shadowkat: (Default)
1. I feel I need to explain in detail how a Bill becomes a Law in the United States. Since a lot of people think now that the Senate passed the Big Beautiful (more like Butt-Ugly) Bill - it will now go to the House and voila, signed into Law. Uh, no, this is not how it works, folks.

But wait, another lawyer did it for me! To the tune of I'm only a Bill, just a little old bill...via School House Rock, which oversimplified it.

How A Bill Becomes a Law by Anne P. Mitchell

First and foremost: In order for a bill to be sent to the president to be signed into law the House and the Senate MUST pass *identical* versions of the bill!  This is what we are seeing happen right now with the budget bill, the House originally passed their version and sent it to the Senate. The Senate made massive changes to it, then voted on that changed version just now, so now it goes back to the House. If the House makes ANY changes, then it goes back to the Senate for them to either vote on or make additional changes.

Here is How a Bill Becomes a Law )

The process gives me hope. It did have a lot gutted from it. Also the Senate added 800 billion to the national debt. Meanwhile various States are in the process of passing laws to withhold federal taxes, since the federal government is not representing them in a fair and reasonable manner.

2. What is in the Big Butt-Ugly Bill aka the Big Beautiful Bill that the Senate Passed? (Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder apparently?)

Here's What got in and What got cut from the Big Butt-Ugly Bill

It went from 1000 pages to 940 pages.

In the bill: what stayed in the Bill )

On the Medicaid Cuts, what got in and got cut out of the bill:
Read more... )

What is left out of the bill or was cut:

Public land sales
what they were trying to do and why it was cut )

Excise tax on wind and solar, State AI provisions (The Senate stripped a provision barring states from regulating artificial intelligence (AI). )

For a more precise and total breakdown? Go HERE - The link is NY Times article via remove pay wall.

This tells you exactly what the Senate removed from the bill, changed, altered and left in and why.

Note they removed everything that wasn't budgetary related and broke the rules.

Example?

Measure to limit court contempt powers

The parliamentarian rejected a measure in the bill that would have made it harder for courts to enforce lawsuits against the Trump administration. The measure targeted preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders issued by federal judges against Trump’s executive orders and other directives. MacDonough argued that limiting courts’ ability to hold Trump in contempt violates Senate rules.

Go HERE for complete list of no-gos that can't be in the Bill at all

Note, it's still a controversial bill.

3. Want a way to help either in the US or out of the US?

We The People Defend provides information on how.

It's a non-profit site that provides emails with contact information, and instructions on how to go about contacting Senators, White House, Congress, Etc.

You don't have to do everything or anything at all. There's no pressure. But it helps explain how the law works and how to help change what is going on in a pro-active way.

So far, folks have managed to change a lot of things by doing this, so it is working.

If however, you are too pissed off like myself to rationally call and explain in a calm manner, you might want to hang back for a bit or do something else?

4. [ETA: Folks? Be mindful of my blood pressure and please knock off the defeatist talk or keep it out of my journal. I get we're all worried, scared and angry. But it does nobody any good, including you. And I honestly have enough troubles sleeping as it is. I'm on medication for anxiety. So be mindful and keep it to yourselves?]

Actually, Jay Kuo states all of this better than I can - so I'm reposting his words below:

"Folks, some real talk.
Read more... )

What he said.
shadowkat: (Default)
I read this week in some psychology posting that it was more than okay not to be okay at the moment. In fact feeling awful right now, with a sense of dread - means you are most likely a caring empathetic human being and struggling with human failings. If this is the case? Than I'm clearly a caring empathetic human being - because I've been feeling kind of awful for several months now?

What helps? Watching comfort shows, avoiding dingbats, avoiding bad news (as much as possible), trying to eat healthy, and focus on the positive.

As always, good news is often in the eye of the beholder - so mileage may vary on it?

our fight appears to be mainly in the courts... )

***

The below isn't necessarily good news, but it is a necessary explanation of a recent Supreme Court ruling, since a lot of folks think it trumps or undoes some of the good news above, it doesn't. It may reframe it or change it, but it doesn't undo it. Trump didn't necessarily win, nor do the Republicans, also this issue has been hanging around for a while now. And it may just bite the Republicans in the ass down the road.

While it is entertaining to watch amateur lawyers debate what the recent Supreme Court decision on Birth Nationals and Injunctions is, it's also annoying - so below is an actual lawyer, who specializes in legislative, Constitutional and Administrative Law - has to say about it (and no, it's not me):

WHAT TODAY'S SUPREME COURT DECISION ON UNIVERSAL INJUNCTIONS AND BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP MEANS by Anne P. Mitchell

First, and most importantly, it does NOT UNDO BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP! And really that was never what it was about, as I've said before. (In fact here: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/16sATn6TcJ/)

This was *always* a universal injunction case dressed up in birthright citizenship clothing. It was and is about universal injunctions. And that is on what the Supreme Court just issued its opinion.

In the case, Massachusetts issued a universal injunction (applies to everyone similarly situated) against the birthright citizenship executive order; the Supreme Court is saying the injunction should have only applied to the plaintiffs in the case.

Here is what the Supreme Court *actually* said:
Read more... )

Sigh, here's a pretty picture of flowers..


Page generated Jan. 5th, 2026 01:48 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios