Look, at some point Very Serious PeopleTM in the media and the political class are going to have to accept reality; the fascist GOP is actively and knowingly working to make Trump a literal dictator and they're prepared to deploy any nonsensical lie, rhetorical argument, and instrument of state power to do so. On Wednesday, the House passed a bill that would make it functionally impossible for a single lawsuit to stop even the Trump regime's most blatantly unconstitutional activities, by drastically curtailing the judiciary's power to issue nationwide restraining orders; under the nonsensical argument that ruling against Trump's orders is part of some vast left wing conspiracy to stymie the President's lawful right to um, make America conform to his unhinged authoritarian nonsense, apparently.
House Passes Bill Limiting Judges’ Ability to Place Injunctions on Trump Orders
"Trump has had the most nationwide injunctions placed against him due to his presidential decrees oftentimes flatly violating the law or U.S. Constitution — for example, three federal judges this year alone have placed injunctions on his ability to enforce an executive order to redefine the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment.
While blatantly improper orders like those have been blocked, Trump loyalists have errantly claimed that so-called “activist judges” on the left have chosen to stymie the president’s agenda for political reasons — ignoring the fact that right-wing judges (including some Trump himself picked) have also issued injunctions against the president.
Republican Rep. Darrell Issa (California) authored a bill entitled the “No Rogue Rulings Act,” which would restrict judges’ rulings to only apply to the litigants directly included in the lawsuit — under the bill’s terms, only a plaintiff could receive relief from a judgment against a presidential administration, even if the underlying reason for that judgment is that the law or order at issue is unconstitutional and shouldn’t be enforced on anyone."
Okay, let's start with the good news; although the bill passed on a party lines vote in the House, it still has to make its way through the Senate and unless Chuck Schumer has another brain tumor for breakfast, that seems highly unlikely to happen. Given the level of collaboration Democrat Senators have already engaged in while (not really) opposing the Trump regime, I can't guarantee anything, but here's to hoping the opposition party realizes what a monumentally bad idea it would be to upend "hundreds of years of judicial case law and precedent" and allow Trump to essentially force everyone victimized by even his most unconstitutional orders, to seek remedy separately in the courts. If you want to understand just how bad this would be for our civil rights, consider the three current injunctions preventing Downmarket Mussolini from ending birthright citizenship and how folks whose only "crime" is being born in the US to parents who aren't citizens, would have to seek legal remedy under these new rules; not only are all of them unlikely to be able to bring a suit in federal court, but just processing all of those cases would take decades, and in the meantime Trump would be free to treat those victimized by his executive order as if his word was law.
Even if the bill doesn't pass the Senate however, I think it's pretty instructional to look at the overarching theme of the fascist GOP's arguments for running it through the House. To justify the bill, House Republicans have constructed a vast conspiracy theory, whereby even conservative judges who disagree with Trump are working with an undefined "radical left" to undermine the country; this is "if you're not with us, you're against" us logic and as author Jason Stanley noted in his excellent book, How Fascism Works, fascism functions by transforming everything into the politics of "us versus them." And what pray tell is their evidence for this conspiracy theory? The fact that Trump, who is actively trying to transform the United States into an autocratic fascist dictatorship, has seen his orders subject to a record number of injunctions and court orders preventing him from, um, breaking the law and violating the constitution? As at least one House Dem noted, it probably makes sense that Trump's agenda has been targeted by the most nationwide court orders because Trump has tried to violate the constitution more than probably any other president in American history.
“If it seems like an incredible number of cases to lose in less than 100 days, recall that Trump is engaged in a record number of illegal actions at a breathtaking velocity never seen before in U.S. history,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Maryland) said."
My friends, it's fascism, and the fascist GOP party is willingly installing a fascist dictator; there's nothing accidental or "misguided" about it.
