• dhork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    97
    ·
    3 months ago

    Good, but Trump is gonna do it anyway and fire whoever doesnt comply. The SCOTUS has guaranteed he can do whatever he wants with impunity, and the only remedy is impeachment.

      • EtnaAtsume@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        How many more tests do you fucking need? The water is boiling! Get out of the pot already!

        (I realize the premise of the test that this adage is based on was flawed.)

      • wildncrazyguy138@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Interesting idea here. Give the president so much rope to hang himself with that all but the brownest of the brown-nosers find his actions reprehensible. And thus impeachment becomes a valuable tool again.

        SCOTUS playing 4D chess? Not so much, they’re probably right up there with the lot of them, but one can dream.

        • jonne@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          34
          ·
          3 months ago

          Impeachment only works if Congress isn’t filled with cowards. It was a good design when parties weren’t a thing and every senator was first and foremost representing their state’s interests (and actually spent most of their days in their state), but with a party duopoly that’s perpetually hovering around 50/50, you’ll just never get enough people to convict.

        • danc4498@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          3 months ago

          How many people do you think qualify as the brownest of brown nosers? I’m pretty sure that’s 100% of republican senators and congressmen and Trump appointed judges.

            • danc4498@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              3 months ago

              I lost my faith that republicans would do the right thing in 2020. He should have been impeached and had his right to run for office taken away. They blocked it because they knew standing up against Trump would mean the end of their career (see Liz Cheney).

              • grue@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                3 months ago

                They blocked it because they knew standing up against Trump would mean the end of their career (see Liz Cheney).

                Well, that or because a dictator is genuinely what they want.

        • Empricorn@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          3 months ago

          Without even reading them, I know what the responses to this will be, so let me just say: I legitimately like your optimism!

    • OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      3 months ago

      You don’t free yourself of an entrenched tyrant by impeachment. No dictator has ever been removed peacefully.

  • asteriskeverything@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    3 months ago

    The full scope of the administration’s review was spelled out in a 51-page spreadsheet sent to federal agencies and viewed by The Associated Press. Each line was a different government initiative, from pool safety to tribal workforce development to special education.

    Officials were directed to answer a series of yes or no questions for every item on the list, including “does this program promote gender ideology?” or “does this program promote or support in any way abortion?” Responses are due by Feb. 7.

    This is where my heart sank. This article is so long but this blip and the conclusion points to what is really going down.

    Here we go again

  • Y|yukichigai@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    3 months ago

    Justice Department attorney Daniel Schwei argued that the freeze shouldn’t be put on hold because the plaintiffs hadn’t specified anyone who would immediately lose funding if it does go into effect.

    I’m imagining the plaintiffs countered by motioning vaguely at the entire country.

    Also fuck this guy. “It doesn’t count unless you specifically identify all the people we’d be victimizing,” is straight up bully logic.

    • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Isn’t this common? You need standing to sue, someone has to be harmed first. Its not all the people, but at least one.