One of my stats profs wouldn’t post grades by student IDs since they were ssns. Said it was illegal (and it was), even in the late 80’s.
If only there was a 222 year old SCOTUS decision that says nope. Marbury vs some dude who wrote the Constitution.
I went to a doctor today and filled out “new patient” paperwork. There were two places that asked for SSN. I ignored them.
1 Like
Stare decisis is completely dead. Precedent means nothing. Who is offering SCOTUS the nicest private yacht trip this summer?
Trump is just now hearing how maybe Musk has some conflicts of interest. He won’t let that happen unless it’s already happening and beautiful
2 Likes
Below is a good summary of the effect of this Executive Order if it is not challenged and stopped by either the legislative or judicial branches of the government.
https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1isvzgu/the_full_executive_order_is_out_this_is_the/
Author u/FormerJelloMaster on the law Reddit sub.
This Executive Order does the following:
❧ All federal agencies, including independent regulatory commissions, are now subject to direct White House control.
❧ Regulations cannot be issued without presidential approval.
❧ The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) can now withhold funding from independent agencies if they don’t align with White House priorities.
❧ All federal employees must follow the President’s and Attorney General’s interpretation of the law, eliminating legal independence.
❧ A White House Liaison is to be installed in every independent regulatory agency to enforce direct presidential control.
This is the biggest executive power grab in U.S. history.
This formally ends the concept of an “independent” regulatory agency, dismantling one of the last barriers to absolute executive power.
This order effectively erases the last major restraints on executive power.
The President Now Controls All Regulatory Agencies
The SEC, FTC, FCC, and FEC are no longer independent.
The Stock Market is now subject to White House control, enabling insider trading, favoritism, and targeting of political opponents. Antitrust laws can be selectively enforced, allowing administration-friendly monopolies to expand unchecked. Political opponents in the tech sector, media, or finance can be targeted with regulatory action while allies are protected. Elections are now influenced by direct White House oversight of the Federal Election Commission (FEC).
Drug approvals, food safety regulations, and environmental policies can be rewritten for political or corporate interests. Climate change regulations can be erased overnight. Scientific research is now subject to White House approval before public release.
Implication: There is no longer any neutral enforcement of economic, environmental, or election laws. Everything is now dictated by political loyalty.
The White House Can Block Agency Budgets or Direct Funds Elsewhere
This gives the President the power to defund agencies without needing Congress. Regulatory agencies that challenge presidential policies will be quietly strangled of resources. Agencies loyal to the President will receive full funding—even illegally.
The President & Attorney General Have Final Say on All Legal Interpretations
The Attorney General’s opinions override agency lawyers, inspectors general, and independent counsel. Agencies cannot adopt their own interpretations of legal statutes—everything must align with the President’s views. The President can rewrite federal legal interpretations overnight.
Installing White House Liaisons in All Regulatory Agencies
This ensures constant presidential oversight of daily operations. These liaisons will report agency actions back to the White House and enforce political compliance. Agency directors will no longer have the ability to act without White House approval.
2 Likes
BTW, Politifact says yes, birth certificate + marriage certificate should be fine.
Donald Trump’s media company, citing President Donald Trump’s executive order, sues a Brazilian judge who is involved in the potential prosecution of Donald Trump’s political ally Jair Bolsonaro.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/19/donald-trump-truth-social-brazil-lawsuit-020672
Yes, the real danger isn’t numerous Republican attorneys refusing to sign off on dismissing an indictment against a Democrat who’s favored by a Republican attempting to extort a quid pro quo in exchange for a temporary dismissal that could be reinstated if the quid pro quo isn’t satisfied to someone’s satisfaction. The real danger is a Democrat removing another Democrat from office for valid cause when it’s apparent that Democrat is willing to violate more laws under a forced quid pro quo to the detriment of those he’s in charge of governing, for his own potential financial enrichment by someone else.
Just a couple more steps, and someone will be at “you can’t prosecute the terrorists and put them in jail, that’s not really promoting freedom is it.”
I may have to go update my guide to how to know if you’re one of the bad guys.
2 Likes
The State department is ordering employees to cancel any media subscriptions that don’t fawn enough yet over Trump. They’ll gladly pay for right wing materials.
The Economist has indeed been critical of Trump’s tariffs but so has The WSJ. Maybe Rupert Murdoch owning The WSJ gives it a free pass.
5 Likes
The WSJ editorial page tends to be pretty hard-right even when the news doesn’t go that far, and there are limited alternatives for publications to replace the WSJ’s strengths.
However, I was wondering about the lack of mention of WaPo. Has Bezos’ recent decisions kept WaPo on the list of acceptable subscriptions, or is it not mentioned because it wasn’t previously on the approved list? I suppose the same question could be asked about the WSJ.
1 Like
WaPo has now joined the Pravda news service.
Hence..not included in that list.
That became obvious a while back so I cancelled my subscription.
2 Likes
So many places this could go - but it’s pretty authoritarian, so …
i think of the people who left x, i have missed popehat the most. and he left very early. he also started writing his substack again at least.
It’s pretty authoritarian, but it’s a kind of authoritarianism that’s been around for years.
An instance of it bubbles up to viral notice every once in a while.
If the feds start doing this, that’d be a milepost (especially if SCOTUS were to uphold an order or decline to hear a petition).
I’ll also give that it’s Mississippi, which … I’m not in favor of just cutting states loose for the sake of protecting the other states, but I’m pretty comfortable with cutting Mississippi out. It’s a loss of about $50,000 toward GDP, and the average IQ for the rest of the country goes up at least 10 points.
2 Likes
Lehto’s Law covered that today. He was kind enough to declare the judge crazy and not present it as an unconstitutional authoritarian misconduct.
I should point out, though, that he mentions that the CRAZY is fishing for his own TRO.