2026 Midterm Elections

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 3K
  • Views: 144K
  • Politics 
BillOfRights said:
I've been a big fan of Mallory McMorrow for a while. She's right on most issues and delivers that message very well. She is a great candidate.


www.yahoo.com

McMorrow gets separation in latest poll for Michigan’s open U.S. Senate seat

State Sen. Mallory McMorrow is leading the Democratic primary for Michigan's open U.S. Senate seat, with 22% of likely voters backing her, while U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens and former Wayne County health ...
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com

Click to expand...

'There Are a Lot of People in Dearborn Who Are Sad': Democratic Senate Hopeful Abdul El-Sayed Said He Needed To Stay Silent on Khamenei Killing Because Many of Michigan’s Muslim Voters ‘Are Sad’​

El-Sayed made the comments during a campaign conference call a day after an Israeli strike killed the late Iranian supreme leader, audio obtained by the Free Beacon shows

Michigan's left-wing Democratic Senate candidate, Abdul El-Sayed, told staffers he wanted to avoid making a public statement about the assassination of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei—or taking any public position on it at all—because "there are a lot of people in Dearborn who are sad" about his death, according to audio from a private campaign strategy call obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.



freebeacon.com

'There Are a Lot of People in Dearborn Who Are Sad': Democratic Senate Hopeful Abdul El-Sayed Said He Needed To Stay Silent on Khamenei Killing Because Many of Michigan’s Muslim Voters ‘Are Sad’

Michigan's left-wing Democratic Senate candidate, Abdul El-Sayed, told staffers he wanted to avoid making a public statement about the assassination of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei—or taking any public position on it at all—because "there are a lot of people in Dearborn who are sad" about his death...
freebeacon.com freebeacon.com
 
Disclaimer: consider the source on this tweet is DailyCaller, but if this is true, it is alarming and setting the stage to federalize elections.

These sons of bitches HAVE to cheat because they'll likely all get prosecuted for their very real crimes if they don't hold on to power.

 
korgguy1971 said:
Disclaimer: consider the source on this tweet is DailyCaller, but if this is true, it is alarming and setting the stage to federalize elections.

These sons of bitches HAVE to cheat because they'll likely all get prosecuted for their very real crimes if they don't hold on to power.

Click to expand...

Looking forward to this being struck down by a federal judge. And then for a Trumper MAGA appeals court or the Supreme Court to allow it. Cases like this are precisely why the GOP worked so hard to pack the court over a decade ago. I doubt the GOP majority will let them down now.
 
superrific said:
It's just an executive order. It has no force of law, and it will be enjoined in short order. It will never see the light of day.
Click to expand...
What is the point of executive orders then, and why have them if they have no teeth? Is it ceremonial or similar to a non-binding resolution or something like that? Asking in earnest.
 
Mulberry Heel said:
Looking forward to this being struck down by a federal judge. And then for a Trumper MAGA appeals court or the Supreme Court to allow it. Cases like this are precisely why the GOP worked so hard to pack the court over a decade ago. I doubt the GOP majority will let them down now.
Click to expand...
This is almost impossible even for the Supreme Court to fuck up. In the case of immunity, there is no constitutional provision that speaks directly to immunity, which is why we thought that, you know, one wouldn't be invented. But nothing in the constitution says otherwise.

Here, Article I commits the conduct of the election to the states, unless CONGRESS passes a law to regulate it (and there would be strong limits on that). If any court were to allow the executive any role, it would be directly contravening an incredibly clear constitutional provision that to my knowledge has never really been challenged. Even this Supreme Court won't be that craven.
 
korgguy1971 said:
What is the point of executive orders then, and why have them if they have no teeth? Is it ceremonial or similar to a non-binding resolution or something like that? Asking in earnest.
Click to expand...
1. Once upon a time, when there were independent agencies, executive orders were the way the president would communicate with those agencies. He couldn't fire the commissioners, so he would lay down statements of policy that the agencies were expected to follow. I don't know the relationship between independent agencies and executive orders -- i.e. did the agencies have to follow them? I don't know that. But I do know that the agencies still had to follow all applicable rules and limitations in applicable statutes by Congress.

With no independent agencies any more, the actual functionality of the executive orders are much diminished.

2. Typically, executive orders are statements of executive policy and presidents tended to extend executive orders in order to promote continuity. For instance, Reagan issued an executive order requiring all agencies to submit their proposed regulations to Office of Management and Budget, which would run a cost benefit analysis and send any non-conforming rule back to the agency for revision. Reagan could have just told the agencies, but by formalizing it, he created a record. So every president since (save possibly this Trump one) has renewed the executive order, because it's a good idea.

3. The executive order is basically an advertisement. It tells the public, "hey this is what I did -- I told all the agencies to do this." It's better PR than individualized instructions to agencies. It's also less time consuming for the president, because the president just tells "every agency" to promulgate conforming regulations. The president doesn't have to know all the agencies that would be affected.

4. What an executive order cannot do is make new law. It cannot expand the power of any federal agency; cannot expand the power of the presidency; and yields to any contrary statute or constitutional provision.

5. It's a little more consequential than a non-binding resolution, but not that much more.
 
superrific said:
1. Once upon a time, when there were independent agencies, executive orders were the way the president would communicate with those agencies. He couldn't fire the commissioners, so he would lay down statements of policy that the agencies were expected to follow. I don't know the relationship between independent agencies and executive orders -- i.e. did the agencies have to follow them? I don't know that. But I do know that the agencies still had to follow all applicable rules and limitations in applicable statutes by Congress.

