Nightwingdragon

Translated: No federal court may enforce a contempt citation.

Wrong. Translation is that the courts in general would be essentially a useless advisory board that can be ignored.

Side effect: As written, this would also effectively invalidate restraining orders against domestic abusers, for example. Since no "security" was posted at the time the restraining orders were issued, there's nothing legally stopping them from contacting their victims again.

I don't see anything setting a minimum bond. Who says they can't post a $1 security bond?

......while proceeding to do exactly fuck all about it.

Honestly, this is one of the rare times that even I have to say that Trump needs to pick his battles carefully.

The venn diagram of "MAGA" and "Walmart Shoppers" is basically a circle. And they're the ones with the guns. Seeing their walmart bill spike from $100 last week to $235 or whatever the next week may be the straw that breaks some of the camels' backs. There's only so long that Trump can deflect blame to Biden before even they start asking "But you're President now. What are you going to do about it?".

If Walmart is successful at making sure that their shoppers know that Trump's tariffs are to blame for the price hikes, there is a non-zero chance that it causes the leopards he unleashed to turn around and look at his face with that hungry look in their eyes.

Has anyone told Trump that Bruce Springsteen hasn't been relevant since before any of his kids were born?

I hope you're not holding your breath waiting for that to happen.....

Only for federal charges. If people are breaking state laws to push his agenda, he cannot pardon them. It’s a little thing, but it’s something.

For now.

No President has ever tried to issue a pardon for state crimes. Given this President and this Supreme Court, I would not be nearly as confident that that rule would hold if push were to come to shove. Especially in a political climate where virtually every institution that we expected to hold their ground has basically caved in to Trump at the first sign of pressure. I could easily see an argument made by this administration in front of this Supreme Court that the Supremacy Clause grants Trump the right to pardon state crimes easily being successful on a 6-3 split.

And I could also see Trump just physically imposing his will by sending people down to the state to physically free whoever is being held with a very similar mindset: "Are you going to stop me? You and what army?", having anybody who attempts to stop him arrested.

This story is about a specific legal mechanism (universal injunction) that has been used by federal judges in dozens of cases throughout decades. It’s a controversial mechanism that has been used on both sides of the political spectrum.

And it's also necessary to allow the courts to keep the justice system from getting overwhelmed. Without nationwide injunctions, it would lead to courts being swamped with hundreds of thousands of lawsuits from individual citizens instead of just dealing with a handful of lawsuits meant to represent people nationwide.

The lack of nationwide injunctions also means that the government would be able to trample on the rights of poor people with impunity, knowing that they very likely wouldn't have the knowledge, money, or resources needed to seek relief from the courts. They would also have the comfort of knowing they can continue trampling on their rights for years while these individual cases make their way through a bogged down court system.

Constitutional protections would only essentially be available to those with the money and resources to have legal representation. The Trump administration was basically arguing that they have the right to trample on the rights of those who cannot afford to defend themselves, and no federal judge should be able to stop them.

Trump’s lawyers are arguing that this very specific mechanism shouldn’t be permitted in current cases regarding immigration.

Actually, no. His lawyers are arguing that this mechanism shouldn't be permitted at all. That's the whole point of this case to begin with. The case itself is patently unconstitutional on its face. But the underlying goal -- the essential neutering of judicial review -- is the real prize. That's what this case is about.

They’ve also argued that this particular mechanism is unconstitutional. His lawyers are wrong, and shitty, but they are in no way arguing that “the constitution doesn’t apply to the president.”

Actually, they are. First, as I said above, the Trump administration is literally asking for the right to ignore Constitutional amendments and the rights granted by the Constitution. They're asking the Supreme Court to say that Trump can issue unconstitutional executive orders and that the courts have little to no right to judicial review or to do anything about it.

And more importantly, they literally admitted that the only court they're going to even listen to is the Supreme Court. Maybe.

They literally admitted, after being repeatedly questioned over it and after many attempts at tapdancing around it, that they have no intention of listening to lower courts and would abide by Supreme Court rulings that they agree with.

So yes. They absolutely are arguing that the Constitution doesn't apply to the President. The headline is accurate.

Sauer's reply was an awfully wordy way of saying "No."

Can't wait for SCOTUS to rule that the immunity ruling somehow applies only to Trump.

No community guidelines, no censorship, no annoying mods or bots flagging your posts, promote what you want, say what you want, Po set what you want, you even have instant messaging and file sharing capabilities not just pics and videos

So in other words, "4chan: Now with new and improved ways to spread kiddie porn".

For the record, even Trump admits this won't actually bring drug prices down in the US:

From the article:

Trump added that the cost of prescription and pharmaceutical drugs would “rise throughout the World in order to equalize and, for the first time in many years, bring FAIRNESS TO AMERICA!”

So his goal isn't to even drive prices down in the US. It's to bring the prices of drugs up everywhere else.