this post was submitted on 24 May 2025
179 points (95.9% liked)
Microblog Memes
7737 readers
1803 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Oh, I'm not saying it's not horrible and not a terrible part of the bill...I think you what you laid out is pretty close to what they intend to do
But I'm still saying, this doesn't even matter. Literally, one of the buried clauses let's the government blatantly ignore the courts, which means they get to blatantly ignore the law
If they pass contempt clause, the federal courts lose all power over the executive. It even cuts the path to getting the supreme Court to hear cases on unconstitutionality
This literally just doesn't matter, because the brown shirts could do whatever they want, and the states would have no mechanism to stop them anyways
If this goes through the Senate, it will be shitty and so very Trump. However if that happens, it seems most likely judges will just begin setting a bond, which could be as low as $1.
It's unprecedented but it doesn't really mean that Trump has unlimited executive power, unless for some reason judges just refused to start setting the bond. There normally isn't one bc judges normally don't say if you want justice for a violation of your rights by the government you need to provide a security bond first.
On the one hand it will be a new low for America, but will probably be reversed as soon as Trump is out of office. It will almost certainly do him no favors in court going forward or the Republicans any favors during the midterms.
The shittiest part is that it would retroactively effect cases where he's in contempt and also effect long standing injunctions like desegregation orders in schools. Funny thing about that specifically, red states are already seeing the DOJ dropping investigations and law suits into civil rights violations. Last week the DOJ said they're no longer investigating civil rights accusations against Louisiana State Police, and last month the DOJ removed a consent decree that enforced segregation on a Louisiana school in the 60s, meanwhile the governor has been trying to remove a consent decree on the NOPD for years.
The argument of both red states and the federal government, is that these federal rules are no longer necessary bc states like Louisiana got their act together a long time ago. Definitely not true, but what can I do about that if my governor says it's so and no other elected officials are willing to challenge him on it.
Yet Republicans are somehow arguing state regulations on AI are unnecessary because their "light touch" federal regulations will be all you need. That's because they plan to provide no enforceable regulations that will actually serve anyone but corporations.
Literally, the only thing a federal government should be doing is protecting the rights of people. When a federal government becomes worthless and stops providing federal laws protecting your rights (because they argue they're not necessary to protect you from people exactly like them), you hopefully have state leaders who are willing to step in and provide the insurance that the federal government is failing to provide you.
The bond is meant to pay for damages of the lawsuit if it goes forward
Can judges set it to $1? Maybe. Or maybe that's grounds to have a mistrial, or lodge a complaint against the judge. Maybe it becomes another step in every lawsuit against the government - where both parties try to get the judge to nail down a cash value
Or maybe, they can't. What is the process of doing this? When is appropriate to take a bond, and when is it not?
This administration will stretch the law as far as they can. Maybe the judiciary can win this fight, maybe the administration can use this as another shield.
This is entirely legal theory - it's not even law yet. No one knows how it would shake out. We have to read laws with the worst possible interpretation, because that's how the administration is going to play any card you give them
Clearly this is just a way to get all of the cases currently holding him in contempt dropped.
It seems it's up to the judge's discretion at what it's set, at least according to the traitorous scumbags that wrote the bill.
Most likely, unless the judges want to allow the court system to completely crumble, like you're worried they will, they will have to play ball by setting it to an affordable amount like $1.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/22/us/politics/trump-policy-bill-judges-contempt.html
The point isn't really that you have to pay a $1. The point is that the president is making it loud and clear that there is now a dollar amount on upholding the constitution. By making a citizen pay any amount of money anytime the government violates the rights it's a show of lawlessness by the president and his loyalists.
These people are already being paid to uphold the rights they're violating, with the tax dollars that they're squandering on the AI data centers they're rolling out across the country in different states, so that they can steal more data, invade more privacy, violate more rights, and have no consequences unless they are cut off at the state level by state government.
Why are you taking a Republican senator at his word?
They're lying. They don't know how this would actually play out, no one does
It doesn't matter what they say today... They're going to immediately push this as far as they can if it gets through. They operate in bad faith, every time
And maybe you're right and that's how it does play out... But this is a play that ends democracy if we lose.
And let me remind you, they literally just argued in the supreme Court to do basically what I'm describing