As an experiment I went on to YouTube to see who was talking about the injection provision in the budget bill; the thing that basically neuters the judicial branch of the federal government and surprise surprise: No one is talking about it. - ThreadSky

askbillmitchell.bsky.social • 24 days ago

As an experiment I went on to YouTube to see who was talking about the injection provision in the budget bill; the thing that basically neuters the judicial branch of the federal government and surprise surprise:

No one is talking about it.

Comments

telesonixseeker.bsky.social•23 days ago

Ok this is scary

radlegaltakes.bsky.social•23 days ago

It’s really not:

chelittle.bsky.social•23 days ago

Try Midas Touch

adamattah.bsky.social•23 days ago

I was also wondering 🤔

janellelowey.bsky.social•23 days ago

Okay @housedemocrats.bsky.social @chrismurphyct.bsky.social @captmarkkelly.bsky.social @gallego.senate.gov @msnbc.com @cnn-news.bsky.social let’s get on it!

cpressey.bsky.social•24 days ago

It is technical and boring. In order to care about it you need to think about the implications. It is much easier to care about that Trump is acting batshit or that Biden was unwell while in office or whatever. The stuff of wonks does not excite no matter how critical it may be

simplyonly.bsky.social•23 days ago

Check out Marc Elias from https://DemocracyDocket.com

@marcelias.bsky.social

luvpits.bsky.social•23 days ago

I know...why?? Of this is allowed nothing else matters

radlegaltakes.bsky.social•23 days ago

It’s just the GOP pouting, and thankfully has the same legal effect:

spicyorchid.bsky.social•23 days ago

Politicians are only focusing on the Medicaid cuts. Insane to me because they're trying to make ANY criticism of this administration a "crime." They plan on circumventing the law and militarizing the police force to use against us. Dictator playbook in the works.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/strengthening-and-unleashing-americas-law-enforcement-to-pursue-criminals-and-protect-innocent-citizens/

endmalcompetence.bsky.social•23 days ago

That picture is misinformation, If there was something in the bill for "canceling elections", we would absolutely be talking about it already and somebody would be able to point to the actual text that matters.

dizzygirl.bsky.social•23 days ago

Nobody is talking about the part that neuters the judicial branch. 🤷‍♀️

spicyorchid.bsky.social•23 days ago

They already violate the laws -- courts say "no"....and then nothing. And the GOP is committing "political suicide" - nobody curious as to why? Even with cut delays people will still know who passed the bill. They don't care because the plan is to stop voting or rig elections.

dizzygirl.bsky.social•23 days ago

Yeah. I don't know how people are just walking around like it's all just normal.

I have constant anxiety but there's nothing I can do to stop it.

spicyorchid.bsky.social•23 days ago

In all honesty, his first term was a blur for me. I was deep in the throes of postpartum so I tell myself people are so deep in their own s**t, they're oblivious. Doesn't help "news" sources are serving as propaganda machines.

endmalcompetence.bsky.social•23 days ago

Not as common as the overt funding/tax changes, but out there, ex:

https://bsky.app/profile/nytimes.com/post/3lpug4gebus2n

askbillmitchell.bsky.social•23 days ago

Its not the bill itself could cancel elections, its that the bill would allow for the canceling of elections, since all the courts can do is issue an injunction which this bill would allow the administration to "ignore". It would never reach the SCOTUS, because the admin wouldn't appeal the ruling.

spicyorchid.bsky.social•23 days ago

Yes, I'm not sure why people aren't connecting the dots. The only "wins" we've been able to count have been because of said injunctions and at least the possibility of a resulting contempt conviction. Once you remove that possibility, it's all just another sternly worded letter.

endmalcompetence.bsky.social•23 days ago

> Yes, I'm not sure why people aren't connecting the dots.

