ziggy58.bsky.social
724 posts
73 followers
115 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Yes if Section 70302 gets passed. It would allow Trump to write bigger and more extreme EOs,without fear of enforcement of injunctions. He will bog enforcement down in appeals on bond amounts (not merits) whatever they are. Nominal bonds no good. Disasterous enabling measure.
comment in response to
post
He wants to divert attention from that big ugly bill and the non budget attempts at power grabs by the GOP sec 70302, sec 43201 (c) and sec 80121 (h). And the hugely unpopular tax cuts for the rich.
comment in response to
post
Trump will be 100 times worse if Section 70302 gets passed.It would allow him to write bigger and more extreme EOs,without fear of enforcement of injunctions. He will bog enforcement down in appeals on bond amounts (not merits) whatever they are(nominal bonds no good). Disasterous enabling measure.
comment in response to
post
This is true, Section 70302 would be a disaster, allowing Trump to write bigger and more extreme EOs, without fear of enforcement for contempt of injunctions, because he can bog this down in appeals on bond amount. Nominal bonds will be no good.
comment in response to
post
This is true. Section 70302 would allow Trump to write bigger, more extreme executive orders,with injunctions that cannot be enforced, because this will get bogged down in appeals on bond amount, not EO legitimacy. Nominal bonds would be impossible. This gives Trump a massive tool to misuse power.
comment in response to
post
This is true, but the biggest threat is Section 70302. It would allow Trump to write bigger, more extreme executive orders, with injunctions that cannot be enforced, because this will get bogged down in appeals on bond amount, not EO legitimacy. This gives Trump a massive tool to misuse power.
comment in response to
post
not only no security, but no security (ie bond) that only follows FRCP Rule 65(c). It also stop s nominal bonds.
comment in response to
post
Here is a good explanation of this provision and it's ramifications:
www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ana...
comment in response to
post
Yes this is true, nominal bonds are not a fix for Section 70302 as even some activists claim.
comment in response to
post
I just emailed both my senators about this telling them to remove that provision (SEC. 70302. RESTRICTION ON ENFORCEMENT.) and not to vote on any bill that has a similar provision.
While there is much that is heinous in the bill, this provision will give trump legal cover to act with impunity.
comment in response to
post
please say what do you mean by not address a problem we don't see?
comment in response to
post
Yes, SEC 70302 means zero or nominal bonds for enforceable injunctions are out in all cases, exisiting or new, unless the applicant can afford an astronomical bond. This is a license to create autocracy by executive order. Lot of confusion on this, even among some lawyers!!
comment in response to
post
Yes, SEC 70302 means zero or nominal bonds for enforceable injunctions are out in all cases, exisiting or new, unless the applicant can afford an astronomical bond. This is a license to create autocracy by executive order. Lot of confusion on this, even among some lawyers!
comment in response to
post
Yes, SEC 70302 means zero or nominal bonds for enforceable injunctions are out in all cases, exisiting or new, unless the applicant can afford an astronomical bond. This is a license to create autocracy by executive order. Lot of confusion on this, even among some lawyers!
comment in response to
post
Yes true. It also blocks judges from re-issuing enforceable bonds (or issuing new ones) without unaffordable bond amounts that have to follow FRCP Rule 65(c) to the letter, and so are unobtainable. Section 70302 is a license to write autocracy making executive orders.
comment in response to
post
Sec 70302 is a Power grab non budget item for project 2025. It blocks courts from enforcing contempt charges against government officials, unless a judge required a monetary bond when issuing the original injunction.
comment in response to
post
Well said ! Cheap prejudices are not going to give the unity needed to defeat Trump. I know military people have a wide range of political opinions. Pray someone is planning on June 14th to peacefully stop the parade to celebrate the defense of US democracy,in protest at autocrat Trump hijacking it.
comment in response to
post
As a 34-year Army vet and lifelong registered republican who voted against trump in 2016, 2020, and 2024, I deeply resent this sort of sweeping condemnation of veterans. Whether you realize it or not, you are alienating a lot of people who are on your own team.
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
Was Section 70302 - meaning Trump can ignore court injunctions against extreme executive orders - a campaign pledge?
comment in response to
post
find a way to peacefully stop the parade.
comment in response to
post
Yes they are. Sec 70302 looks like an enabling act to underpin a lot more ever more extreme injunctions. Watch out for how executive orders target election law, and Trump's phoney obession with fantasy anti-MAGA election corruption.
comment in response to
post
Let’s not forget Sec. 70302 that allows government officials to ignore court orders, or Sec. 43201(c) that gives a 10 year moratorium on enforcement of AI laws. It will allow legislators to not be held accountable and provide fake information!!
comment in response to
post
Yes Sec 70302 would enable Trump to issue ever more extreme executive orders, without fear of enforcement of injunctions against them, since it would end zero or nominal bonds. Much confusion among some lawyers and many legislators & activists on this.
comment in response to
post
Finally, somebody talking about it 70302 is Trumps path to dictatorship
comment in response to
post
True 101%
comment in response to
post
HB1 70302 is what people should be talking about. I suggest everybody go and find the bill online. It’s on page, 541. In a nutshell,it means the White House doesn’t have to listen to court orders against it. this needs to be removed call or email all your representatives.
comment in response to
post
Contact your Senators here to tell them to call out and strike out Section 70302 with the Byrd Rule!
5calls.org/issue/court-...
comment in response to
post
true 100%
comment in response to
post
Musk would be in favor of it than Trmp.
comment in response to
post
There is much confusion about what Sec 70302 means even with some lawyers and many anti-Trump activists. It means that enforceable injunctions will require unaffordable bonds, waiving and nominal bonds will be unenforceable. The result is ever more extreme executive orders leading to autocracy.
comment in response to
post
I agree!!! The story is HB1 sec 70302 page 541. Go read it, and then call your congressman and tell them it needs to be removed. I’ve been call my congressman everyday!!