Trump / Musk (other than DOGE)

[Calheel]

Do you think trump will care for any laws or judgements, anywhere? My interpretation is we’ve entered into an imperial authoritarian presidency.

This isn't a question about Trump but the Court.

If you are asking whether Trump would ignore a direct order from the Supreme Court, I don't know. But if the Court says that Trump lacks the power to remove vaccine mandates without the approval of Congress, it wouldn't be up to Trump. It would be up to the states, and those states would continue to enforce their mandates whether Trump liked it or not.

 

[UNCBAdookJD]

What would be the statute that allows the FDA to ban mandatory vaccines? The Supreme Court has been paring back the power of regulatory agencies. They just returned abortion to the states. It would be surprising to me if the Court blessed a ban of mandatory vaccine requirements at the state level -- at least in the absence of congressional approval. And I'm not sure there would be a majority for stripping the states of their traditional health and welfare role -- especially in education. Maybe you could get a national religious exemption law passed -- but I am pretty sure that already exists in all 50 states.

The SCOTUS has no guiding principles. They are partisan hacks who will do whatever the Republicans want. Regulatory agencies were bad when they were run by evil woke liberals. Now that they will be run by righteous God-fearing conservatives they should be given virtually unlimited power.

 

[superrific]

I don't think the Court is going to grant unprecedent power to executive agencies after just cutting them off at the knees last term. That said, it is possible that Trump could get some sort of exemption ban through Congress.

It wouldn't be unprecedented power to executive agencies. They would style it as specific to this issue. You know, how they said that Dobbs was only about abortion and not about anything else in the right to privacy (which will be false).

The key to understanding this SCOTUS is to understand that these Justices are arrogating as much power to themselves as possible. They want to be the final word on policy. That's why they invented standing in Biden v Nebraska (what a fucking ridiculous theory that was) and distorted the statute beyond all recognition.

So if they want to allow Trump to wipe vaccine mandates, they will. I'm not sure they are quite on board with that. Barrett in particular does not seem terribly receptive to the vaccines are bad bullshit. So maybe they won't be interested.

But the pull of the magic R is strong. Sam Alito, during his entire career on the bench, votes something like 96% for the Republican position on issues. Pretty much all you have to know to predict Alito's vote is a) was the policy in question a Dem or Pub initiative; and b) are the plaintiffs conservative. Doctrine doesn't matter at all to him. Thomas is mostly the same, and Gorsuch is exactly the same except on one or two of his pet issues.

 

[BlooVooDoo]

I don't think the Court is going to grant unprecedent power to executive agencies after just cutting them off at the knees last term. That said, it is possible that Trump could get some sort of exemption ban through Congress.

Yeah, but those were agencies the majority doesn’t like. They’ve expanded the power of the executive and given the president wide sweeping immunity. I’m sure they’d be happy to take a whack at reconciling those two seemingly incompatible ideas.

 

[mpaer]

Not to get off track but the EPA has always intrigued me Because....different States just seem to handle "EPA regulations" very differently NC being on the lower "let them do what they want" spectrum-maybe not Louisiana-but certainly not Minnesota

 

[ChapelHillSooner]

Do you think trump will care for any laws or judgements, anywhere? My interpretation is we’ve entered into an imperial authoritarian presidency.

I think both Trump and SCOTUS will have a vested interest in preserving the mirage of the court being relevant. That is why the court will just roll over for whatever Trump wants - at least anything big.

The court already made their bed with the immunity ruling. I don't think they can now backtrack and argue that that immunity does not extend to a president defying the court.

 

[BlooVooDoo]

Not to get off track but the EPA has always intrigued me Because....different States just seem to handle "EPA regulations" very differently NC being on the lower "let them do what they want" spectrum-maybe not Louisiana-but certainly not Minnesota

Are you thinking of the Clean Air Act? It requires states to develop their own plans which are then reviewed by the EPA.

 

[mpaer]

Are you thinking of the Clean Air Act? It requires states to develop their own plans which are then reviewed by the EPA.

