Rule 65 requires a bond on every nationwide injunction, but judges are routinely ignoring these rules designed to prevent such activism from the bench, and Americans are paying the consequences.
Exactly right!! Used to write bonds years ago and paying for a National Bond for “projected damages” would be in the millions in premiums!! And that is IF you could find a company to write the bond.
This stops the activism in its tracks BUT did I hear correctly that the injunctions are not valid without the bond(s)?
You heard more than what she said. She said that according to the rule, the bond is precedent to the injunction, meaning that if they obeyed the rule they would determine the bond before ruling on the injunction. It is just another rule they are flaunting.
(Could be worse; they could've subverted the rule by determining it only needed a $10 bond and then going ahead.)
TBH. I half wonder if some of them even know those exist. Let alone are supposed to be filed. The Legal System is such a mess. Even the people who make a career out of trying to practice law and translate legalese. Can sometimes struggle to do so.
Combine that with the fact our educational institutions have gone downhill steadily for decades.
And the fact there’s probably stuff still on the books for instance that hasn’t been applicable for the average Americans daily life for the better part of a century or longer. Yet it’s still technically a law that in theory could affect rulings today.
This courageous woman replaced the disgusting ogre Chaney. THANK YOU WYOMING.
Absolute Godsend.
She is wonderful!n
well do something about it
Post -
https://x.com/RepHageman/status/1907120663787438453
Exactly right!! Used to write bonds years ago and paying for a National Bond for “projected damages” would be in the millions in premiums!! And that is IF you could find a company to write the bond. This stops the activism in its tracks BUT did I hear correctly that the injunctions are not valid without the bond(s)?
You heard more than what she said. She said that according to the rule, the bond is precedent to the injunction, meaning that if they obeyed the rule they would determine the bond before ruling on the injunction. It is just another rule they are flaunting.
(Could be worse; they could've subverted the rule by determining it only needed a $10 bond and then going ahead.)
DOJ must insist on the bonds being posted. Why aren’t they?
Pam Blondie disappoints
Note: a bond is mandatory to make an injuction stick .....
Oeps ....
good question. If damaged party has to be made good, I can see a huge price tag emerging that these deep state organizations obliterates.
But, Judges that issued these injunctions in violation of their jurisdiction, making them null and void, show behavior that is worthy of impeachment.
TBH. I half wonder if some of them even know those exist. Let alone are supposed to be filed. The Legal System is such a mess. Even the people who make a career out of trying to practice law and translate legalese. Can sometimes struggle to do so.
Combine that with the fact our educational institutions have gone downhill steadily for decades.
And the fact there’s probably stuff still on the books for instance that hasn’t been applicable for the average Americans daily life for the better part of a century or longer. Yet it’s still technically a law that in theory could affect rulings today.
Judiciary injustice!
I love this women
These activist judges are out of control.
If the Injunction requires a bond, and the bond is ignored, then it isn't an injunction and can be ignored, no?
Just ignore if there is no bond.
Do something then. Hageman.
Trump ignores them as he should.