9 ms·
This seems to imply that the president elect can make unilateral guarantees contravening US law. That’s a surprising outcome.
by lumost 2y ago
This seems to imply that the president elect can make unilateral guarantees contravening US law. That’s a surprising outcome.
- nickthegreek 2y agoIf this stands, it certainly is. It’s a mockery of the whole of the system. Congress better act on overturning it post haste or enforcing it post haste.
- samr71 2y agoThey only have one option for the next two years: Impeach and remove. GOOD LUCK LMAO
- HaZeust 2y agoTo be fair, he's already been impeached twice; this wouldn’t be anything new to anybody.
- SketchySeaBeast 2y agoYes, the republican dominated congress and senate are certain to do that. It's very clear this puppy has no bottom.
- gnkyfrg 2y ago[dead]
- kristjansson 2y agoThe law gives him some power to grant a 90-day reprieve, iff he makes some 'certifications' to congress w.r.t. progress toward compliance.
- jasonlotito 2y agoThat's only before the ban, not after. The ban is already in effect. This is a violation of the law, plain and simple, and the law does not allow for an unbanning after the fact. The 90 extension could have been done before the 19th, but not after. Simply put, this is law breaking. The President-elect is making promises to break the law day one. This is not surprising.
- NavinF 2y agoI doubt judges would take your side on this interpretation of the law. Wanna put some money on this bet?
- oefnak 2y agoHe chose the judges.
- topspin 2y agoHe'll probably be choosing at least two more as well.
- hedora 2y agoI don’t think it matters. Scenario one: We get an FDR style leader to fix this stuff after a massive economic collapse and public backlash. (As Biden posited in his farewell address.) This will either lead to court packing or (like last time) the lapdogs on the court will accept their new leashes. Scenario two: The federal government suffers a partial or complete collapse, and the US ends up being city-states or like the former USSR. (I think this is more likely, and also what Putin wants, assuming he can’t keep Trump under control.) It’s also possible we’ll continue to have fair elections and the courts will stop abusing their power. This seems the least likely to me. Under all other scenarios, we’re completely screwed and the current courts will already go along with it.
- raziel2701 2y ago[flagged]
- throw678937 2y ago[dead]
- paxys 2y agoThe surprising part is that people are still surprised. Trump can do whatever he wants and there will be no pushback. We are talking about the guy who launched a meme coin a few days before taking office and made $50B+ overnight.
- nickthegreek 2y agoI think those chickens just haven’t come home to roost yet. His wife launched her coin today. There is no way this isn’t being looked at closely. Impressively quick start to the new shit show.
- munificent 2y ago> I think those chickens just haven’t come home to roost yet. People have been saying that about Trump's antics literally his entire life.
- jmb99 2y agoExactly. He’s a convicted felon, and so what? It doesn’t matter. What’s an investigation into a meme coin going to do, other than cost taxpayer money and give Trump the chance to say more sound bites?
- evan_ 2y ago> There is no way this isn’t being looked at closely. Who's going to look at it? Whichever sycophant ends up being AG?
- kelnos 2y agoClosely by whom? Tomorrow, Trump and his sycophants will control the DoJ. If you're talking about a future administration, we've already seen what happens when Trump leaves office and people try to hold him accountable: absolutely nothing.
- lumost 2y agoHe is now immune from prosecution, financial crimes will be pretty low on the list of things that would breach the Supreme Court’s ruling on this matter. I could see a world where the lawyers have cooked a progressively more egregious set of legal violations to test the bounds of the new authority granted by the Supreme Court. Up next is probably a mandate that foreign diplomats/us government employees stay at trump properties at exorbitant prices for “security purposes”.
- nemothekid 2y ago>That’s a surprising outcome. It's President Trump, what are you going to do about it? The man has been regularly breaking the law since 2016 and there is never any political will to stop him. Trump v. U.S. established it's not illegal when Trump does it.
- realusername 2y agoI feel like Americans didn't realize that the country slipped into a mixed authoritarian regime now. As any other mixed authoritarian regime, the laws matter somewhat but are also balanced with the intent of the guy on the top. And I did say authoritarian, not dictatorship, those aren't the same level. There's a lot of shades of black between Norway and China.
- munificent 2y agoMany many of us did, but were powerless to stop it.
