His war against Judges, the press and anyone who disagrees with him , harks back to my comments about Emperors, made on Saturday. He truly is of an autocratic mind set. He seems oblivious that for good reason the Constitution that he swore to uphold and respect has checks and balances, precisely to guard against people like himself. He has more than once gone against constitutional provisions, having people deported without due process and then refusing to act on court instructions to bring them back.
In his own words he says, 'THESE JUDGES SUFFER FROM AN IDEOLOGY THAT IS SICK AND VERY DANGEROUS FOR OUR COUNTRY'. He means - they uphold constitutional provisions and disagree with his careless disregard of the law.
He is in every way just an autocratic madman with delusions of being some sort of Roman Emperor, surrounded by people plotting against him.
Trump would point at Article 2 of the constitution and says he has the power to be chief of the army, appoint judges etc so that everybody must obey him, and generally, people around him do just that. They will tell him that he's always right because he is a genius. His cabinet is like a scene from North Korea. Now congress is passing a new budget bill. Inside it, there is a clause that limits the federal judges ability to issue contempt of court rulings. Trump is on his way to become king.
Quote:
The current budget reconciliation bill—formally titled the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act"—includes a provision that would significantly limit federal judges' ability to enforce contempt citations and injunctions against the government.
What the Provision Does
The bill contains a clause stating that federal courts may not use appropriated funds to enforce contempt citations for violations of injunctions or temporary restraining orders if no security (bond) was posted when the injunction was issued under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c). This applies retroactively, affecting both past and future cases .
In practice, this means that if a court issued an injunction without requiring the plaintiff to post a bond—a common occurrence in cases involving civil rights or constitutional protections—the court would be barred from enforcing that order through contempt proceedings. This could severely undermine the judiciary's ability to ensure compliance with its rulings, particularly in cases where plaintiffs lack the resources to post bonds .

Legal and Constitutional Concerns
Legal experts have raised alarms about this provision, arguing that it threatens the separation of powers by stripping courts of a fundamental enforcement mechanism. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of UC Berkeley School of Law, described it as a "fundamental attack on judicial power and constitutional principles" .
Critics contend that the provision could effectively place the executive branch above the law by removing one of the judiciary's primary tools for ensuring government accountability. It could also retroactively nullify existing court orders, including those related to immigration and civil rights .