Big Beautiful Bull

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Tuxan, Jun 13, 2025 at 2:10 PM.

  1. Tuxan

    Tuxan

    684c347b190000b003880cff.jpg

    Hidden inside Trump's so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” is a provision that could quietly shut the courthouse doors to nearly everyone but the rich.

    Section 203 says this:

    No court can issue a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction against the federal government unless the person suing first posts a bond big enough to cover any costs and damages the government claims it might suffer.

    The judge is not allowed to consider anything else. Not fairness. Not urgency. Not harm to the public. Only the government's claimed financial loss.

    That bond could be enormous. Millions. Even billions. If you cannot afford it, you are out of luck. You do not get to stop the government, even temporarily.

    If you think the amount is too high, tough. You can only appeal if the judge made a truly outrageous error. That is a high legal bar.

    This means that unless you have vast resources, you cannot stop a federal agency from bulldozing a sacred site, seizing land, deporting someone unjustly, or silencing dissent.
     
  2. spy

    spy

    No one wants your opinion Tux.

    Edit: You're still highlighting selective pieces and using weasel words. Just because you partially edited your post, it's still opinion. Why don't you highlight the part that says "appealable ... under a an abuse of discretion standard"?

    :p
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2025 at 2:22 PM
  3. Tuxan

    Tuxan

    I'll be able to afford an opinion, you won't.
     
  4. spy

    spy

    That's your opinion too.
    [​IMG]
     
    Mercor likes this.
  5. Tuxan

    Tuxan

    It just loops in your head because it's echoing around an empty space.

    To your edit:

    In U.S. law, if a judge makes a decision (like setting an enormous bond), and you want to appeal it, you can, but under the abuse of discretion standard, you must prove that the judge's decision was not just wrong, but egregiously unreasonable, arbitrary or irrational.

    It’s not enough to say the bond was “too high.”

    You must prove the judge acted wildly outside the bounds of reason.

    Courts are very reluctant to reverse those decisions.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2025 at 2:50 PM
  6. spy

    spy

    So... you're finally seeing the an-cap side of things?
     
  7. Tuxan

    Tuxan

    Handicapped in a Yorkshire accent?
     
  8. notagain

    notagain

    Judicial system is a deep state rubber stamp anyways. Make Lawfare unaffordable.
    If the rules we followed got us here of what use were the rules.
     
  9. spy

    spy

    Ad hominem attack again? I'll mark that as another win for Rothbard and big loss for Tux's idea of selective justice. Thanks!
     
  10. Tuxan

    Tuxan

    FB_IMG_1749751003268.jpg

    You made no argument. It was an insult, shit-for-brains.

    As much as you are a moron @spy, you are gifted compared to Echopulse.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2025 at 3:31 PM