- account42 2y agoMore like you cheered it on while your club was the one benefiting.
- munificent 2y agoI don't know who you think I am or what you think you're saying, but none of that applies to me.
- valval 2y agoWriting in laws that allow you to selectively take out whoever is convenient at any time is lawmaking 101. Of course lawfare is the tool of the democrats, and not republicans, like you seem to believe.
- antigeox 2y ago[flagged]
- gnkyfrg 2y ago[dead]
- seizethecheese 2y agoIn my city, a great deal of laws are not enforced. Enforcement is a policy at most levels, it seems. The interesting thing, to me, is that there’s no fear of future administrations enforcing, or even Trump pulling a 180 and using the law being broken as leverage.
- ttul 2y agoSee my comment above. This is a misunderstanding of how the executive branch works. Once Congress has enacted a statute and the _President_ has signed it into law, the executive branch MUST enforce it. An executive order cannot override or suspend a duly passed law unless Congress included an explicit waiver or suspension provision in that law. Nothing in the text of this act appears to grant the President such discretion, so there is no straightforward way for the President to “undo” or pause the ban by executive order. The only way to alter or lift the ban would be through new legislation or a valid constitutional challenge in court. In essence, the executive branch already had a chance to veto the law, but didn’t do so. The signature of the President (whomever that is at the time) seals the fate of the law.
- sjs382 2y ago> the executive branch MUST enforce it Or what? (I'm not being flippant. Are there consequences I'm not aware of if he decides not to enforce?)
- dstanko 2y agoOr nothing. Literally! No GOP representative will dare go against the Trump, or else they will be primaryied. The law only applies if there are consequences, and in this case there aren't consequences. If you don't realize this is how US operates, you are living in some la-la land like the democrats that insist on decorum, norms and such other BS.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y agoYour understanding of the law is incorrect when you say "the executive branch MUST enforce it". Administrations of all political stripes have decided not to enforce parts of particular laws. And this is precisely because "enforcement" means you need to use limited resources to prosecute someone for breaking the law, and the executive branch has always had wide latitude deciding who they prosecute. If Congress decides the president is not faithfully enforcing the laws, their option is impeachment. Well, we all saw how that went the last few times... The thing that is shocking to me about the current TikTok situation is that while Trump may be free to say "I won't enforce this law", he can't write any sort of executive order overturning the law, and I think it's pretty disgusting the media isn't pushing back against this more (except for Kara Swisher, who made this exact point) and saying this isn't possible. The law is explicit that any company (like Apple, Google or Oracle) that provides services for TikTok would be in violation of the law and subject to large penalties. Nothing Trump says as president can change that without Congress acting. So it is simply baffling to me that these major companies would be willing to put themselves in serious legal jeopardy with just what amounts to a pinky promise and a wink from Trump.
- ttul 2y agoHere’s the law: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521/text/rfs https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521... No, Trump can’t legally postpone or give reprieve to TikTok. The time has passed for that. Once Congress has enacted a statute and the President has signed it into law, the executive branch must enforce it. An executive order cannot override or suspend a duly passed law unless Congress included an explicit waiver or suspension provision in that law. Nothing in the text of this act appears to grant the President such discretion, so there is no straightforward way for the President to “undo” or pause the ban by executive order. The only way to alter or lift the ban would be through new legislation or a valid constitutional challenge in court. That seems unlikely considering the Supreme Court already rules on the matter.
- sjs382 2y agoThe executive branch is responsible for enforcement of laws. He could just choose not to enforce it, no?
- Spivak 2y agoI think replies to this will be one of two: * Legally the executive is not granted this power. * But in practice they are because who's going to make them? The entity responsible for enforcement always has this power. It's why DA races where the platform is essentially law nullification by way of non-enforcement have been happening for some light criminal justice reform that can't get through the legislature.
- lumost 2y agoHistorically it would have been congress or the Supreme Court. The issue is that no one seriously expects them to do anything against trump.
- tsimionescu 2y agoThe executive branch has a clear history of selectively not enforcing laws, so there is clear precedent. The most notable recent example is that the last three presidents have all chosen to not enforce federal law on marijuana in states that have chosen to legalize it.
