubcame

The Supreme Court could also strike the law down, because that is literally their job. Also, the Supreme Court could take a play out of the Trump Adminsitration and just do whatever it wants because who is going to stop them?

thistimelineisweird

This is the big one. Wake up your sleeping family and friends and get fucking pissed.

oxdeaddeed

All Republicans are fascist domestic terrorists

CrimsonHeretic

Should cross post this is r/SCOTUS and r/law

shivaswrath

Whenever something this egregious comes up, the defense I see from conservatives and Trump supporters is to act like the end result of it not happening is all that matters. 

That provision will get struck down, so why worry about it? Trump won't actually get to keep that jet, so why complain about it? He's not actually going to run for a third term, so why act like he will? Because the attempt is an admission of intent, and bad intent is almost as bad as bad actions.

Republicans *want* to be able to openly accept bribes, they *want* to strip away rights from political dissidents, and they *want* to give Trump absolute authority. Just because they're stopped by factors out of their control doesn't mean the intent should be ignored.

TheBlueBlaze

Every Congressperson who voted for this garbage is a traitor to the constitution and to the nation.

m1j2p3

Remember how Republicans would complain about how large bills were and that they needed to be less than a few pages? Pepperidge Farms does!

Honky_Stonk_Man

citizen_x_

I don’t see how Congress can legislate constitutional powers without having an amendment. Seems like the judicial branch would be an unequal branch of government.

elainegeorge

[deleted]

BlueShield

GOP is just giving all the powers to Trump because they have no intention of ever giving up the powers of the presidency again. Checks and balances aren't needed when you have 1 party autocratic rule.

letsago9987

It's still a coup, it's just a slower one.

OneWholeSoul

It seems illegal that a single bill could cuck the justice dept. but I guess congress has been getting cucked since February

Right_Ostrich4015

i_love_rosin

...and you will never have to vote again

the only truth he told on the campaign

sudden_onset_kafka

CALL YOUR SENATORS:

https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm?OrderBy=state&amp;%3BSort=ASC

stirling_approx

Dazzling-Draft1379

So if an injection was placed on... say an average citizen we can just ignore the courts?

Lowfi12010

This likely dies in the Senate as a result and returns to the House for revision.

Borne2Run

Lets be blunt here, the Courts have never had a true enforcement mechanism to begin with. They rely on the fact that elected officials and civil servants obey the Constitution above all else. And that the courts are the final interpreters of the Constitution.

It relies on the simple hope that we have leaders with integrity. Get someone in there with no integrity... and well... ask Andrew Jackson what happens when a POTUS decides to ignore the Courts.

Locketank

Good job America! We are about to pass a bill that will kill low income Americans. Winning

sharkey122

Hidden - every fucker on Reddit, Youtube, even fkn Myspace knows about this.

This entire administration has been in contempt for months

kooeurib

PlainSpader

It's not all that hidden, and it's not about disarming the Supreme Court.

It's about disarming people of the ability to use the courts to protect their rights.

TL:DR - you'll have to pay up front if you want to defend your rights in court.

It says that if the government tries to do something to you, and you sue them to stop that, then a judge cannot order them to halt that thing while the trial plays out unless you first put up a bond in whatever amount Trump says it would cost to wait to fuck you over.

So say you're a green card holder and they try to deport you without a proper hearing.  So you sue them to stop it.

Except under this change, if the judge wanted to tell the court "I am going to prevent you from deporting this man until I can rule on this issue", he would also have to tell you "But first you're going to have to put up insurance in case I decide against you.  The amount of which will be determined by whatever number Trump says it would cost to not deport you just now."

kandoras

So in other words, the judicial branch of government was just rendered completely inert. Only two branches now remain in the government, soon to be one.

SnootSnootBasilisk

Am I wrong or is the legislative not allowed to pass bills interfering with the judicial?

BooksandBiceps

TrueBlueBaller

Hey American Redditor. Yes, *you*. How long will **YOU** put up with this?

mpworth

Supreme Court: "Here is a copy of Marbury vs Madison. Wait what do you mean you don't care?"

Yourdataisunclean

Its psychotic that a budget bill can just shoehorn in policy scratched into the margins and sublimate into the system as official law

Notexactlyserious

Shouldn't that be done through constitutional amendment? They shouldn't be able to knee-cap the courts in anyway.

Comedian_Economy

If this passes, it should easily be struck down by the same courts. It's clearly unconstitutional and should require a constitutional amendment to make such a change, not some law passed by 1 vote over 50%

No taxation without representation. They represent those who don’t pay taxes, and not the ones that do.

Time to impeach this tyrant and get rid of the waste called the republican congress.

SeanTr0n5000

This is what we told you would happen when you grant a president immunity.

ihazmaumeow

Why are they so eager to go full fascist? Don't the billionaires make more money these days than ever before? You'd think the status quo would be what they preferred.

&gt;"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 Supreme Court could just as easily say "you know what fuck you"

Schiffy94

I mean, it’s not like Trump listens to any court, even SCOTUS, but I guess the new bill would make it official.

DotComCTO

T-rocious

Why is this allowed to be in a budget reconciliation bill?

