9 ms·

>Disregarding a law that was passed by a bipartisan majority, signed into law by the president and ruled on by the supreme courts feels like the start of a very

by slg 2y ago

>Disregarding a law that was passed by a bipartisan majority, signed into law by the president and ruled on by the supreme courts feels like the start of a very dangerous path I don't understand why this is not the primary takeaway. Regardless of the specifics of this issue, it is objectively a huge power grab for a president to vow to not enforce a law that had bipartisan approval of both the legislative and judiciary branches.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ternnoburn 2y ago
The law has a provision permitting the President to grant 90 day exceptions. Trump has indicated he'll sign one tomorrow. This isn't going around the law, it's just the law as written. We can debate whether the law was good or bad, but this is an outcome the law directly supports.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > law has a provision permitting the President to grant 90 day exceptions “A 1-time extension of not more than 90 days,” § 2(A)(3) [1]. [1] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-17758/pdf/COMPS-17758.pdf#page=63 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-17758/pdf/COMPS-17...
  - ternnoburn 2y ago
    Yep! Thanks for finding the source. I was on my phone, couldn't get the actual text.
  - foobarbecue 2y ago
    Except it doesn't sound like he's satisfied any of the criteria, unless he's promising to buy it himself: (A) a path to executing a qualified divestiture has been identified with respect to such application; (B) evidence of significant progress toward executing such qualified divestiture has been produced with respect to such application; and (C) there are in place the relevant binding legal agree- ments to enable execution of such qualified divestiture during the period of such extension
    - redcobra762 2y ago
      Those are criteria the President has to certify are the case, not criteria that have to be the case. Zero clue how that would play out in the courts, but it wouldn't resolve in anything resembling a timely manner.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
        His administration will lie, because TikTok has made it clear they will not divest in order to stay in the USA. But so what? His administration, and he himself, lied about a bunch of stuff during his previous term, and what happened? Nothing. Never tried, never convicted (he was impeached, but so what?) We do not have a mechanism for dealing with a president or administration that is willing to just lie. Even if the SCOTUS were to determine that the administration did in fact lie about certifying those things, so what? Nothing will happen.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > We do not have a mechanism for dealing with a president or administration that is willing to just lie Of course we do. We’ll just fine Apple, Google and Oracle tens of billions of dollars if they don’t cut ties with Bytedance. The law can be patient. I advocated for this bill. My personal guess is the tech companies bend at the knee and then pay for a new train system in New York or whatever.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      (A) is intentionally vague and deferential. The possibility of a Trump Presidency was in everyone’s mind in drafting; he’s not a guy you tell what to do, he’s a guy you give discretion to with an opportunity to blame unsatisfactorily deferential third parties.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    That requires a legal agreement to divest to be in place, which I suspect isn’t the case yet. That being said, the law is enforceable today and Biden said he won’t enforce it.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
      > That requires a legal agreement to divest to be in place, which I suspect isn’t the case yet. Nope, it merely requires that the president certifies that it is in place, and that's something entirely different given who the president will be.
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    It says the conditions of the extension must be certified to Congress. That means the deal is identified, has been significantly executed, and legally binding. I doubt Trump has any of that, which is probably why he’s resorting to an executive order. More worryingly he stated in his Truth social post that he’s seeking 50% ownership. That doesn’t meet the definition of divestiture in this bill, since China would still effectively steer operations, including content recommendations.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
      He's not resorting to an executive order to ignore the law. He's using the loophole in the law that allows him to grant a 1-time 90 day lift of the ban, given that he certifies that certain conditions have been met. The conditions have not been met, but he will lie and state that to his satisfaction, they have. Nothing will happen to challenge that except some noise from a couple of Democratic senators. What happens 90 days later is anyone's guess.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > using the loophole in the law that allows him to grant a 1-time 90 day lift of the ban It's not a loophole, it's a clear power granted--with strict limits--within the scope of a short bill.
        blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
        Then why does it need an executive order? And doesn’t “certify” mean more than just “claim”?
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > why does it need an executive order? It doesn't. That's Trump being Trump. > doesn’t “certify” mean more than just “claim”? Not to my knowledge.
        PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
- kelnos 2y ago
  The president can grant one 90-day exception, if certain conditions are met. Those conditions have not been met.
