4 ms·

It'll be interesting to see if the court has the authority to make this ruling. I assume the administration will push this to the Supremes. A pause is not a s

by mannyv 2y ago

It'll be interesting to see if the court has the authority to make this ruling. I assume the administration will push this to the Supremes. A pause is not a stop. What people are worried about is that their program is going to be cut after the review. It's better to stop the review now before it starts by making a whole bunch of "the sky is falling" claims. The sky might be falling, but it doesn't hurt to panic. If you look at the spreadsheet (which is hard, because it's a PDF), you'll see that each agency needs to list the political overseer so the administration can, if they want, find out how to kill it. As far as I know there's never been a list like this, ever. I wish it was a real spreadsheet because the objective text is clipped. https://www.heinrich.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/instructions_for_federal_financial_assistance_program_analysis_in_support_of_m-25-13.pdf https://www.heinrich.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/instructions_f...

hedora 2y ago
I’m more worried about the elimination of separation of powers that this executive order will imply if upheld. Congress writes laws and sets the budget. Trump has said he’s not going to enforce laws he doesn’t like and will use emergency declarations to enforce rules he made up. Now he’s saying he’s going to ignore the budget congress passed. Also, if the Supreme Court does uphold it, then we’ll know for sure that they’re ceding power to Trump, so he’ll have cemented in his dictatorship in under two weeks. Hitler took 53 days.
- tart-lemonade 2y ago
  To be fair, Trump is far from the first to practice selective enforcement. As long as cannabis remains schedule 1, the DEA could raid every dispensary and farm in states that have "legalized" it, the only thing stopping them is our presidents turning a blind eye. All those "10 ridiculous laws still on the books" listicles operate on the same principle: nobody cares to enforce them, and since nobody is enforcing them, there isn't enough political will to repeal them, either. Which is to say SCOTUS will absolutely approve of Trump refusing to enforce laws he dislikes, for better and for worse. The emergency declarations to enforce unconstitutional rules he just imagined like an LLM hallucination will likely be far worse, and even if SCOTUS says no, I doubt he will obey them (SCOTUS has no enforcement powers, after all).

by mannyv 2y ago

hedora 2y ago

I’m more worried about the elimination of separation of powers that this executive order will imply if upheld. Congress writes laws and sets the budget. Trump has said he’s not going to enforce laws he doesn’t like and will use emergency declarations to enforce rules he made up. Now he’s saying he’s going to ignore the budget congress passed. Also, if the Supreme Court does uphold it, then we’ll know for sure that they’re ceding power to Trump, so he’ll have cemented in his dictatorship in under two weeks. Hitler took 53 days.

tart-lemonade 2y ago
To be fair, Trump is far from the first to practice selective enforcement. As long as cannabis remains schedule 1, the DEA could raid every dispensary and farm in states that have "legalized" it, the only thing stopping them is our presidents turning a blind eye. All those "10 ridiculous laws still on the books" listicles operate on the same principle: nobody cares to enforce them, and since nobody is enforcing them, there isn't enough political will to repeal them, either. Which is to say SCOTUS will absolutely approve of Trump refusing to enforce laws he dislikes, for better and for worse. The emergency declarations to enforce unconstitutional rules he just imagined like an LLM hallucination will likely be far worse, and even if SCOTUS says no, I doubt he will obey them (SCOTUS has no enforcement powers, after all).