this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2025
374 points (99.5% liked)

News

35692 readers
2762 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

The Republican-led House passed a bill 219–213 to curb federal district judges from issuing nationwide injunctions, a response to judges rulings against Trump-era policies.

The bill restricts relief to affected parties only, not nationwide. Republicans argue liberal judges are blocking Trump's agenda, while Democrats say courts are striking down illegal orders. GOP lawmakers also seek to limit funding for enforcing broad injunctions.

The bill faces slim chances in the Senate.

The Congressional Research Service reported 17 nationwide injunctions so far in Trump’s second term, compared to 86 in his first.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 80 points 10 months ago (3 children)

I mean, yeah. They want a king. I am, without any exaggeration or irony, surprised that they haven't tried to dissolve the legislative branch entirely yet.

[–] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 31 points 10 months ago

They want to keep the image of legislation and a reason to keep getting bribes. They're not ready for the complete shift yet. They're prepping us for it by effectively making him king so when they declare he is we're already used to it.

[–] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

We'll see, I guess. I don't think this administration really needs rhyme, reason, or symbolism. They'll just do what the fuck ever when the fuck ever.

[–] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

Need? No. Want? Absolutely. This president craves attention.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 59 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Democrats petitioned for protections for people with a name change and Republicans voted against it. If your birth certificate name doesn’t match your ID, you’ll be needing new documentation if you want to vote. Yes, that includes a married surname.

[–] sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I'm not sure I understand. I would need to get documentation with my maiden name? Or I just have to carry my marriage certificate with me (which I do now because changing your name is a huge pain in the ass).

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 25 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (5 children)

I'd heard the same language that @disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world referenced, but I had to look up the text of the bill to know myself. Women are an important part of our nation and we need their voice voting.

Here's the full text of the bill here

So for your situation it looks like if you were using your birth certificate before, and you've changed your name when you married, under no circumstances will your birth certificate let you vote anymore under this bill. You will need a government ID that shows your current first and last name but also show citizenship of the USA. So a regular drivers license (non Real ID) won't work for you either.

The bill text says you would need:

“(1) A form of identification issued consistent with the requirements of the REAL ID Act of 2005 that indicates the applicant is a citizen of the United States.

“(2) A valid United States passport.

“(3) The applicant's official United States military identification card, together with a United States military record of service showing that the applicant's place of birth was in the United States.

“(4) A valid government-issued photo identification card issued by a Federal, State or Tribal government showing that the applicant’s place of birth was in the United States.

Goddammit, I just looked at my Real ID drivers license doesn't indicate I am a citizen. Apparently my state started indicating if I wasn't a citizen, but since I am, it shows nothing. According to my reading of the voting ID bill, I could be turned away when I try to vote!

So for me the ONLY document I have that would let me vote is my passport! So for you, see if you have Real ID compliant drivers license and make sure your state indicates you are a citizen. Otherwise you'd need a military id or passport.

[–] rhythmisaprancer@moist.catsweat.com 13 points 10 months ago

Wait, so significant portions of the US population will need identification beyond a state-issued ID? If so I feel like this hasn't been in the news or I've really missed a big headline.

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Wait what the fuck? This will prevent an uncountable amount of citizens from voting. I haven't even had a name change and from my reading this I myself would need to get some sort of new identification to vote. My state ID does not say anything about citizenship.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

An estimated ~70M voters will be disenfranchised by this bill.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

After thinking a bit more on this, those of us with our birth name could use the Real ID compliant drivers license and a birth certificate (has to be the official embossed one, not just a photocopy). However that wouldn't work for women that changed their name. They'd need a passport (or military ID) I think. IANAL

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

That’s correct. Real ID is not proof of citizenship. You’ll need that as well as a birth certificate or passport with the same name in order to vote if this passes in the Senate.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago (3 children)

That’s correct. Real ID is not proof of citizenship. You’ll need that as well as a birth certificate or passport with the same name in order to vote if this passes in the Senate.

...and for clarity: Women that changed their name in marriage cannot use this path for voter ID because their birth certificate (which DOES prove place of birth and citizenship) doesn't show the married name.

So for those women, the only ID I can see that would work for them would be passport or military ID. Again, IANAL

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] spooky2092@lemmy.blahaj.zone 33 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Judge: Not constitutional, NEXT

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 17 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Clarence Thomas: "I'll allow it"

[–] barneypiccolo@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago

"Now I gotta be getting on vacation. Harlan's RV is outside, gassed up, and ready to roll!"

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Carved into the Supreme Court building:

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 32 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Republicans argue liberal judges are blocking Trump's agenda, while Democrats say courts are striking down illegal orders.

Well, when their agenda is composed primarily of illegal orders...

[–] griff@lemmings.world 28 points 10 months ago

Lil Ole Magic Mike workin’ his fascist “Christian” magic

[–] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 27 points 10 months ago

They had ONE judge in the fifth circuit that hamstrung the entire Biden presidency. Now they think it’s not okay.

[–] FelixCress@lemmy.world 26 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

And the only way to effectively deal with fascists also never changes.

[–] Tempus_Fugit@midwest.social 15 points 10 months ago

Not sure why they needed to do this. Nobody is listening to federal judges anymore anyways. I guess now they're trying to get that on paper.

[–] Armok_the_bunny@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

What, so I get to stop caring what Matthew Kacsmaryk, that one judge in the fifth circuit who is the only judge in his division so he is easy to shop for, has to say. I'll be honest, this sounds like a win to me, though I do admit it is going to make protecting the country from Trump more expensive.

[–] intheformbelow@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

This is not surprising at all. The Trump regime will be gaining absolute power step-by-step using the russian playbook but with accelerated timelines. Americans may cling to the idea of living in a democracy but it's no longer the case.

load more comments
view more: next ›