soerxpso 2y ago
[flagged]
- jiggawatts 2y ago
  [flagged]
sethammons 2y ago
My read says the law itself is a presidential power, doesn't have to be pushed unless the President wants it
- sanderjd 2y ago
  That's not what the law says. What gave you that impression?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  There is no way the President can commit that these services will not accrue massive fines throughout his non-enforcement period. And actually your read is wrong: the President does have an obligation to enforce laws, it's just in practice there are all sorts of ways one can effectively bury this obligation under claims of different prioritization. They are not really allowed to come out and just say: "I am choosing not to enforce this law because I disagree with it."
  - reubenmorais 2y ago
    > the President does have an obligation to enforce laws This is only true as far as other people are ready to keep the president in check. I only have the surface knowledge of US politics, but from the outside, it seems like the American institutions that were supposed to balance the executive power are all being quite successfully sabotaged.
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      That's a different argument than the one GP made. One of the things that makes it more difficult to enforce those obligations is people's mistaken belief that those obligations do not exist. So when people say those obligations don't exist, they should be told they are wrong.
      - 2y ago
rayiner 2y ago
[flagged]
- wonnage 2y ago
  That would likely be a breach of separation of powers. Relevant reading: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43708 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43708 The executive branch tends to have power of discretion in what to enforce and how.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > executive branch tends to have power of discretion in what to enforce and how No, it doesn’t. Plenty of lawsuits are around laws not being adequately enforced (and courts forcing such enforcement).
    - lokar 2y ago
      The president takes an oath to see that the laws are enforced
      - ModernMech 2y ago
        Serious question, how does that compel the president to enforce laws?
        lokar 2y ago
        You would need some party with standing to ask a court to intervene
        ModernMech 2y ago
        But say through some process a court intervenes. There's no actual way for the court to compel him to do anything.
remarkEon 2y ago
>I don't understand why this is not the primary takeaway. Because this takeaway is wrong.
- cluckindan 2y ago
  Yeah, Trump himself signed the executive order to ban TikTok.
  - bboygravity 2y ago
    Trump is not in power now.
    - rvense 2y ago
      Power is when people do what you say.
    - cluckindan 2y ago
      He did it in 2020?
nordsieck 2y ago
> Regardless of the specifics of this issue, it is objectively a huge power grab for a president to vow to not enforce a law that had bipartisan approval of both the legislative and judiciary branches. Isn't that the road we've been walking down for a while now with the proliferation of executive orders? I'm not a fan of this outcome either, but it doesn't strike me as a revolutionary departure from current norms.
- bearcobra 2y ago
  I think this is different. I generally feel like executive orders are 1) used to take some kind of affirmative step that the dysfunction in congress is blocking 2) have some level of defensible legal theory. This feels like the opposite. My understanding of the 90 day extension is that it's supposed to be there to allow a deal to close, but there is no evidence I've seen of a deal being worked on so the legal theory seems to be really flimsy. Disregarding a law, while not unprecedented, is not a great sign given some of the incoming administration statements on a ton of other topics.
  - slg 2y ago
    >My understanding of the 90 day extension is that it's supposed to be there to allow a deal to close It is also important to recognize that Trump isn't just talking about invoking the 90 day extension. He is promising companies they won't be held responsible for the fines they should be accruing for violating the law before he even takes office.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - rayiner 2y ago
    Biden is still the president and he’s not enforcing the law. It’s not clear to me that the president can’t grant an extension later once all the statutory requirements are met. What’s the difference between one day and say 10 days? Putting that aside, the legal theory here—where an exception is there for this purpose and we’re quibbling about its application—is nowhere close to “flimsy” when it comes to constraints on executive prosecutorial discretion.
incognition 2y ago
Let me introduce you to Andrew Jackson
kelipso 2y ago
The executive branch has the power to decide whether or not to enforce a law. For example, see weed laws not being enforced.
jmyeet 2y ago
This should be a lesson: most prosecution and enforcement is discretionary. This isn't a power grab. That already happened when the Supreme Court invented out of thin air the idea of presidential immunity. There was no basis for that. Supreme Court justices are political operatives and the conservative supermajority has gone on a spree of overturning precedent and inventing law on a scale not seen since Marbury v Madison. “Historical tradition” as a legal doctrine is completely invented. “Major Questions Doctrine” is a massive power grab over the other two branches. Presidential immunity is simply the “unitary executive” doctrine, also completely invented. We already have a dictator.
gnkyfrg 2y ago
[dead]
BeFlatXIII 2y ago
It's a potentially successful power grab because the law isn't widely supported by the populace. Trivial to say "those eggheads can pass what they like, I will protect you from them"