- nikanj 2y agoIt might be surprising, but SCOTUS confirms it
- kristopolous 2y agoThey're just 9 clowns in robes these days
- richardw 2y agoHe’s also the guy that triggered all of this by signing a presidential order to change TikTok ownership during his first run. Does he have a coherent position on this that these actions support?
- silvester23 2y agoDoes he have a coherent position on anything?
- arp242 2y agoHis main policy seems to be to show the world that he's a big man with big genitalia. And in fairness, he is quite successful at that because much of the world thinks him a gigantic dick. I'm not really joking, because that really does seem to be the underlying philosophy in what he does: it's whatever he thinks makes him the "big man tough guy". Trying to analyse things beyond that just doesn't make much sense.
- valval 2y ago[flagged]
- stetrain 2y ago> Another angry man child’s take on his politics. That's also a decent summary of his politics.
- heroprotagonist 2y agoNot particularly "show the world" because he's been very demonstrably weak internationally. He's a showman who makes very bold sounds, but his actions show that he will give in to China on Taiwan, like he gave into them on Hong Kong, like he gave in to Russia on Ukraine, like he gave into North Korea on nukes... Now on Taiwan, he's already stated previously that he will _tax_ China if they invade Taiwan. This contradicts long standing US policy of not stating exactly what action the US will take in the event of invasion, and has had the result of pushing up projections of exactly WHEN China will invade Taiwan to be within the next two years, during Trump's presidency. The only thing that will possibly make this change is as a condition of financial supporter Elon Musk, who needs those NVIDIA cards that come out of Taiwan so he can pursue his religious mission of winning the AI race. And that's only if TSMC manufacturing capabilities can't be dragged out of Taiwan and set up elsewhere in a sufficient timeframe to reduce the impact if China were to invade Taiwan.
- grey-area 2y agoPrepare yourself from many more surprises from this lawless regime. The US supreme court has already said he is immune from prosecution. The future has been clearly telegraphed, and who is going to stop him? In his own words years ago, he could shoot someone on 5th avenue and his supporters would find excuses for him.
- ActorNightly 2y agoIf you are surprised this happens given Jan 6 events you have been living under a rock. There is a good chance there will be no more fair elections in US.
- _heimdall 2y agoThis was a pretty big talking point during the election, towards the end I didn't go a day without hearing about how Trump will end democracy or how democracy was on the ballot. What the hell happened? For anyone that honestly believes that, why pack up and go home when Trump wins the election?
- NewLogic 2y agoAmerica spoke and said they wanted it, what more is there to be said? If there was marching in the streets, it would be torn to shreds by the online grift sphere.
- _heimdall 2y agoIf I honestly believed democracy would be ended by the next leader I would be marching in the streets, or better yet finding a group forming a rebellion. Ending democracy is a very serious thing. It shouldn't have been used hollowly by either party, and if it wasn't hollow then people should be standing up to stop it.
- ModernMech 2y agoWe did stand up, that was the entire 2024 campaign. We really truly believe the guy who incited the insurrection in 2021 that ended the history of peaceful democratic transitions of power in the USA is going to do more of the same damage to democratic institutions in 2025. Given what happened on 1/6 I don’t know why you see that worry as hollow.
- _heimdall 2y ago
- LudwigNagasena 2y agoThe president can pardon whomever he wants. It's in the U.S. Constitution.
- _heimdall 2y agoDo pardons extend to companies? That could be a really unintended consequence of the whole "companies are people" precedent.
- mihaaly 2y agoTrying and doing takes a minute for him, fixing it is a long process with consequence on all others mostly. All those opportunist-narcissist shit-stirrers out there rely on the prudent and consequently slow self fixing mechanisms of societies (beyond the dumb and lazy childish masses vegetate below these figures and so looking up to them) like viruses on the delayed adaptation of the immune system. The host that feed them may easily die this way? Not their problem!! They have their shine and rule moment and they do not have much of miserable and futile life left anyway, f*ck others!
- ActionHank 2y agoYou're still thinking of him as a president and not as the new monarch of the US. I wouldn't be surprised if he is around for more than one term and incrementally greater and greater authoritarian powers.
- MisterTea 2y agoHes no spring chicken so that remains to be seen. I do however worry about who is waiting in the wings to ride on his coat tails.