I was thinking about Water--but I am sure you hit half of it (my bewilderment ) on the Head Thanks

 

[1moretimeagain]

Kash Patel

 

[tarheelbillie]

You think the vaccines are going to be banned?

Being replaced by Drano…I hear.

 

[nycfan]

“… The behind-the-scenes discussions, which started months before the election and have picked up in the days since Trump’s victory, include policy changes required to increase deportations, according to people working on the presidential transition, members of Congress and others close to the president-elect.

… Among the changes: revoking a Biden administration policy directing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement not to pursue immigrants in the country illegally who haven’t committed other crimes, and making changes to the immigration court system to speed up cases. Trump’s allies have said they are planning first to focus on immigrants in the country illegally who have received final orders of deportation from an immigration court, of which there are about 1.3 million, as well as those with other criminal convictions or charges. …”

 

[nycfan]

Cont’d

“… As a first step, Trump’s advisers are discussing issuing a national emergency declaration at the border on his first day in office, which his team thinks would allow him to move money from the Pentagon to pay for wall construction and to assist with immigrant detention and deportation.

But the legality of such a move is unclear.

A national emergency, Trump’s advisers think, also would unlock the ability to use military bases for immigrant detention and military planes to help carry out deportations.

… A critical near-term priority is finding the money to pay for it. An estimate by the American Immigration Council, a liberal immigration group, estimated that an operation to deport the total number of people living in the U.S. illegally could cost $968 billion over more than a decade, or roughly $88 billion a year. …”

So, tariffs?

 

[nycfan]

I find myself having a clinical/academic reaction to this. It was a cornerstone of Trump’s campaign and a big part of what people voted for.

But a lot of the same people were appalled by the child separation policy in his original term, and many of the same folks were outraged but the deportation of one child - Elian Gonzalez - by force back in the day.

Sure, there are going to be people cheering this and ghoulishly enjoying seeing harsh images of deportations, mass incarcerations, etc.

But a lot of Trump supporters are already wishcasting how this will take care of itself via self-deportation before Trump takes office. They will just wake up to find the “illegals” have disappeared from their town without anyone having to suffer any unpleasantness.

We shall see.

 

[nycfan]

Back to the WSJ article:

“… They also want to revoke deportation protections from millions of immigrants who have either been granted a form of humanitarian protection known as temporary protected status—which covers hundreds of thousands of Haitians and Venezuelans—or entered the country on a quasi-legal status called humanitarian parole.

That population includes millions who have entered via government appointments at the southern border, as well as tens of thousands of Afghans evacuated after the fall of Kabul and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians allowed into the U.S. following the Russian invasion.

Rep. Chip Roy (R., Texas), an anti-illegal-immigration hard-liner, said he thinks the Trump administration should disregard those deportation protections because, in his view, they were issued illegally.

“I believe we need to push the boundaries and claim they’ve got no status,” he said. …”

 

[NCK9]

 

[nycfan]

“… Rather than forcibly deporting all migrants, Trump’s advisers hope they can induce some to leave voluntarily, according to people familiar with the matter.

They have discussed offering immigrants in the country illegally—or those who entered on parole through Biden administration programs—a chance to leave the country without penalties, so they can return on a visa if they are eligible. Under normal circumstances, when someone is deported, they are barred from returning on a visa for 10 years. [A better idea than most of the others being floated, IMO.]

Republican lawmakers, buoyed by their election gains, are planning to use a process called reconciliation to advance legislation that funds Trump’s immigration proposals alongside his energy and tax priorities. …”

 

[finesse]

I expect that, in a spirit of bipartisanship, they are going to invoke the spirit of their fellow populist, Andy Jackson and his crowning achievement, the Trail of Tears.

 

[nycfan]

And the economic impact of the initial push won’t be felt until later in the year as the agricultural and meat-packing industries, among others, scramble for workers.

But perhaps it will result in a rational work visa program by necessity. I mean, there is zero indication of that at the moment, but presumably the business demand will force some sort of resolution.

 

[finesse]

Probably take all his power of concentration to pull it off.

 

[mpaer]

So will New Jersey LE officers have shootouts with ICE??
Seriously this could be ugly
(Yes I will be pulling for the NJ guys )