usernamesAreTricky

If the Marshall Service does not enforce contempt, it is possible for the courts to appoint others to enforce for them if they are willing to do so. It would be unprecedented, but well within the bounds of what the law states

The rule begins in section (a) by instructing that, as a general matter, process “must be served by a United States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially appointed for that purpose.”

[...]

Thus, by its plain terms, Rule 4.1 contemplates that the court may appoint individuals other than the marshals to enforce civil contempt orders.

[...]

Even a rogue marshal’s service, in other words, is not an insurmountable obstacle to courts enforcing the rule of law. If courts have the courage, the legal tools are there.

https://www.democracydocket.com/opinion/if-the-marshals-go-rogue-courts-have-other-ways-to-enforce-their-orders/

They aren't just protesting Trump here? I mean the tour itself is called "Fighting Oligarchy" which is about a system

* for press releases and announcements

Headline makes it sound like internal communications, but that's not the case at least currently. Still, we shouldn't rely on third party services for important info - especially one that sometimes requires login to view

I think it's unlikely they will do so directly given their other actions. Senate Majority Leader Thune has been pretty adamant about keeping it even stating he wanted to keep it in his very first speech this year as the new senate majority leader. I think the bigger threat to the filibuster at the moment is Republicans abusing reconciliation beyond what is supposed to be in there. Republicans appear likely to test the waters with bending the rules in the near future. This would be one of those piece by piece kinds of things, so more of a medium-term to longer-term issue

Reconciliation is supposed to be strictly for budget related policies and allows a strict majority vote without going through the filibuster and is only allowed to be used a limited number of times among other restrictions. The senate parliamentarian is the one who is supposed to interprets the senate rules and procedures including what's allowed in reconciliation. One of the requirements the Byrd Rule gives to reconciliation is that the bill passed through the senate it may not add to the deficit overall.

Republicans appear likely to ignore the senate parliamentarian and declare by themselves that extending Trump's 2017 tax cuts for the rich that will expire are "current policy" and not counted in deficit computations. By itself that doesn't sound that interesting, but the reason that's a little concerning is that the senate parliamentarian is also the one who decides if the bills are strictly budget related. For instance, in 2021 the senate parliamentarian was the one who frustratingly ruled that a minimum wage increase to $15/hr couldn't be included via reconciliation. If ignoring the senate parliamentarian becomes the norm, they could stuff non-budget thing into these massive reconciliation spending packages without anyone to say no

(It's also possible the Senate parliamentarian rules in their favor and they don't override what they say)

it

Before we preemptively doom about it, it also needs to pass the senate filibuster meaning 7 senate dems need to vote in favor. Call your senators and tell them to vote against it

The bill appears to face long odds in the Senate, where it would need 60 votes to overcome an expected Democratic filibuster.

[...]

“I am leading the fight in the Senate to push back against this effort to disrupt our already safe and secure elections. This bill cannot pass the Senate — and I will fight every step of the way to block it,” Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said in a statement.

[...]

Last year, the House passed a similar bill but it stalled in the Senate and then-President Joe Biden vowed to veto it

Passed the house not the senate. The filibuster in the senate is the main hurdle for the bill. That's what requires 60 votes meaning it'd take at least 7 votes from dems

Dems have shot plenty of things down this term via the filibuster though the CR was a notable horrible exception. For instance, they successfully filibustered an anti-trans legislation earlier in march. There is no threat of a shutdown here if they don't let this bill get through. It's a tall order for it to get through. Still call your senator and tell them to vote against cloture for it

Full quote of what he said was

"We are all Canadians, but we all have different identities and distinctions, and one of the great strengths of this country is recognizing that people can be who they are, they can love who they love, they can live where they are, and it's fundamentally important that the federal government is the defender of those rights, defender of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and access to health care in Canada is a fundamental right for all Canadians without exception."

Was asked in the context of Alberta's anti-trans bills/legislation

Hope does live on - with the people. That's where the power has always lived if we the people are willing to use it

Right now they're thinking the 5 million protesting last Saturday was a fluke. Let's show them it's not. Sat April 19th is the next day of nationwide protest

Next day of nationwide protests is April 19th. 5 million showed up last Saturday. Let's make the next one larger

Not that pausing this is anything less than insane, but note that SCOTUS has recently given administrative stays and then ruled against Trump after that. Nothing is a given either way

The fight isn't over until it's over. Don't read this news and give in the doom and cynicism Trump wants us all to have. We can still fight back, and people are still fighting. 5 million were on the street on Saturday. There's another nationwide 50501 protest on April 19th

Even if any did, they would be part of voters abroad (US citizens can vote by mail if living outside the country) who are an even bluer voting block. If memory serves me right, it's on the order of like D+60 overall

This article wasn't about the US, but in terms of the US:

The margins dipped, but they didn't flip to voting for Trump overall

18-29 year-olds voted Harris+4 overall and Young women in particular voted Harris+18

Headlines are often misleading about changes within group voting patterns

https://circle.tufts.edu/2024-election