by slg 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

ternnoburn 2y ago

The law has a provision permitting the President to grant 90 day exceptions. Trump has indicated he'll sign one tomorrow. This isn't going around the law, it's just the law as written. We can debate whether the law was good or bad, but this is an outcome the law directly supports.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> law has a provision permitting the President to grant 90 day exceptions “A 1-time extension of not more than 90 days,” § 2(A)(3) [1]. [1] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-17758/pdf/COMPS-17758.pdf#page=63 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-17758/pdf/COMPS-17...
- ternnoburn 2y ago
  Yep! Thanks for finding the source. I was on my phone, couldn't get the actual text.
- foobarbecue 2y ago
  Except it doesn't sound like he's satisfied any of the criteria, unless he's promising to buy it himself: (A) a path to executing a qualified divestiture has been identified with respect to such application; (B) evidence of significant progress toward executing such qualified divestiture has been produced with respect to such application; and (C) there are in place the relevant binding legal agree- ments to enable execution of such qualified divestiture during the period of such extension
  - redcobra762 2y ago
    Those are criteria the President has to certify are the case, not criteria that have to be the case. Zero clue how that would play out in the courts, but it wouldn't resolve in anything resembling a timely manner.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
      His administration will lie, because TikTok has made it clear they will not divest in order to stay in the USA. But so what? His administration, and he himself, lied about a bunch of stuff during his previous term, and what happened? Nothing. Never tried, never convicted (he was impeached, but so what?) We do not have a mechanism for dealing with a president or administration that is willing to just lie. Even if the SCOTUS were to determine that the administration did in fact lie about certifying those things, so what? Nothing will happen.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > We do not have a mechanism for dealing with a president or administration that is willing to just lie Of course we do. We’ll just fine Apple, Google and Oracle tens of billions of dollars if they don’t cut ties with Bytedance. The law can be patient. I advocated for this bill. My personal guess is the tech companies bend at the knee and then pay for a new train system in New York or whatever.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    (A) is intentionally vague and deferential. The possibility of a Trump Presidency was in everyone’s mind in drafting; he’s not a guy you tell what to do, he’s a guy you give discretion to with an opportunity to blame unsatisfactorily deferential third parties.
- rayiner 2y ago
  That requires a legal agreement to divest to be in place, which I suspect isn’t the case yet. That being said, the law is enforceable today and Biden said he won’t enforce it.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
    > That requires a legal agreement to divest to be in place, which I suspect isn’t the case yet. Nope, it merely requires that the president certifies that it is in place, and that's something entirely different given who the president will be.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  It says the conditions of the extension must be certified to Congress. That means the deal is identified, has been significantly executed, and legally binding. I doubt Trump has any of that, which is probably why he’s resorting to an executive order. More worryingly he stated in his Truth social post that he’s seeking 50% ownership. That doesn’t meet the definition of divestiture in this bill, since China would still effectively steer operations, including content recommendations.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
    He's not resorting to an executive order to ignore the law. He's using the loophole in the law that allows him to grant a 1-time 90 day lift of the ban, given that he certifies that certain conditions have been met. The conditions have not been met, but he will lie and state that to his satisfaction, they have. Nothing will happen to challenge that except some noise from a couple of Democratic senators. What happens 90 days later is anyone's guess.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > using the loophole in the law that allows him to grant a 1-time 90 day lift of the ban It's not a loophole, it's a clear power granted--with strict limits--within the scope of a short bill.
      - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
        Then why does it need an executive order? And doesn’t “certify” mean more than just “claim”?
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > why does it need an executive order? It doesn't. That's Trump being Trump. > doesn’t “certify” mean more than just “claim”? Not to my knowledge.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
kelnos 2y ago
The president can grant one 90-day exception, if certain conditions are met. Those conditions have not been met.