Perhaps because elections are run by states, not the federal government?

spicyorchid.bsky.social•23 days ago

And even after he said Musk "knows those computers better than anybody, all those computers, those vote counting computers." They're using teams to intimidate voters, screwing with legislative maps, this SAVE Act BS, etc. Setting a million fires at once so it's impossible to focus on everything.

radlegaltakes.bsky.social•23 days ago

On multiple grounds the courts could and would simply ignore this provision if it’s enacted.

frankenpaper.bsky.social•22 days ago

Only a traitor would support this bill.

pj47596176.bsky.social•24 days ago

Where did you look? My algorithm is ripping on in.

askbillmitchell.bsky.social•24 days ago

YouTube search -- pulled up like one independent source buried beneath legacy sources who just talked about the cuts to Medicaid and SNAP but nothing on the injunction (not injection) clause; which I feel is the far more important part of the bill.

I have a theory, "a million" theories in fact.

pj47596176.bsky.social•24 days ago

I had a very quick look not on my account and I think I saw what you did.

dizzygirl.bsky.social•23 days ago

They want to distract and scare people with the medicaid cuts.

Make a big scene arguing about that so, that insidious, democracy destroying part that shouldn't even *be* in a budget, just slips on by.

Apparently, the dems don't mind the destruction of our democracy or they'd be screaming about it.

radlegaltakes.bsky.social•23 days ago

They’re not screaming about it because it’s substantively meaningless:

dizzygirl.bsky.social•22 days ago

If it's meaningless, why was it slipped in there?

If you haven't noticed, trump and the gutless maga gop aren't playing by the rules.

I imagine all it would take is a challenge to this getting to our crooked scotus.

Women didn't think roe would be overturned. Look where we are. Listen to us.

radlegaltakes.bsky.social•22 days ago

It’s a vapid “threat” and a way to show the MAGA faithful that the GOP is “doing something about these damn liberal judges!” Never mind that almost half of the anti-Trump injunctions were issued or affirmed by republican-appointed judges…

It’s just political theater—same as always.

pgonz.bsky.social•23 days ago

Of course not. Where are the democrats?

jennifernash.bsky.social•23 days ago

@hcrichardson.bsky.social may have discussed it. I can't remember. Too many subjects these days.

thegrayghost5.bsky.social•23 days ago

Yippers. That's exactly what the GOP wants. That is why they seem this kind of shit into large Bills. They hide it. This Bill is supposed to ONLY have issues about spending money and Taxing. That's it! Nothing else. The Senate is supposed to cull all the Bullshit out before the vote on this Bill👽

nana8042.bsky.social•23 days ago

Go to Substack

sigviking.bsky.social•23 days ago

Downright scary because that is enormously important.
Why is it being ignored? Is MSM trying to avoid Trump’s wrath?

radlegaltakes.bsky.social•23 days ago

Probably because it really wouldn’t change anything.

misbruiker.bsky.social•23 days ago

That's exactly what Trump wants. He doesn't want the general public to be aware, that he's attempting to include verbiage, that basically allows him to do anything, legal or otherwise.

radlegaltakes.bsky.social•23 days ago

While we certainly should not ignore this provision, the good news is that it would be both substantively and procedurally unenforceable:

cheese551.bsky.social•23 days ago

There a few who are talking about it. @kylekulinskishow.bsky.social @lukepbeasley.bsky.social @davidpakman.bsky.social

rondaiss.bsky.social•23 days ago

Clearly the 4th Estate is shirking it’s duty. WTF?

coolhandglen.bsky.social•23 days ago

The 4th estate had its wheel fall off and it ran into a ditch years ago.

rondaiss.bsky.social•23 days ago

For the most part I agree, but I wonder if the AP feels especially vulnerable to Trump’s intimidation; after all, weren’t they kicked out of the WH briefing room and off of Air Force One? Consider Trump’s suit of CBS for their KH interview.

franram.bsky.social•23 days ago

We need an app or website that explains the Bills as written. That would show the clear differences on why they get rejected from the other side.

goldwingtuck.bsky.social•23 days ago

I hope Belle of the Ranch will post a video on the topic. But, yeah, it's mostly crickets.

sanasp.bsky.social•23 days ago

I am screaming it!

