random

TADC Warrior Cats AU by: @kitkatbunnies

Contact My Senator

Currently, YES.

Why do I specify "currently?" Because Newsweek reports that the Senate could make changes to the bill.

In other words, this is not just a matter of yes or no for them. They also have the option of messing with it.

The Senate is back in session on June 2nd. We have at least until then to call their offices and demand they take this out.

Newsweek gives the exact quote, plus a helpful explanation:

"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.

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, Chemerinsky 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."

Dozens of lawsuits have been filed since Trump returned to office, challenging his executive orders and actions taken by his administration. Judges have partially or fully blocked the president in at least 82 cases, according to a tally by The Associated Press.

The administration has been pushing back against court rulings it doesn't like, with the president lashing out at judges who rule against him and seeking an end to nationwide injunctions.

The Supreme Court earlier in May barred the administration from quickly resuming deportations of Venezuelans under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.

Meanwhile, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis has expressed frustration that the administration has yet to provide information that adequately explained how it was complying with her order—which was upheld by the Supreme Court—to "facilitate" the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a man who was wrongly deported to El Salvador.

And last month, another federal judge said he found probable cause to hold the administration in criminal contempt after ignoring his order to turn around planes carrying deportees to El Salvador.

District Judge James E. Boasberg said he would 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.

Chemerinsky also wrote: "Without the contempt power, judicial orders are meaningless and can be ignored. There is no way to understand this except as a way to keep the Trump administration from being restrained when it violates the Constitution or otherwise breaks the law. The House and the Senate should reject this effort to limit judicial power."

Neguse said on X, formerly Twitter, that the provision "basically would attempt to try to stop federal courts or limit the ability of federal courts to enforce contempt orders. Why? Because they know that they are, the Trump administration, losing in virtually every court in the land, and as a result, in their effort, in terms of the campaign that they're waging against the judiciary and the Article Three branch of our government, they've decided that this would be the latest salvo in that effort. It's plainly unconstitutional, but they're going to go forward anyway."

@robertreich, a former Labor Secretary and a professor of public policy at the University of California Berkeley, wrote in a Substack post that the "hidden" provision "makes Trump King."

He wrote: "No congress and no court could stop him. Even if a future Congress were to try to stop him, it could not do so without the power of the courts to enforce their hearings, investigations, subpoenas, and laws. What can you do? To begin with, call your members of Congress and tell them not to pass Trump's One Big Ugly Bill."

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.

Robert Reich's Substack has some excellent points about how to fight back:

That bill amounts to the largest redistribution in history from poor and working-class Americans to the wealthy and super-wealthy. It also contains a poison pill that would remove contempt authority from the courts.

To pass this monstrosity, Senate Republicans can afford to lose only 3 votes at most (with JD Vance acting as tie-breaker).

The following Republican senators are most persuadable because they’re up for reelection in 2026 if not before. They’re also most vulnerable.

[I'm omitting the part about using Memorial Day Weekend to track them down bc it's almost over - but feel free to track them down and show up at their public appearances!]

Collins (ME) - blue state, voted against April Senate budget resolution over Medicaid cuts.

Tillis (NC) - faces competitive reelection bid and has spurned Trump on U.S. attorney nomination.

Sullivan (AK) - race could become competitive because of Alaska’s ranked-choice system and the impact of Medicaid/SNAP cuts, and if former Rep. Mary Peltola runs.

Husted (OH) - replaced Vance, has to win a special election to finish term in 2026. Race could become highly competitive if Sherrod Brown runs.

Moody (FL) - replaced Rubio, has to win a special election to finish term in 2026. Same factors as Husted (though FL is a longer shot than OH).

Cornyn (TX) - facing a tough right-wing primary challenge from Ken Paxton, who could put the seat in play if he wins.

Ernst (IA) - race has the potential to be competitive in an anti-GOP cycle without Trump at the top of the ballot.

In another post, he lays out exactly what else the budget bill does:

Cuts Medicare by an estimated $500 billion

Which would mean at least 8,600,000 people losing Medicare coverage

People making between $17,000-$51,000 a year would have a net loss of $700 from all the tax changes

People making less than $17,000 would have a net loss of $1,000

The top 0.1% of earners would have a net gain of $390,000

Over the next decade, the bill would add $3.8 trillion to the federal debt

And here's an excellent guide to WHY and HOW you should call your representatives.

Republicans do it way more!

Every call adds to the pressure!

They really do track every single call on every topic!

You do not have to personally talk to your representative! You are leaving a message with a staff member or a machine!

Republicans have the smallest House majority they've had since 1931! They only passed this by one vote, and it's incredibly tight for them in the Senate too.

If your representative is already going to vote against this bill, look at all the representatives who might support it and think of a friend you can call in those states, to get them to call THEIR representative instead!

That very excellent and helpful Reddit post also explains why we should all be developing a habit of making 6 of these calls every single day. LIKE CRANKY OLD RETIRED CONSERVATIVES DO.

Go! Find your reps! You can do this! Reblog and talk about how it went! I believe in you!!!

Or

their reasoning being that "we couldn't ban it even if we wanted to, every writer already uses it anyway"

"Every writer"?

another doodle dump. really love just drawing ted with the most brainless smug expression