robrandhava.bsky.social
Senior Counsel & Jack Of All Trades at The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights (civilrightsorg.bsky.social). CWRU Law & Kent State. #NAFO
Opinions are my own... sometimes my employer's... probably not yours.
333 posts
259 followers
203 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
You know that and I know that, but these people on the other hand... same people who fired nuclear safety and bird flu employees.
comment in response to
post
I'm guessing AI.
comment in response to
post
It means Emperor Putin is displeased with the apparent lack of progress.
comment in response to
post
You're still going to need to dumb it down a whole lot more for certain audiences.
But thank you, for this and for all the good work you do.
comment in response to
post
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/202...
comment in response to
post
The Sixth Amendment would be just as big of a problem for him as the First Amendment.
But if he wants to keep sending stupid letters, that's on him...
comment in response to
post
That photo is the best thing to happen to Democrats in a while.
comment in response to
post
He's the interim US Attorney for a district where 6.5% of the potential jury pool supported Trump. Good luck to him.
comment in response to
post
That makes me wonder why he and Elon aren't getting along better...
comment in response to
post
Brace for a whole lot of DOGE revenge firings tomorrow.
comment in response to
post
I've seen good reviews of the Era... I was about to jump but I missed the sale price, so maybe next time it goes on sale. But yeah, I remember the app being less than ideal.
comment in response to
post
Which Sonos speaker? I've been pondering the Era. I had a Playbase under my TV for a long time, and it worked well enough.
comment in response to
post
I'm starting to wonder if Elon is really as smart as some people make him out to be.
comment in response to
post
I noticed there's nothing in their statement along the lines of "conditions in Haiti no longer meet the criteria for granting Temporary Protected Status."
comment in response to
post
Glaringly absent: any attempt to claim that conditions in Haiti have improved to the point that TPS is no longer warranted.
comment in response to
post
Correction: -interim- US Attorney
comment in response to
post
He's a joke of an -Interim- U.S. Attorney.
comment in response to
post
"Never thought I'd see the day"?
A lot of of us have seen it coming since the day he (barely) won the election.
comment in response to
post
Remember when Tucker Carlson was saying masculinity was dying and that men needed to tan their balls? Apparently he was talking about Republicans.
www.yahoo.com/video/does-t...
comment in response to
post
Republicans who stood up to Trump like Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, and Adam Kinzinger are just fine. Not only that, but Dan Newhouse and David Valadao are still serving in Congress.
Everyone else in that party is just spineless.
comment in response to
post
I mean, he still is a mad dictator. And just a downright shitty person.
comment in response to
post
Under the "unitary executive" theory that Trump embraced in an executive order yesterday, Trump runs DOGE. This isn't hard.
comment in response to
post
❤️
comment in response to
post
Interesting: of the people who could serve on Eagle Ed's juries in DC, 6.5% of them voted for Trump.
comment in response to
post
In other words, a slow day.
comment in response to
post
During Trump 1.0, I once submitted a comment from LCCHR using all caps.
comment in response to
post
For what it's worth, one independent agency he doesn't go after in this order is the Fed, when it comes to monetary policy. He expressly says that's not covered. That should provide some comfort.
comment in response to
post
...and a decade later, Ken Starr's pursuit of Bill Clinton's affair proved Scalia right (broken clock moment). After that experience, both parties agreed not to renew the independent counsel law. But other independent agencies remain, and that's what Trump is trying to go after in this order.
comment in response to
post
The issue famously came up in the 1988 SCOTUS case of Morrison v. Olson, which upheld the Independent Counsel law. Scalia wrote a blistering (and pretty thoughtful) lone dissent arguing that anyone in the executive branch must answer to the President, or it'd create a constitutional Frankenstein...
comment in response to
post
This is setting up for a constitutional showdown, but it's a showdown between the President and Congress, rather than between the President and the courts. (Although if the courts don't rule his way, who knows.)
comment in response to
post
From the order:
"The President and the Attorney General... shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch."
That "for the executive branch" is key here. Within that executive branch, Trump and Bondi - not any other agency - have the last word on what a law means.
comment in response to
post
The theory holds that any agency/office that Congress created to implement a law should be directly under the control of the President - meaning that independent agencies or independent counsels (more on that shortly) etc. are outside of the design of Article II of the Constitution.
comment in response to
post
I just wonder how many MAGA lawyers are out there to fill all the gaps...
comment in response to
post
So it's setting up a constitutional showdown, but it would be more about him vs. Congress than him vs. the courts. (Unless the courts don't rule the way he wants, then who knows.)
The order does say that it doesn't apply to the Fed in its monetary policy role.
comment in response to
post
The order seems focused on independent agencies. I'm pretty sure the goal here is the "unitary executive," a longstanding conservative theory saying everything under the exec branch has to answer to the president, and Congress can't establish agencies that are outside his control.
comment in response to
post
The order I'm seeing is focused on who interprets law for the executive branch. He could defy the courts (forcing Republicans to shrug), but that's not what this order is about.
"The President and the Attorney General... shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch."
comment in response to
post
Even Professor Kingsfield said it was 🔥
comment in response to
post
Don't get your hopes up. It's only big enough to take out one city. And the odds of it landing here in DC are not good.
comment in response to
post
🔥