radlegaltakes.bsky.social•23 days ago

It’s worthy of discussion for sure, but would be totally impotent if enacted:

bellatv55.bsky.social•23 days ago

FIGHT BACK WITH FREE CLASSES AT HARVARD, ONLINE

bellatv55.bsky.social•23 days ago

they don't know what that even means. We have to be smarter.
FREE CLASSES IN GOVERNMENT AND POLICIES
https://www.harvardonline.harvard.edu/course/us-government

gratitude333.bsky.social•24 days ago

Damn

downwith.bsky.social•24 days ago

I don't understand why I haven't heard it on the news. I haven't seen any politicians calling it out either. If they have, please correct me here. Because the whole apparatus keeping quiet about something this serious makes me wonder if they don't mind it that much.

radlegaltakes.bsky.social•23 days ago

Your last sentence seems accurate—it’s really just a symbolic act of impotent congressional pouting:

downwith.bsky.social•23 days ago

Your thoughts expanded my view of the possibilities here. I hadn't considered the judges setting a nominal amount. Can they do that, considering the purpose of the existing policy is to set aside an amount that would cover losses incurred due to an injunction?

radlegaltakes.bsky.social•23 days ago

"The court may issue a preliminary injunction ... only if the movant gives security *in an amount that the court considers proper*..." Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c) (emph. added).

Only SCOTUS has the power to change the Fed. R. Civ. P., unless Congress repeals The Rules Enabling Act, which won't happen.

askbillmitchell.bsky.social•23 days ago

It's either a) the threats of FCC license forfeitures or b) they think the section will be tossed out via the Byrd Rule, but the way its worded the section could withstand a Byrd challenge.

davidbrentwood.bsky.social•23 days ago

The FCC doesn't license the general media, so that rules out reason A.

radlegaltakes.bsky.social•23 days ago

It: (1) is unconstitutional, because it infringes on the judiciary’s sole authority to create, interpret, and apply its rules of procedure; and (2) could be essentially ignored by courts through ordering a nominal security amount—say, $1.

But yeah—people still should be talking about this more.

bevw319.bsky.social•23 days ago

Legal AF and Brian Taylor Cohen are speaking about it. The major news outlets need to start talking about it.

minutello1.bsky.social•23 days ago

Yeah, I just don't get it! That's what everyone who loves Democracy should be talking about!

brooklyngal-ny.bsky.social•23 days ago

blueeyes52.bsky.social•23 days ago

😢

bigruckus8.bsky.social•23 days ago

We’re just going to waste time deciding but it won’t matter. It’s like a judicial over ride.

macksteele.bsky.social•23 days ago

Of course not
40% of America is too busy playing with their toys.

jeffrybazooka.bsky.social•23 days ago

I had to try different searches.
I didn't get any good hits until I started using keywords like "kill democracy".
If I just searched for what's in budget bill, then I just got fluff.
They are talking about it, on popular channels.

pat120.bsky.social•21 days ago

I don't understand this at all!!! I get the failure of the legacy press--par for the course--but what about everyone else??

pamballard3.bsky.social•23 days ago

So DEM leaders you need to get on YouTube, let's hope the podcasts and news media start talking about it everyday. The media needs to go through the bill point by point. Every program on MSNBC/CNN and others need to take turns on each section of the bill. Americans need to know what the GOP plans

blewisbabs.bsky.social•23 days ago

would people taking about be helpful, he does so much bs, it's minute to minute, even the news on you tube has become little more the clip bait

bowreader.bsky.social•23 days ago

I found Marc Elias and BTC discussing this.
https://youtu.be/OXhIvJIdKIo?si=fj0jtt4Q-Q3QNXCE

cybskysocial.bsky.social•23 days ago

There are many things in that bill .

dweebessm.bsky.social•23 days ago

Right! I don't understand how it's not a hair on fire topic. Yes, yes, the cuts are horrible, but damn we are hanging on by a judicial thread already.

radlegaltakes.bsky.social•23 days ago

Because the people who should know, do know, that this provision is purely symbolic and wouldn’t change a thing:

dweebessm.bsky.social•22 days ago

I have zero faith the "symbolic" will be interpretted as "symbolic" by the supreme court.

radlegaltakes.bsky.social•22 days ago

I get a much different read from SCOTUS these days. I think Trump only has two allies left on the Court, and only one of them can get through writing an opinion without having several mini-strokes.

