Beautiful.
6 个赞
咋说 一起搬去加拿大？
不可能的，他这个要是不违宪母猪都能上月球
13 个赞
那以后民主党执政怎么办？ 
2 个赞
反正也没有川3了，洪水滔天 
1 个赞
为什么还有民主党执政，不是万世一系了嘛
5 个赞
TLDR是啥？大漂亮法案里面藏了一条禁止联邦法院block EO？
有这种条款的话为什么民主党人不阻挡？
1 个赞
不退位也是违法的一种，法院管不了
1 个赞
虽然但是 现在这个样子SCOTUS宣布违宪又能怎么样呢 
（
不退位也不能怎么样， 
你的盐我的醋 ，潮汕人民注意米和锅，晚睡 ！ 
2 个赞
只要GOP不退位，你DEM就永远没机会
皇帝自己不当继续当皇帝的吗？
今天联邦司法小组裁定特朗普关税违法，全球10%关税违法，白宫要向联邦巡回上诉法院提起上诉。Court strikes down Trump's tariffs, ruling them illegal - CBS News
1 个赞
拒不执行就好了，多大点事
已经blocked的，股市都起飞了
At the end of page 562 of the 1,118-page bill, a brief section entitled “Restriction on Enforcement” says:
No court of the United States may 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 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) whether issued prior to, on, or subsequent to the date of enactment of this section.”
Rule 65(c) says judges may only issue preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining orders if litigants provide a security bond “in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” Judges have wide discretion on that amount, and, as The Intercept’s Shawn Musgrave notes, the rule requiring such a financial guarantee is “generally relaxed when the lawsuit alleges illegal conduct by the government.”
But no more, if House Republicans get their way. Under this provision, anyone seeking an injunction or restraining order would have to put up a financial bond, in an amount determined by the judge in the case, if the litigants wanted to keep alive that judge’s contempt power. As Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley School of Law, writes,“Those seeking such court orders generally do not have the resources to post a bond, and insisting on it would immunize unconstitutional government conduct from judicial review.”
这啥意思？
意思就是，一旦通过后
法院不能因为川普政府 无视法庭判决的行为 而 判决他藐视法庭并实施。因为不给你执行藐视法庭的资金？
这是要帝制吗？
9 个赞
