seen from United States
seen from Spain
seen from Spain
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from India
seen from T1
seen from T1
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Serbia
seen from Switzerland
seen from Greece
seen from Romania
seen from United States
seen from Luxembourg
seen from France
seen from T1
seen from China
seen from China
Until the Parliamentarian takes it down of her own volition or by being informed by Senate Dems, Section 70302/Section 203 in the spending bill is still a threat in the current Spending Bill.
I know about what’s going on in Iran but I will remain focused on this threat to courts.
Contact your Senators and have them call out Section 203!
Updates June 13, 2025: The Senate Judiciary committee has removed the House bill’s contempt of court provision from their proposed version o
Now that’s nice.
So the GOP are apparently redoing the House Text of the Spending Bill:
House Republicans need to make sure their package passes muster with the Senate rules.
House to make fixes to GOP megabill to avoid ‘fatal’ ruling with Senate parliamentarian
House Republicans need to make sure their package passes muster with the Senate rules.
From post:
House Republicans will try to fix issues with their megabill in the Rules Committee this week based on provisions the Senate parliamentarian has identified as non-compliant with the chamber’s rules, according to five people with direct knowledge of the plans.
Republicans need to send their massive tax and spending package to the Senate to make its own changes. But without making certain revisions to the House-passed bill first, it could run afoul of the chamber’s parliamentarian.
In the words of one senior House GOP aide, granted anonymity to speak candidly, certain House-approved provisions could prove “fatal” to the bill’s ability to comply with the rules surrounding the filibuster-skirting budget reconciliation process, which Republicans are relying upon to pass their domestic policy measure without Democratic votes.
House GOP leaders are currently working through the bill text and will either strike small pieces of the legislation or drop certain sections altogether.
One provision the parliamentarian has raised concerns about is a clearinghouse to crack down on duplicative food aid, Medicaid and other safety net benefits, according to two other people aware of the emerging plan. This issue is currently in limbo between two panel jurisdictions.
Among the many rules Senate Republicans must adhere to in a reconciliation bill is that it can’t include a policy that falls outside the jurisdiction of one of the committees empowered through the budget resolution Republicans approved in April to set parameters for the larger package. It also can’t include a policy that would affect federal spending, when the committee in question was instructed to change revenue.
Lawmakers will work within the House Rules Committee to make these tweaks, according to the people, inserting the new language into an unrelated rule which the panel will adopt Tuesday to govern floor consideration for other legislation.
That tactic would negate the need to have House Republicans vote on the party-line tax and spending package as a standalone measure, when passing the bill the first time around through a razor-thin GOP majority was a painful enough episode for leadership.
The GOP plan to make technical corrections to the megabill inside the Rules Committee was first reported by Punchbowl News.
------
So, it sounds like they’re going back and altering or removing controversial parts of the House text in order to avoid conflict with the Parliamentarian.
I should note that Senate Majority Leader Thune was asked about going against the Parliamentarian in an interview sometime within the past week and responded with “We’re not going there” but time will tell if he keeps his word.
Anyway I hope that Section 70302, (that awful provision targeting courts from issuing contempt if there was no bond paid which also applied retroactively so you can see the issue), is one the things struck out here.
If not I hope it’s taken down by the Senate Judiciary Committee or that the Dems raise a point of contention against it to the Parliamentarian herself.
A reminder that the Spending Bill has nasty provision that limits the power of courts:
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trumps-sweeping-tax-cut-bill-includes-provision-weaken-court-powers-2025-05-30/
Bits from Article:
The sweeping tax-and-spending bill that would enact President Donald Trump's policy agenda includes a provision that critics said would weaken the power of U.S. judges to enforce contempt when the government defies court orders.
The one-sentence provision in the 1,100-page bill prevents federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from enforcing contempt orders unless the plaintiffs have posted a monetary bond, which rarely happens in cases against the government.
"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," the provision says. It applies retroactively.
"Security" refers to monetary bonds that can be used in private litigation when one party seeks to ask a judge to issue an injunction blocking the actions of another party, such as a company trying to prevent a rival from selling a product. If it turns out the injunction is later reversed, the bond helps cover the defendant's losses.
The provision follows a White House memo in March that directed heads of government agencies to request that plaintiffs post a bond if they are seeking an injunction against an agency policy. The Trump administration said the measure would deter frivolous lawsuits.
The Trump administration and the House Judiciary Committee did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Trump has attacked judges who ruled against his government but he has also said he would obey the Supreme Court.