666therealsatan666.bsky.social•23 days ago

No one is talking about the insanely disgusting "Big Beautiful (tax) Bill" either.....

We have lost the battle AND the war.

framplings.bsky.social•23 days ago

@meidastouch.com sure does!

neil-1936.bsky.social•23 days ago

It’s all over BlueSky!

patriotgames2025.bsky.social•23 days ago

I don't believe that Congress can pass a law that prevents another branch of government from fulfilling their constitutional obligations.....

radlegaltakes.bsky.social•23 days ago

That’s why it’s not the main topic of every discussion:

morganfall.bsky.social•23 days ago

That might actually be a bit sticky. Constitutional review by the judiciary isn't established in the Constitution. It is established in Marbury v Madison.

radlegaltakes.bsky.social•23 days ago

It’s established under the Constitution because Marbury v. Madison correctly *recognized* that it is, not because Marbury *created* it.

The Constitution doesn’t expressly recognize a 4th Amendment right applicable to automobiles, but the right still exists.

morganfall.bsky.social•23 days ago

Fair point. I also agree that it would be a cold day in hell before the court will recognize any of the limiters on their authority in the "big beautiful bill" then the executive will undoubtedly step in and we will have constitutional crisis #374 of 2025.

radlegaltakes.bsky.social•22 days ago

I think the overwhelming majority of Americans—including a sizeable proportion of MAGA—would draw the line at Trump openly trying to destroy the judiciary. And if I'm wrong, then America deserves to fail.

morganfall.bsky.social•22 days ago

I think they would draw a line but will it affect anything? Republican lawmakers are astonishingly disconnected from their constituents. However before I left X last fall had an extensive convo with a MAGA retired SOF, him and his group drew the line at martial law. So who knows?

patriotgames2025.bsky.social•23 days ago

The courts interpret the law. That is their purpose as the third and equal branch of government. They have determined that the Trump administration is in violation of the law.
Without the ability to impose contempt charges, their interpretation means nothing because it cannot be enforced....

morganfall.bsky.social•23 days ago

All those things are true of course! However, the sole provision in the Constitution referring to the Supreme Court mentions nothing about Judicial Review. That is why I said that provision is sticky.

radlegaltakes.bsky.social•23 days ago

Maybe if we weren’t 222 years out from Marbury then you’d have a point, but then there’s still the whole matter of SCOTUS first having to abdicate this power of review before Marbury would be dead law and this would literally never happen.

morganfall.bsky.social•23 days ago

I know. It just seems like an argument that would be made. Thomas and Alito would probably be on board with most of it.

estj99.bsky.social•23 days ago

Can they really legislate over the Judicial Branch in the Budget?

kelvin1.bsky.social•24 days ago

This comes as not too much of a surprise for me since I'm seeing right bent content more and more lately.

linde-bleu.bsky.social•23 days ago

I wrote to my senators about that in particular.

worried80.bsky.social•23 days ago

The Daily Beast has an article but I can’t access be no subscription.

dizzygirl.bsky.social•23 days ago

Try this.

http://archive.today/

janet24.bsky.social•23 days ago

Yes. I am not even seeing very much on here. That point needs to be bolded and shared by everyone. It’s the most important, there’s no going back after that kicks in🤬

radlegaltakes.bsky.social•23 days ago

It’s symbolic, tantamount to congressional pouting, and—most importantly—substantively impotent.

But yes, it still should be discussed a lot more than it’s presently being discussed.

janet24.bsky.social•23 days ago

My fear is that’s they are disregarding judgements already, even without anything in writing.
But I’m banking on you to be right. 😬🤞

radlegaltakes.bsky.social•23 days ago

The fact that they've been unwilling to directly, publicly, and unambiguously disregard a court order, tells me everything I need to know, at least at this stage.

