Why are companies pushing DEI programs they don’t agree with? There seems to be a huge range of what seems to be DEI efforts, some of them do seem a bit more questionable but those are almost certainly outliers that make their way to the Fox News grievance machine.
Blanket bans like what Trump is pursuing are just as objectively stupid and any other catch-all action.
Yeah. Whether or not they like DEI, I don’t see why they would change right this minute, except to curry favor with our godking.
I think a million dollars to get him playing golf for 4 hrs is money well spent.
Yes, it’s based on identity, but it’s the opposite of diversity, equity, and inclusion - so at least they’ve got that…
Not DEI but the opposite of it, more precisely:
He tried to hire “the best” people last time and they just wouldn’t do whatever he wanted. So he’s going a different direction this time…
Congress deciding to be a doormat while Trump usurps their legislative power is a big part of the move towards an authoritarian government
UK, not US: Opinion piece arguing that the right to protest is necessary for a free society and that 5 years in prison for non-violent protestors is excessive.
This has been a problem for decades, but it’s gotten a lot worse.
Also known as caca-stocracy
I read through the article, and I see one key flaw with the argument. Trump has halted funding, but he hasn’t redirected the funds elsewhere.
The article correctly notes that “One of the most crucial of those powers is the appropriation of funds to be expended by the executive branch, the specification of how those funds are to be used by the executive, and oversight of their use.”
Trump has not changed that. He is simply withholding funds for now. Should he try to take more funds without Congress passing a bill allowing it, or use the funds in a way not authorized by Congress, then I’d agree that he’s crossing the line. But for now, he’s just withholding funding.
Of course, there may be things I’m not aware of - if there are, please inform me.
In this interpretation are there any limits as to how long a pause is a permissible use of executive power?
I’d be surprised if it turns out the president can arbitrarily withhold all funds to everyone, causing countless laws to go arbitrarily unenforced, until everyone sends proof the boogeyman does not exist…
…but afaik it’s never been tried. This sounds like one of many Air Bud orders. And will have to be decided by a SCOTUS that is very pro-Trump, but probably not that pro-Trump.
Most likely it’ll get stayed by a lower court and work its way up to SCOTUS. Under an ethical court I’d say it would then be quickly slapped down, but I’m less sure when it comes to SCOTUS.
Either way, people will die and more will be harmed, and ultimately there will be no consequence.
It’s already stayed by at least 1 lower court.
Is he withholding funding that he is authorized to spend, or is he withholding funding that the law requires him to spend?
The former is certainly within his powers as President. The latter…well, we established quite a while ago that Trump cares little about the law.
It’s also already been redefined to be less fucked up and less illegal. I assume it will get redefined another dozen times as it hits the courts.
I’m not sure. If the law requires that he spend it, then I agree, he’s over the line.
There is plenty of precedent for a president not enforcing laws, though - DACA, often held up as one of Obama’s great achievements, is a perfect example.
Probably not. Look at DACA - it violates federal law, and it’s still in effect.
Yes, this is like DACA, except broader in scope and less rational in support.