@joanfriedman.bsky.social
Reposted
This isn’t about budgeting. It’s about power.
And it’s about protecting Trump from the rule of law.
I’ll be voting against this bill — and speaking out against any attempt to weaken our courts.
And it’s about protecting Trump from the rule of law.
I’ll be voting against this bill — and speaking out against any attempt to weaken our courts.
May 19, 2025 at 3:39 PM
This isn’t about budgeting. It’s about power.
And it’s about protecting Trump from the rule of law.
I’ll be voting against this bill — and speaking out against any attempt to weaken our courts.
And it’s about protecting Trump from the rule of law.
I’ll be voting against this bill — and speaking out against any attempt to weaken our courts.
Reposted
The result:
1⃣ Judges would lose one of their only tools to make sure the law is followed.
2⃣ Agencies could be dismantled in violation of court rulings.
3⃣ Trump could keep defying the courts — with no consequences.
1⃣ Judges would lose one of their only tools to make sure the law is followed.
2⃣ Agencies could be dismantled in violation of court rulings.
3⃣ Trump could keep defying the courts — with no consequences.
May 19, 2025 at 3:39 PM
The result:
1⃣ Judges would lose one of their only tools to make sure the law is followed.
2⃣ Agencies could be dismantled in violation of court rulings.
3⃣ Trump could keep defying the courts — with no consequences.
1⃣ Judges would lose one of their only tools to make sure the law is followed.
2⃣ Agencies could be dismantled in violation of court rulings.
3⃣ Trump could keep defying the courts — with no consequences.
Reposted
Courts routinely waive that bond — especially in public interest cases or when the government is the defendant.
This clause would block enforcement in cases where a judge already ruled and didn’t require a bond. Even permanent injunctions could become meaningless.
This clause would block enforcement in cases where a judge already ruled and didn’t require a bond. Even permanent injunctions could become meaningless.
May 19, 2025 at 3:39 PM
Courts routinely waive that bond — especially in public interest cases or when the government is the defendant.
This clause would block enforcement in cases where a judge already ruled and didn’t require a bond. Even permanent injunctions could become meaningless.
This clause would block enforcement in cases where a judge already ruled and didn’t require a bond. Even permanent injunctions could become meaningless.
Reposted
Right now, if you ignore a federal court order — like an injunction — a judge can hold you in contempt. That’s essential to the rule of law.
But Section 70302 says courts can’t do that unless the plaintiff paid a bond at the start of the case.
Why is that a problem? ⬇️
But Section 70302 says courts can’t do that unless the plaintiff paid a bond at the start of the case.
Why is that a problem? ⬇️
May 19, 2025 at 3:39 PM
Right now, if you ignore a federal court order — like an injunction — a judge can hold you in contempt. That’s essential to the rule of law.
But Section 70302 says courts can’t do that unless the plaintiff paid a bond at the start of the case.
Why is that a problem? ⬇️
But Section 70302 says courts can’t do that unless the plaintiff paid a bond at the start of the case.
Why is that a problem? ⬇️