• 1 Post
  • 45 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 13th, 2023

help-circle

  • The court basically said it was a separation of powers issue. The basic powers of the branches are:

    • The Legislative (Congress) creates laws
    • The Executive (President) actually puts those laws into action (they are “executed” by this aptly named branch)
    • The Judicial (courts) interpret legality of the actions of the Executive branch based on the wording of the laws passed by Congress, and the constitutionality of those laws (that is, if the law itself is even legal to be enforced)

    The Chevron Deference doctrine was the courts saying “Congress occasionally writes laws vaguely and we don’t have expertise on every subject matter, so we are going to defer the decision-making of what exactly the law means to actual experts in the Executive branch.” Congress has written laws using this logic, intentionally granting power to the Executive branch that would otherwise reside with Congress (i.e. Congress says “how much of X particulate in the air is too much? We could write a specific law stating that 500 ppm is too much, but it’s a lot of work to do that for every particulate, and the science gets updated over time, so we’ll just tell the Executive to place ‘reasonable limits’ and call it a day.”)

    Now the Court has said “That power you’ve ceded to the Executive branch? That should be ours because it’s our job to interpret what laws mean. We now decide how much of X particulate is too much, even when we mix it up with Y particulate.”

    It’s a blatant power grab by the Court and a separation of powers issue. Congress SHOULD be able to remedy it by specifying that this decision-making power should reside with the Executive branch and the Judiciary won’t be able to say “no mine”. I mean, this Court WILL, but a legitimate Court wouldn’t.



















  • The way this article is written really annoys me. The headline talks about a super PAC, but it begins talking about Trump’s PAC. “Super PAC” is a specific term referring to organizations that are not allowed to directly coordinate with campaigns (and they can have large, anonymous donations, which is where a lot of the “dark money” in politics comes from).

    Here’s the actual meat the headline is referring to:

    Save America, Trump’s leadership PAC, was able to stay in the black in March due to another $5 million refund in March from Make America Great Again Inc., the Trump-backing super PAC. The super PAC has transferred $5 million to the leadership PAC each month going back to last July, with less regular transfers before then.

    The leadership PAC initially seeded the super PAC with $60 million before he announced his candidacy. Now, MAGA Inc. can only send $2.75 million more back to Save America, raising questions about whether Save America will continue to be the vehicle to fund legal bills in several cases linked to Trump.

    Basically, the only reason that the super PAC is involved with paying for Trump’s legal bills in the first place is because Trump’s PAC is paying for the legal bills, and the super PAC is returning the “startup loan” that was given to them originally.

    The point is, the well is drying up fast and Trump’s PAC is going to be out of money real soon, and he’ll have to rely on super PACs to campaign for him entirely.