5 ms·

Trump to sign order to shut down Department of Education, White House says

40 points by impish9208 2y ago

hayst4ck 2y ago
Regardless of the implementation details of education post-DoE, the symbolism alone is horrific.
- yodsanklai 2y ago
  It is. Even more horrific is the number of people agreeing with everything happening. On linkedIn, I see educated people defending any silly or barbaric measure Trump can come up with. One could hope that this would act like an electroshock for the US and that they'll review their check and balances after Trump's mandate. But I'm not sure this country has the critical mass of sane people to make it happen. Scary.
  - JojoFatsani 2y ago
    There is zero value in reading LinkedIn feeds. Zero.
    - andrewinardeer 2y ago
      Comedy factor.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- tmpz22 2y ago
  Via Wiki, fwiw: > Establishing policies on federal financial aid for education and distributing as well as monitoring those funds. > Collecting data on America's schools and disseminating research. > Focusing national attention on key issues in education, and making recommendations for education reform. > Prohibiting discrimination and ensuring equal access to education.
ggm 2y ago
Can somebody explain how the queue of tickets going into the SCOTUS counter operates? Do they decide which ticket to take? Does the white house? Does nobody decide and its just random pick or is date to file driving the timeline? And what determines full bench or a singleton or whatever? Because the set of things defined as "going to SCOTUS" appears to be driven on input quite hard, but the rate of work and output is completely occluded to me. I don't see how this, or almost any other act of the WH which uses emergency powers or ignores long standing process is NOT going into the courts.
- atonse 2y ago
  My understanding is that anything has to work its way through the lower (appellate) courts until it ultimately reaches the Supreme Court.
- boroboro4 2y ago
  Not a lawyer, They decide what to take or not themselves, I think for this at least 4 judges need to want to hear the case. Most cases come from underlying courts. I think for actual decisions it’s always full bench, but can be one judge for emergency decisions. I think a lot of WH EOs will end up with Supreme Court. And it feels like some of them are made especially for this, maybe even to overturn SC precedents (like firing FTC board members).
  - ggm 2y ago
    Thanks. I hadn't appreciated the pick-and-choose quality. or the quorate 4 thing. It feels quite unexpected in some ways to wind up here. the Run up, the proceeding 10-20 years was full of the current people pushing hard for a non-creative, non-inventive supreme court. Black Letter Law arguments were being run, and sold as the basis of how a future court would work. Maybe I overstate that but that is how I see it. So now we arrive at a place where the WH and the SC are (it seems) bent on trying to re-define the legislative and WH powers landscape. and to do it they have to overturn anything up to 150 years of reasonably settled, black letter law, which says "this is how it works" -which means they have to be remarkably creative, inventive, and basically not do, what they said all along was the nature of their view of the nasty Democrats view of the SC and decision making. Overturning why the FTC board is independent, isn't a small thing. It sure writes small, but I don't personally think in long term impact, this is just a minor footnote kind of deal (I don't think you implied that either btw) This is "yea we said independent, but actually no: you aren't" kind of stuff. All those checks and balances which go to why you appoint independent boards, let stuff get run arms-length, they're all gone. If you get 4 years, you get to do pretty much whatever the hell you want, in those 4 years, is where this is going. Wild.

40 points by impish9208 2y ago

hayst4ck 2y ago

Regardless of the implementation details of education post-DoE, the symbolism alone is horrific.

yodsanklai 2y ago
It is. Even more horrific is the number of people agreeing with everything happening. On linkedIn, I see educated people defending any silly or barbaric measure Trump can come up with. One could hope that this would act like an electroshock for the US and that they'll review their check and balances after Trump's mandate. But I'm not sure this country has the critical mass of sane people to make it happen. Scary.
- JojoFatsani 2y ago
  There is zero value in reading LinkedIn feeds. Zero.
  - andrewinardeer 2y ago
    Comedy factor.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
tmpz22 2y ago
Via Wiki, fwiw: > Establishing policies on federal financial aid for education and distributing as well as monitoring those funds. > Collecting data on America's schools and disseminating research. > Focusing national attention on key issues in education, and making recommendations for education reform. > Prohibiting discrimination and ensuring equal access to education.

ggm 2y ago

Can somebody explain how the queue of tickets going into the SCOTUS counter operates? Do they decide which ticket to take? Does the white house? Does nobody decide and its just random pick or is date to file driving the timeline? And what determines full bench or a singleton or whatever? Because the set of things defined as "going to SCOTUS" appears to be driven on input quite hard, but the rate of work and output is completely occluded to me. I don't see how this, or almost any other act of the WH which uses emergency powers or ignores long standing process is NOT going into the courts.

atonse 2y ago
My understanding is that anything has to work its way through the lower (appellate) courts until it ultimately reaches the Supreme Court.
boroboro4 2y ago
Not a lawyer, They decide what to take or not themselves, I think for this at least 4 judges need to want to hear the case. Most cases come from underlying courts. I think for actual decisions it’s always full bench, but can be one judge for emergency decisions. I think a lot of WH EOs will end up with Supreme Court. And it feels like some of them are made especially for this, maybe even to overturn SC precedents (like firing FTC board members).
- ggm 2y ago
  Thanks. I hadn't appreciated the pick-and-choose quality. or the quorate 4 thing. It feels quite unexpected in some ways to wind up here. the Run up, the proceeding 10-20 years was full of the current people pushing hard for a non-creative, non-inventive supreme court. Black Letter Law arguments were being run, and sold as the basis of how a future court would work. Maybe I overstate that but that is how I see it. So now we arrive at a place where the WH and the SC are (it seems) bent on trying to re-define the legislative and WH powers landscape. and to do it they have to overturn anything up to 150 years of reasonably settled, black letter law, which says "this is how it works" -which means they have to be remarkably creative, inventive, and basically not do, what they said all along was the nature of their view of the nasty Democrats view of the SC and decision making. Overturning why the FTC board is independent, isn't a small thing. It sure writes small, but I don't personally think in long term impact, this is just a minor footnote kind of deal (I don't think you implied that either btw) This is "yea we said independent, but actually no: you aren't" kind of stuff. All those checks and balances which go to why you appoint independent boards, let stuff get run arms-length, they're all gone. If you get 4 years, you get to do pretty much whatever the hell you want, in those 4 years, is where this is going. Wild.