Senate Parliamentarian Won’t Let Republicans Carry Water For Trump Judiciary Defiance

The republicans of the Congress have sought ways to codify some of the various efforts of the Trump administration to bring a hammer to separate the powers and challenge the judiciary since the courts began to block some of its most dubious and gifted executive actions.

The efforts of the legislators have taken several different forms. Earlier this year, representative Jim Jordan (R-OH) sent a letter to the Credit Committee of the Chamber asking the panel to consider, essentially, to cut funds to certain federal judges who govern the Trump administration, or to temporarily block policies by issuing national injunctions.

“We have obtained money, expenses, the appropriation process to help try to resolve part of this,” Jordan told journalists in March, after recognizing that he had spoken with the appropriars of the GOP of “legislative appeals” to respond to the courts verifying Trump policies.

An extract from his letter of March 31 to the Committee, which had just started the manufacturing work of Bipartisan financing bills that Congress will have to adopt to finance the government once the CR will be exhausted in September:

We respect the credit committee respectfully to consider including the language in the next financing law to combat the abusive use of national injunctions while ensuring that the federal judicial power can continue to operate effectively and in a responsible manner with regard to its growing civil and criminal docks. In particular, we urge you to consider a language prohibiting the use of dollars of taxpayers and federal resources to issue or apply these excessive injunctions beyond the specific parties before a court issuing in a particular case. In addition, we ask you to consider including a language to limit the appropriate funds linked to the emission and application of national injunctions, in particular by using legal resources to force compliance, impose fines or carry out outrage procedures linked to such injunctions.

It was only one of the many actions taken by the legislators who triggered alarm ringtses in the first months of Trump’s second term, in particular following an attack on executive actions and freezing without law on federal expenses by DOGE. At the time, the House Republicans also thought about hearings on the advisability of dismissing the American district judge James Boasberg for his efforts to verify the Trump administration on his unprecedented regular procedure violations.

In mid-April, the House Republicans also adopted a bill advanced by the representative Darrel Issa (R-CA) intended to set limits to certain judges to issue injunctions nationwide, although it was not taken up by the Senate.

Elements of this effort to help Trump to go after the judiciary made its way in the reconciliation package that the Senate should soon present a vote. But yesterday, the Senate parliamentarian ruled against some of the provisions of the Chamber and the Republicans of the Senate attempt to travel their “major bill”. Here is a description of the specificities, according to the New York Times:

The measure would target preliminary injunctions and temporary prohibition orders issued by federal judges on Mr. Trump’s directives. These decisions have interrupted or delayed the orders of a multitude of policies, including efforts to make mass layoffs of federal workers and retain funds from states that do not comply with the requests for the application of immigration.

The GOP’s proposal would oblige the parties to pursue federal policies to publish a deposit covering the government’s costs and potential damage to an injunction if the judge’s ordinance had been deemed subsequent.

The Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth Macdonough, who is responsible for determining if there are aspects of the legislation that violate the rules of the Senate for reconciliation (which means that the bill can be adopted with only 50 votes instead of 60), judged on Sunday that this specific provision on judicial financing does not meet the requirements.

“The Republicans of the Senate tried to write Donald Trump’s contempt for law courts – exhausting the judicial application, challenging the Constitution and Bulldozer the law of law even which constitutes our democracy,” said the head of the Senate minority, Chuck Schumer, in a statement. “It was nothing less than an assault against the system of checks and sales that anchored this nation since its foundation.”

The White House thinks he found a way to get around

Since the friends of the technological world of Elon Musk and the friends of the Russ Vought 2025 project storm the executive branch and began to reduce the financing of the government programs Willy Nilly, a question took advantage of their business: how will he move the power of the camaraderie of Nixon (ICA) and other statutes that give the power to add the power to add the power to add the power to add the expenses governmental.

Last month, the White House launched a test ball – it sent a set of attractions that contained a small part of the Doge cuts to Aid Foreign, also throwing NPR and PBS funding. In theory, the congress controlled by the Republicans would count this bill on cancellations and would do the work of DOGE in these constitutionally solid fields. In practice, the package was faced with friction in the room and collided more in the Senate. It is limited, and if the Senate does not approve of it within 45 days – by July 18 – the White House will have to start again with a new termination package.

Except, and if that was not the case? Vought and his friends present their Deus es Machina: pocket rackets. Here is how the center based on Vought for Renewing America describes the maneuver:

An “pocket” cancellation is a standard termination, similar to the process described above, which occurs when the president sends his cancellation message to the congress with less than forty-five days to the financial year (which ends on September 30), then chooses to retain or suspend the obligations in the message. Above all, in this case, the exercise ends before the statutory period of forty-five days so that the executive power to retain the obligations expires. Consequently, any budgetary authority for the funds that expire at the end of the financial year within the framework of the termination is automatically deviated.

In essence, this is a way, these conservatives claim that the president announces cuts – potentially swelling cuts! – in the days following the end of the exercise, and that these cuts make the law revive. But the plan is, in the words of the New York Times, “legally not tested”. The Government Accountability Office, a guard dog within the legislative management, put it more precisely in 2018, clearly declaring that the law on the control of deduction “does not allow the restraint of funds through their expiration date”. In fact, nothing in our governance system suggests that such a maneuver is feasible, the Gao continued:

The statutory text and the legislative history of the ICA, the supreme case law and the global constitutional framework of the legislative and executive powers do not provide any basis for interpreting ICA as a mechanism by which the president can unilaterally shorten the promulgated period of availability of a fixed edecality.

The Trump administration was not shy as to its eagerness to put these problems in front of the very conservative Supreme Court today, and we are trying to head there – perhaps by pocket cleaner.

– John Light

Sean Hannity helps Trump to spread Iran Disinfo

Wired has a new story today about the disinformation that Trump propagates, withdrawn from social media accounts that are to share real information from its own military officials. And Fox News host Sean Hannity helps her do so.

Wired: Donald Trump and Sean Hannity sparked a wave of disinformation after the bombing of Iran

But rather than relying on the information of his own intelligence agencies, satellite images or field reports, Trump posted on Truth Social on a screen capture of an anonymous account which claims to conduct investigations on open source intelligence.

“Fordow is gone,” wrote the account, which lists the website of a Zionist clothing company in its biography, providing no other information. Trump followed by saying at a press conference that Fordow had been “completely and completely erased”.

In case you missed it

Scotus removes regular procedural requirements on the deporations of third countries

Marjorie Taylor Greene explodes Fox News and Iran War Hawks: “The whole world will break out”

A Schism Maga on Iran? Not so fast.

The most read story of yesterday

Some reflections on Trump’s bombing raid

What we read

3 ways in which Americans could pay Trump’s war with Iran

Murkowski suggests that she could become independent in the right circumstances

New York mayor’s survey: Mamdani catches Cuomo in the choice of rank