They'll keep pushing as much as they can, but at some point people are going to jail for contempt. That's when we learn America's fate.

henrischuyers17.bsky.social•23 days ago

They better

kmishkin.bsky.social•23 days ago

WTF?

michelle-drake.bsky.social•23 days ago

Elizabeth Cronise McLaughlin is talking about it:
#ECM

https://m.youtube.com/results?sp=mAEA&search_query=elizabeth+cronise+mclaughlin+resistance+live

Otherwise, I agree. Not enough noise 🗣️

nellonearth.bsky.social•23 days ago

Me 🙋‍♀️. Been typing and reposting since this morning.

wizards-lady.bsky.social•23 days ago

Or is it being suppressed?

askbillmitchell.bsky.social•23 days ago

A $1m donation would explain it.

altadenamom.bsky.social•23 days ago

Can you please post this again about the injunction provision and ask folks to tag their fave news outlets ???

donna6226.bsky.social•23 days ago

time for you to make a video

ghostofmarktwain.bsky.social•20 days ago

Elon Musk has publicly criticized Donald Trump’s new spending bill, expressing disappointment that it would add $3.8 trillion to the federal deficit.

MAGA got conned...again...and when they see most of the benefits going to the 1% they will just ignore it...again...

elle1.bsky.social•23 days ago

The MAGA majority of the Supremes appear to have abdicated their oaths of office. Perhaps they’re willing participants of Project 2025 & efforts to destroy our republic & our representative form of government.

knittwist.bsky.social•23 days ago

@thebulwark.com has at least one piece on the injunction/contempt part of the bill.

I didn't see any on injection outside of the normal anti/pro vaccine stuff

thinkbeyondpolitic.bsky.social•24 days ago

They were too busy filming reaction videos and trending nonsense. Meanwhile, the backbone of democracy gets slashed. 😳🤦

spageaux.bsky.social•23 days ago

We are screwed. Even if people were talking about it, no one in the Senate is going to do anything about it. There are dozens of horrible provisions in the big bogus Bonanza bill!

radlegaltakes.bsky.social•23 days ago

We definitely should be talking more about this, but there’s nothing to actually worry about:

kconthespot.bsky.social•23 days ago

Big Bag of Bullshit Bill.

jimar75.bsky.social•23 days ago

Criminal failure of the Democratic party for not funding commercials that hammer home this assault on the constitution.
How can Americans be outraged if you don't expose the truth?
What the fuck are you guys doing?????

seanv00.bsky.social•23 days ago

Not sure that will survive, even if it does... I'm pretty sure the courts would rule it unconstitutional.

coolhandglen.bsky.social•23 days ago

What is the constitutional basis that a single judge in a single jurisdiction can injoin and entire country? I mean, a Supreme Court decision covers the country, but a single judge?

radlegaltakes.bsky.social•23 days ago

Do you think a law can be unconstitutional in one district or circuit but not in all the others? The probability of success on the merits and the risk of irreparable harm absent equitable relief are two factors federal courts *must* consider before issuing an injunction—nationwide or otherwise.

coolhandglen.bsky.social•22 days ago

I think that a judge should only have authority over his jurisdiction. Imagine if we take the WH back in 29. Should one MAGA judge have the raw power to issue 100 injunctions, nationwide, against everything the new admin does?

radlegaltakes.bsky.social•22 days ago

Yes, if the law is on point, which is a judge’s-and-no one-else’s decision to make.

Are you saying that the law isn’t on point with these anti-Trump injunctions, because if you are I have to 99% disagree with you.

Otherwise, what actual argument could you possibly offer against NI’s?

coolhandglen.bsky.social•22 days ago

This issue is in your answer. Let's guess that there are 200 federal judges, maybe 199 believe an action is constitutional, but 1 doesn't. Activist lawyers (of both parties) know who is on their side, why should that one judge get to shut down a president in all 50 states?

seanv00.bsky.social•23 days ago

what's the constitutional basis for most of the shit going on in this country?

radlegaltakes.bsky.social•23 days ago

It’s purely symbolic and tantamount to congressional pouting:

chipnyman.bsky.social•23 days ago

Please explain "injection provision" in terms of citing language in the bill. Keep it factual, keep it accurate, please.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply