Trump47 Cabinet Picks & First 100 Days Agenda

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 1K
  • Views: 19K
  • Politics 
UNCBAdookJD said:
Generally, but a fed ban would supersede the state requirements.
Click to expand...
Thoughts about an enumerated powers argument? If the Obamacare mandate was beyond Congress' powers, wouldn't banning vaccine requirements also be?

Oh, who am I kidding. It's SCOTUS.
 
Calheel said:
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.
Click to expand...
Does the statute really matter? SCOTUS hasn't cared about the texts of statutes (when inconvenient) for quite a while. Remember what they did to the Voting Rights Act in Brnovich?
 
superrific said:
Does the statute really matter? SCOTUS hasn't cared about the texts of statutes (when inconvenient) for quite a while. Remember what they did to the Voting Rights Act in Brnovich?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Calheel said:
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.
Click to expand...
Do you think trump will care for any laws or judgements, anywhere? My interpretation is we’ve entered into an imperial authoritarian presidency.
 
HeelingAg said:
Do you think trump will care for any laws or judgements, anywhere? My interpretation is we’ve entered into an imperial authoritarian presidency.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Calheel said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Calheel said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Calheel said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
 
HeelingAg said:
Do you think trump will care for any laws or judgements, anywhere? My interpretation is we’ve entered into an imperial authoritarian presidency.
Click to expand...
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.
 
mpaer said:
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
Click to expand...
Are you thinking of the Clean Air Act? It requires states to develop their own plans which are then reviewed by the EPA.
 
BlooVooDoo said:
Are you thinking of the Clean Air Act? It requires states to develop their own plans which are then reviewed by the EPA.
Click to expand...
I was thinking about Water--but I am sure you hit half of it (my bewilderment ) on the Head Thanks
 
“…
Tom Homan, who served as acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement during Trump’s first term, is expected to be appointed to a senior White House role overseeing the southern border and immigration, according to people familiar with the matter.

Stephen Miller, the architect of Trump’s first-term immigration agenda, is also widely seen by Trump’s allies as returning to the White House in a high-level job.

Chad Wolf, Trump’s former acting Homeland Security secretary, and Chad Mizelle, former DHS acting general counsel, are candidates to lead the Homeland Security Department, the people said. …”

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top