![The administration apparently doesn’t care much more about the law than it does about the reactions to the tariffs that are crashing the economy. Today, U.S. District Court judge Paula Xinis ordered the govern. to bring back to the U.S. no later than 11:59 p.m. on April 7 a legal resident it mistakenly sent to a notorious prison for terrorists in El Salvador. Monday, admin lawyers told the court that the govern’t had swept up Abrego Garcia because of an “administrative error” but that it could not bring him back because he was outside the reach of American laws. “This was an illegal act,” Xinis said. “Congress said you can’t do it, and you did it anyway.” Trump's deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, responded to the order by calling Xinis a “Marxist judge” who “thinks she's president of El Salvador.” The WH responded to the judge’s order by saying, “We suggest the Judge contact President Bukele [of El Salvador] because we are unaware of the judge having jurisdiction or authority over the country of El Salvador.” Legal analyst Steve Viadeck responded that while a U.S. federal court cannot order the Salvadoran government to release Abrego Garcia, the U.S. government should be able to secure his release. If it can— and in this case it should be able to—the court can order it to do so.
If that were not the case, the admin could simply get rid of anyone it wanted to by sending them to a prison outside the jurisdiction of the US and then claiming it had no way to get them back.](https://media.mstdn.social/media_attachments/files/114/285/789/439/419/141/original/652becaeb4129613.jpeg "The administration apparently doesn’t care much more about the law than it does about the reactions to the tariffs that are crashing the economy. Today, U.S. District Court judge Paula Xinis ordered the govern. to bring back to the U.S. no later than 11:59 p.m. on April 7 a legal resident it mistakenly sent to a notorious prison for terrorists in El Salvador. Monday, admin lawyers told the court that the govern’t had swept up Abrego Garcia because of an “administrative error” but that it could not bring him back because he was outside the reach of American laws. “This was an illegal act,” Xinis said. “Congress said you can’t do it, and you did it anyway.” Trump's deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, responded to the order by calling Xinis a “Marxist judge” who “thinks she's president of El Salvador.” The WH responded to the judge’s order by saying, “We suggest the Judge contact President Bukele [of El Salvador] because we are unaware of the judge having jurisdiction or authority over the country of El Salvador.” Legal analyst Steve Viadeck responded that while a U.S. federal court cannot order the Salvadoran government to release Abrego Garcia, the U.S. government should be able to secure his release. If it can— and in this case it should be able to—the court can order it to do so.
If that were not the case, the admin could simply get rid of anyone it wanted to by sending them to a prison outside the jurisdiction of the US and then claiming it had no way to get them back.")
"The Democrats Who Are Fighting—and Winning—Against Trump in Court"
![Text from article:
It is unsurprising now that survey after survey after survey shows that public faith in democratic institutions is at a record low. Not all of the decline can be traced directly to campaign finance issues, of course, but a great deal of it can. Trump capitalized on that disaffection in his initial campaigns for office: He criticized Citizens United and suggested that his wealth would insulate him from the corrupting influence of campaign donations. “When you give, [elected officials] do whatever you want,” he claimed during one of the 2015 primary debates. He appears to have taken that reasoning to heart after Musk’s own contributions.
At the end of his dissent, Stevens also offered up a prediction of his own. “The court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation,” he wrote. “The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution.” Musk and Trump are now calling for the removal of judges who disagree with them and defying federal court orders. Rarely has a prophecy from dissenting justice been proven so obviously correct.](https://assets.newsie.social/media_attachments/files/114/220/944/776/292/096/original/554dd46651fb8727.png "Text from article:
It is unsurprising now that survey after survey after survey shows that public faith in democratic institutions is at a record low. Not all of the decline can be traced directly to campaign finance issues, of course, but a great deal of it can. Trump capitalized on that disaffection in his initial campaigns for office: He criticized Citizens United and suggested that his wealth would insulate him from the corrupting influence of campaign donations. “When you give, [elected officials] do whatever you want,” he claimed during one of the 2015 primary debates. He appears to have taken that reasoning to heart after Musk’s own contributions.
At the end of his dissent, Stevens also offered up a prediction of his own. “The court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation,” he wrote. “The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution.” Musk and Trump are now calling for the removal of judges who disagree with them and defying federal court orders. Rarely has a prophecy from dissenting justice been proven so obviously correct.")