soerxpso 2y ago

[flagged]

jiggawatts 2y ago
[flagged]

sethammons 2y ago

My read says the law itself is a presidential power, doesn't have to be pushed unless the President wants it

sanderjd 2y ago
That's not what the law says. What gave you that impression?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
llamaimperative 2y ago
There is no way the President can commit that these services will not accrue massive fines throughout his non-enforcement period. And actually your read is wrong: the President does have an obligation to enforce laws, it's just in practice there are all sorts of ways one can effectively bury this obligation under claims of different prioritization. They are not really allowed to come out and just say: "I am choosing not to enforce this law because I disagree with it."
- reubenmorais 2y ago
  > the President does have an obligation to enforce laws This is only true as far as other people are ready to keep the president in check. I only have the surface knowledge of US politics, but from the outside, it seems like the American institutions that were supposed to balance the executive power are all being quite successfully sabotaged.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    That's a different argument than the one GP made. One of the things that makes it more difficult to enforce those obligations is people's mistaken belief that those obligations do not exist. So when people say those obligations don't exist, they should be told they are wrong.
    - 2y ago

rayiner 2y ago

[flagged]

wonnage 2y ago
That would likely be a breach of separation of powers. Relevant reading: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43708 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43708 The executive branch tends to have power of discretion in what to enforce and how.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > executive branch tends to have power of discretion in what to enforce and how No, it doesn’t. Plenty of lawsuits are around laws not being adequately enforced (and courts forcing such enforcement).
  - lokar 2y ago
    The president takes an oath to see that the laws are enforced
    - ModernMech 2y ago
      Serious question, how does that compel the president to enforce laws?
      - lokar 2y ago
        You would need some party with standing to ask a court to intervene
        ModernMech 2y ago
        But say through some process a court intervenes. There's no actual way for the court to compel him to do anything.

remarkEon 2y ago

>I don't understand why this is not the primary takeaway. Because this takeaway is wrong.

cluckindan 2y ago
Yeah, Trump himself signed the executive order to ban TikTok.
- bboygravity 2y ago
  Trump is not in power now.
  - rvense 2y ago
    Power is when people do what you say.
  - cluckindan 2y ago
    He did it in 2020?

nordsieck 2y ago

> Regardless of the specifics of this issue, it is objectively a huge power grab for a president to vow to not enforce a law that had bipartisan approval of both the legislative and judiciary branches. Isn't that the road we've been walking down for a while now with the proliferation of executive orders? I'm not a fan of this outcome either, but it doesn't strike me as a revolutionary departure from current norms.

bearcobra 2y ago
I think this is different. I generally feel like executive orders are 1) used to take some kind of affirmative step that the dysfunction in congress is blocking 2) have some level of defensible legal theory. This feels like the opposite. My understanding of the 90 day extension is that it's supposed to be there to allow a deal to close, but there is no evidence I've seen of a deal being worked on so the legal theory seems to be really flimsy. Disregarding a law, while not unprecedented, is not a great sign given some of the incoming administration statements on a ton of other topics.
- slg 2y ago
  >My understanding of the 90 day extension is that it's supposed to be there to allow a deal to close It is also important to recognize that Trump isn't just talking about invoking the 90 day extension. He is promising companies they won't be held responsible for the fines they should be accruing for violating the law before he even takes office.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- rayiner 2y ago
  Biden is still the president and he’s not enforcing the law. It’s not clear to me that the president can’t grant an extension later once all the statutory requirements are met. What’s the difference between one day and say 10 days? Putting that aside, the legal theory here—where an exception is there for this purpose and we’re quibbling about its application—is nowhere close to “flimsy” when it comes to constraints on executive prosecutorial discretion.

incognition 2y ago

Let me introduce you to Andrew Jackson

kelipso 2y ago

The executive branch has the power to decide whether or not to enforce a law. For example, see weed laws not being enforced.

jmyeet 2y ago

This should be a lesson: most prosecution and enforcement is discretionary. This isn't a power grab. That already happened when the Supreme Court invented out of thin air the idea of presidential immunity. There was no basis for that. Supreme Court justices are political operatives and the conservative supermajority has gone on a spree of overturning precedent and inventing law on a scale not seen since Marbury v Madison. “Historical tradition” as a legal doctrine is completely invented. “Major Questions Doctrine” is a massive power grab over the other two branches. Presidential immunity is simply the “unitary executive” doctrine, also completely invented. We already have a dictator.

gnkyfrg 2y ago

[dead]

BeFlatXIII 2y ago

It's a potentially successful power grab because the law isn't widely supported by the populace. Trivial to say "those eggheads can pass what they like, I will protect you from them"