Senate parliamentarian backs Democrats in regard to federal judges and other key items in big House bill

[Valletta]

The parliamentarian's ruling means that under Senate rules, the provision is subject to the 60-vote threshold. Republicans can still try to add it in, but they have 53 seats and Democrats have enough votes to block it.
A spokesperson for Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, slammed Democrats for challenging the provision, saying it shows they are clinging to an "open borders" mindset, referring to the judges who have blocked parts of Trump's immigration and deportation policies.

Republican attempt to rein in federal judges is stripped from Trump's big bill

The provision was aimed at curbing nationwide injunctions imposed by judges that have blocked some high-profile Trump administration policies.

www.nbcnews.com

Time to eliminate the position of parliamentarian. It's not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.

 

[Bradskii]

Time to eliminate the position of parliamentarian. It's not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.

What is mentioned is the separation of powers. Which is what you are actually complaining about. You either work with the constitution or you ignore it and trample it underfoot. The extraordinary number of judicial decisions going against this administration shows that Trump has gone for Option B.

Feel free to complain all you like about politically biased judiciary. Depending on my mood I either find those 'arguments' frustrating or humorously risible. I'm going Option B at the moment as well.

 

[Valletta]

What is mentioned is the separation of powers. Which is what you are actually complaining about. You either work with the constitution or you ignore it and trample it underfoot. The extraordinary number of judicial decisions going against this administration shows that Trump has gone for Option B.

It shows nothing of the kind. What we have seen are liberal justices who are unhappy activists, angry that Trump won, and who put their own interests ahead of our laws and our Constitution.

 

[Bradskii]

It shows nothing of the kind. What we have seen are liberal justices who are unhappy activists, angry that Trump won, and who put their own interests ahead of our laws and our Constitution.

So you went for the humorously risible as well. Thanks a lot.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

What is mentioned is the separation of powers. Which is what you are actually complaining about. You either work with the constitution or you ignore it and trample it underfoot. The extraordinary number of judicial decisions going against this administration shows that Trump has gone for Option B.

Feel free to complain all you like about politically biased judiciary. Depending on my mood I either find those 'arguments' frustrating or humorously risible. I'm going Option B at the moment as well.

Separation of power is unrelated to Senate rules. Senate rules are simply procedural, not constitutional.

Both sides express dissatisfaction with these rules, yet neither is willing to abolish them. They prefer to hide behind these procedural regulations and place the blame on the opposition. In the previous term, Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema challenged Democrats with procedural hurdles, preventing certain liberal agendas from advancing. Although many Democrats advocated for the removal of these rules, Senator Chuck Schumer chose to maintain the status quo.

The start of each new season allows the Senate leader to remove these rules. However, both GOP and Democrat senators maintain them to avoid making difficult decisions.

The majority of Americans want these rules abolished, but only when their party is in the majority. When their party is in the minority, they appreciate these procedures.

 

[Pommer]

Time to eliminate the position of parliamentarian. It's not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.

Can’t win by the rules, eliminate the referee?
How about “no!” ?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

The parliamentarian's ruling means that under Senate rules, the provision is subject to the 60-vote threshold. Republicans can still try to add it in, but they have 53 seats and Democrats have enough votes to block it.
A spokesperson for Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, slammed Democrats for challenging the provision, saying it shows they are clinging to an "open borders" mindset, referring to the judges who have blocked parts of Trump's immigration and deportation policies.

Republican attempt to rein in federal judges is stripped from Trump's big bill

The provision was aimed at curbing nationwide injunctions imposed by judges that have blocked some high-profile Trump administration policies.

www.nbcnews.com

Time to eliminate the position of parliamentarian. It's not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.

Open borders?? This ruling by the Parliamentarian is a huge win for our constitution. Severely weakening the judicial branch in order to advance lawlessness is a morally repugnant move from this administration. Thank God they caught it! It was buried deep in this bill by unscrupulous individuals.

Details:
In summary, the core argument is that by restricting the enforcement mechanism of contempt, especially in cases where bonds are not typically required, Section 70302 could severely weaken the judiciary's ability to ensure compliance with its orders, thus effectively circumventing its power and potentially insulating certain actors (particularly in government) from legal accountability.

 

[essentialsaltes]

It is not 'backing Democrats' to say that approving offshore oil and gas projects or limiting judicial powers are not budget issues.

 

[Bradskii]

Separation of power is unrelated to Senate rules. Senate rules are simply procedural, not constitutional.

I appreciate that. But the complaint being made was that the judicial is dictating what can and cannot be done. Under the constitution.