With no independent agencies any more, the actual functionality of the executive orders are much diminished.

2. Typically, executive orders are statements of executive policy and presidents tended to extend executive orders in order to promote continuity. For instance, Reagan issued an executive order requiring all agencies to submit their proposed regulations to Office of Management and Budget, which would run a cost benefit analysis and send any non-conforming rule back to the agency for revision. Reagan could have just told the agencies, but by formalizing it, he created a record. So every president since (save possibly this Trump one) has renewed the executive order, because it's a good idea.

3. The executive order is basically an advertisement. It tells the public, "hey this is what I did -- I told all the agencies to do this." It's better PR than individualized instructions to agencies. It's also less time consuming for the president, because the president just tells "every agency" to promulgate conforming regulations. The president doesn't have to know all the agencies that would be affected.

4. What an executive order cannot do is make new law. It cannot expand the power of any federal agency; cannot expand the power of the presidency; and yields to any contrary statute or constitutional provision.

5. It's a little more consequential than a non-binding resolution, but not that much more.
Click to expand...
Appreciate it, Super 🙏
 
superrific said:
1. Once upon a time, when there were independent agencies, executive orders were the way the president would communicate with those agencies. He couldn't fire the commissioners, so he would lay down statements of policy that the agencies were expected to follow. I don't know the relationship between independent agencies and executive orders -- i.e. did the agencies have to follow them? I don't know that. But I do know that the agencies still had to follow all applicable rules and limitations in applicable statutes by Congress.

With no independent agencies any more, the actual functionality of the executive orders are much diminished.

2. Typically, executive orders are statements of executive policy and presidents tended to extend executive orders in order to promote continuity. For instance, Reagan issued an executive order requiring all agencies to submit their proposed regulations to Office of Management and Budget, which would run a cost benefit analysis and send any non-conforming rule back to the agency for revision. Reagan could have just told the agencies, but by formalizing it, he created a record. So every president since (save possibly this Trump one) has renewed the executive order, because it's a good idea.

3. The executive order is basically an advertisement. It tells the public, "hey this is what I did -- I told all the agencies to do this." It's better PR than individualized instructions to agencies. It's also less time consuming for the president, because the president just tells "every agency" to promulgate conforming regulations. The president doesn't have to know all the agencies that would be affected.

4. What an executive order cannot do is make new law. It cannot expand the power of any federal agency; cannot expand the power of the presidency; and yields to any contrary statute or constitutional provision.

5. It's a little more consequential than a non-binding resolution, but not that much more.
Click to expand...
The Emancipation Proclamation and the Japanese internment camp order were both executive orders. So, they can sometimes come with a little consequence.
 
superrific said:
This is almost impossible even for the Supreme Court to fuck up. In the case of immunity, there is no constitutional provision that speaks directly to immunity, which is why we thought that, you know, one wouldn't be invented. But nothing in the constitution says otherwise.

Here, Article I commits the conduct of the election to the states, unless CONGRESS passes a law to regulate it (and there would be strong limits on that). If any court were to allow the executive any role, it would be directly contravening an incredibly clear constitutional provision that to my knowledge has never really been challenged. Even this Supreme Court won't be that craven.
Click to expand...
It is not a direct regulation in contravention of Article I. It is a withdrawal of funds, which can make a difference analytically (Rust v. Sullivan). That said, don't think the courts will let the Prez withhold funding here.
 
Calheel said:
The Emancipation Proclamation and the Japanese internment camp order were both executive orders. So, they can sometimes come with a little consequence.
Click to expand...
Both were exercises of commander in chief power during wartime. Roosevelt's did not create the internment camps; the Department of War (its official name then) did. And then Congress passed a supporting law.

The Emancipation Proclamation by its terms applied only to states in rebellion, which meant that it applied to nothing as a practical matter, since the rebelling states were not under federal control. It was an exercise of wartime authority and really shouldn't be considered an executive order in the modern sense. It certainly didn't free the slaves; the 13th Amendment did that.
 
Calheel said:
It is not a direct regulation in contravention of Article I. It is a withdrawal of funds, which can make a difference analytically (Rust v. Sullivan). That said, don't think the courts will let the Prez withhold funding here.
Click to expand...
The order directs the AG to withhold funds "as appropriate." So it does nothing on its own. The DOJ, as you know, has no power to do anything of the sort.

Rust v Sullivan was a congressional statute. While the withholding of funds changes the analysis, that's only if Congress does it.
 
superrific said:
Both were exercises of commander in chief power during wartime. Roosevelt's did not create the internment camps; the Department of War (its official name then) did. And then Congress passed a supporting law.

The Emancipation Proclamation by its terms applied only to states in rebellion, which meant that it applied to nothing as a practical matter, since the rebelling states were not under federal control. It was an exercise of wartime authority and really shouldn't be considered an executive order in the modern sense. It certainly didn't free the slaves; the 13th Amendment did that.
Click to expand...
Yes and yes. Of course Trump would argue that we are under invasion from immigrants and that he is exercising emergency powers. Since everything is an emergency with him.
 
superrific said:
The order directs the AG to withhold funds "as appropriate." So it does nothing on its own. The DOJ, as you know, has no power to do anything of the sort.

Rust v Sullivan was a congressional statute. While the withholding of funds changes the analysis, that's only if Congress does it.
Click to expand...
I have no knowledge what funds the DoJ doles out. Doesn’t it give money to local DAs and such for crime grants? What other money could it leverage?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top