PsxDcSquall

Make sure you [call your senate representatives!](https://www.govtrack.us/) [find your script here](https://5calls.org/issue/court-contempt-enforcement-cuts-budget-reconciliation/)

1. Tax cuts that will bankrupt America
2. Cuts to Medicaid/Medicare
3. Cuts to snap
4. [Section 70302: unconstitutional provision to attack the courts](https://5calls.org/issue/court-contempt-enforcement-cuts-budget-reconciliation/) -- MOST IMPORTANT 

These are just a few things in this great bill, so much so that they need to discuss and pass this at 2 am in the morning. Share this message everywhere you can (especially about section 70302!!!)

Additional things you could ask your representative to support:

Senator Cory Booker introduced a bill [to transfer the US marshalls](https://www.booker.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/marshalsact.pdf) from the authority of the DOJ to the judiciary to insulate the courts and help them enforce their rulings on Trump. Tell them to support senator Cory Bookers Marshalls act.

Also, join the national flag day protests on June 14th at [nokings.org](http://nokings.org), if you're done with your calls and want to get involved, nows your chance!

KaibaCorpHQ

Atomicmullet

Seriously, the US experiment with democracy is dead. Make IRL contacts with anti Trump groups. Prepare for shit to get really bad and make plans for how to actively resist. down voting on Reddit doesn't count as active resistance.

colopervs

This is what Trump is talking about when he speaks to a way to enable him to stay in office and no need for any further elections.    If this provision is enabled by the Senate democracy is deader than a doornail in this country.

lifeisahighway2023

DukeGryffith20

I mean if he’s not going to follow the laws then why would more laws prevent us from giving him a hard time. We need to fight fire with fire. If he’s ungovernable we need to be as well.

SincerelySaint

And we're here today because corporate democrats are still trying to play by the same rules from 30 years ago. It blows my mind that Republicans can and will constantly push and test boundries/laws/"norms" and democrats can't do anything besides finger wagging and hold up sad signs.

Sticky_Turtle

So whoever does enforcement does so for pure good free will.

f8Negative

Can the let courts find this law unconstitutional (violation of the separation of powers)?

applewait

Close enough. Welcome back, Enabling Act of 1933!

Colonel_Zander

Just wow, cut SCOTUS off at knees, from article: 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."

Fit-Significance-436

Ah yes the 'affirm the tyranny of the tyrant' provision.

RobutNotRobot

Thumbkeeper

Its weird but I dream of a dem presidential candidate that will push everything past the limit… there is no going back

splycedaddy

They will rule it to be unconstitutional, the genius of the Marbury v. Madison rulling it claims the right of judicial review as their perogative. No law passed by Congress can take that away. Why? Cause they'll rule it to be unconstitutional. This is part of the establishment of the Judicial branch. 

Can’t the courts just ignore this law? They’re a co-equal branch

RddtLeapPuts

MAGA: Something something but we're a republic something something probably.

dr_z0idberg_md

SadPhase2589

I’m in the camp of people that still doesn’t fully understand all the implications of this 🫣

🤞🏻🤞🏻🤞🏻🇨🇦

PG-Dog

For many of us, this is welcome news. But remember to be mindful that tomorrow will also be a very hard day emotionally for those whose only chance at citizenship ends tomorrow. Be kind.

Old-Painter-7569

canadianinlaw

I'm guessing that those of us who become officially Canadian under C-3 won't have to take an oath (similar to first generation abroad currently). I'm actually a bit sad about that; having a ceremony to mark it would be nice. Anyone else feeling like this, or am I just a weirdo?

robertkarpf

Congratulations to all of those who are immediately impacted by this bill and will become citizens once it’s finalized.

othybear

As a fan of The Good Place, it makes me grin every time they say "the other place."

thiefspy

sodiumpen

Long_Advertising_737

One interesting thing I noticed while looking at the normal timing for royal assent, a lot of the time, the senate will go to recess to await royal assent the same day, but it is not on the schedule, so we may get a good idea by the end of the session whether or not royal assent will take place today.

NanoSpace1540

The Senate has passed Bill C-3 without any amendments, and is notifying the House of Commons.

sultanpeppery

This all feels kind of surreal, to be honest. I am not breathing a sigh of relief until it actually becomes law, though - I may be Canadian now, but my nephew and all my cousins are still hanging out there. It's nice to know that under C-3 they should still be covered (at least the first cousins, and hopefully all their kids that aren't already Canadian via their other parent).

evaluna1968

I swear, be it in the US or Canada, why are conservatives such crass wise guys who think it's some kind of joke. I hate this guy's half baked snide comments, even if he does make eloquent arguments that I don't agree with.

Virtual-Barnacle-150

Today is my hell at the moment. Good luck everyone.

xialateek

Coming from the US, it is nice to see well-spoken and generally reasonable opposition, even if I disagree with his arguments.

jimbarino

It seems on our end my 2 adult kids and I will be fine but also like the rug could be pulled out at any time. We shall see!

coastkid2

Question period should be about 30 mins, and then after this is the orders of the day.

Dull-Reception2642

As this amendment is getting debated, just a quick reminder of the rules the Senate adopted for C-3.  At 7PM EST, all debate will be interrupted and no further amendments are allowed.  At that point, all votes necessary are called.

Victory-Candescence

The Supreme Court of India recently clarified the Governor's powers regarding the assent of bills passed by state legislatures, emphasizing a balance of powers.

Supreme Court on Governor's Assent to Bills

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want