What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[viper37]

From what I'm seeing they are claiming Biden destroyed the Epstein files.  I'm surprised that Trump isn't running with that theory, instead he's claiming that Obama, Clinton, and Biden made them up.

One GOP Congressman pushed that narr a tive.

But Pam Bondi said she had the list on her desk a few months ago.  And they made s big show giving binders with something irrelevant to some conspiracy nuts, promising more later.

I was always expecting some kind of cover up, but I thought there'd be competent people handling this.  Oh well.

[viper37]

TikToker Creates Fake 'Alligator Alcatraz' Tour Company That Redirects MAGA Supporters to Migrant Aid Resources


Trolling the Cons?

[Josquius]

Vazquez, who is known for creating sketches mocking politicians, created the site as part of a video she did acting as "Terri," a female business owner boasting tours and allowing those interested to "claim an alligator" for $4,547.

If the alligator someone "claimed" later "eats an illegal," Terri said they could win a gift card to a "non-DEI business."

Exactly what they would seriously propose.

[Savonarola]

Elmo's X Account Hacked with Antisemitic Posts, Demands Trump Release Epstein Files

At least he didn't blame his posts on Ambien; but really, hacked?    Take some responsibility Elmo.

[Valmy]

Anti-Semitism and posts about the Epstein files? Sounds like his regular posts to me.

[Syt]

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-education-layoffs-9370415531185092341b16a6bfea9344

Supreme Court allows Trump to lay off nearly 1,400 Education Department employees

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is allowing President Donald Trump to put his plan to dismantle the Education Department back on track — and to go through with laying off nearly 1,400 employees.

With the three liberal justices in dissent, the court on Monday paused an order from U.S. District Judge Myong Joun in Boston, who issued a preliminary injunction reversing the layoffs and calling into question the broader plan. The layoffs "will likely cripple the department," Joun wrote. A federal appeals court refused to put the order on hold while the administration appealed.

The high court action enables the administration to resume work on winding down the department, one of Trump's biggest campaign promises.

In a post Monday night on his social media platform, Trump said the high court "has handed a Major Victory to Parents and Students across the Country." He said the decision will allow his administration to begin the "very important process" of returning many of the department's functions "BACK TO THE STATES."

The court did not explain its decision in favor of Trump, as is customary in emergency appeals. But in dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor complained that her colleagues were enabling legally questionable action on the part of the administration.

"When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary's duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it," Sotomayor wrote for herself and Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan.


The secretary of education lauds the decision
Education Secretary Linda McMahon said it's a "shame" it took the Supreme Court's intervention to let Trump's plan move ahead.

"Today, the Supreme Court again confirmed the obvious: the President of the United States, as the head of the Executive Branch, has the ultimate authority to make decisions about staffing levels, administrative organization, and day-to-day operations of federal agencies," McMahon said in a statement.

A lawyer for the Massachusetts cities and education groups that sued over the plan said the lawsuit will continue, adding no court has yet ruled that what the administration wants to do is legal.

"Without explaining to the American people its reasoning, a majority of justices on the U.S. Supreme Court have dealt a devastating blow to this nation's promise of public education for all children. On its shadow docket, the Court has yet again ruled to overturn the decision of two lower courts without argument," Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, said in a statement.

The Supreme Court has handed Trump one victory after another in his effort to remake the federal government, after lower courts have found the administration's actions probably violate federal law. Last week, the justices cleared the way for Trump's plan to significantly reduce the size of the federal workforce. On the education front, the high court has previously allowed cuts in teacher-training grants to go forward.

Separately on Monday, more than 20 states sued the administration over billions of dollars in frozen education funding for after-school care, summer programs and more.

Education Department employees are on leave
Education Department employees who were targeted by the layoffs have been on paid leave since March, according to a union that represents some of the agency's staff.

Joun's order had prevented the department from fully terminating them, though none had been allowed to return to work, according to the American Federation of Government Employees Local 252. Without Joun's order, the workers would have been terminated in early June.

The Education Department had said earlier in June that it was "actively assessing how to reintegrate" the employees. A department email asked them to share whether they had gained other employment, saying the request was meant to "support a smooth and informed return to duty."

The current case involves two consolidated lawsuits that said Trump's plan amounted to an illegal closure of the Education Department.

One suit was filed by the Somerville and Easthampton school districts in Massachusetts along with the American Federation of Teachers and other education groups. The other legal action was filed by a coalition of 21 Democratic attorneys general.

The suits argued that layoffs left the department unable to carry out responsibilities required by Congress, including duties to support special education, distribute financial aid and enforce civil rights laws.

[The Minsky Moment]

The cowardice of burying action of massive public significance into one-line orders is infuriating.

The reality is that we have a two-tracked justice system.  There are now two standards for obtaining a stay of preliminary relief in the Supreme Court:

1) Showing of irreparable harm, likelihood of success on the merits, and balance of the equities favor a stay, after giving due deference to the fact-finding of the lower court;

OR

2) The appellant's name is Donald Trump.

The Court isn't even going through the motions of trying to justify this anymore.  The fix is in.

[viper37]

The cowardice of burying action of massive public significance into one-line orders is infuriating.
The reality is that we have a two-tracked justice system.  There are now two standards for obtaining a stay of preliminary relief in the Supreme Court:
1) Showing of irreparable harm, likelihood of success on the merits, and balance of the equities favor a stay, after giving due deference to the fact-finding of the lower court;
OR
2) The appellant's name is Donald Trump.
The Court isn't even going through the motions of trying to justify this anymore.  The fix is in.

With the three liberal justices in dissent, the court on Monday paused an order from U.S. District Judge

This seems the news lately.  Whatever Trump wants, he gets with 3 liberal justices in dissent.

[Syt]

[The Minsky Moment]

There aren't three liberal judges.  Kagan is a down the middle centrist.  Sotomayor is a classic New York style pro-business moderate.  Jackson is from DC, not New York, but she worked in big firms and isn't far from that.

There is no Brennan or Marshall on this Court, there hasn't been a true liberal since Marshall retired over 30 years ago.  The Court has moved so far to the right that a conventional conservative like Souter or O'Connor were already on the left of the Court by the end of their career and would be on the far left of it now.

[Oexmelin]

Texas bill TX SB2972

Each institution of higher education shall adopt a policy detailing [students'] rights and responsibilities regarding expressive activities at the institution. The policy must:
    
(...) prohibit engaging in expressive activities on campus between the hours of 10 p.m. and 8 a.m.

"Expressive activities" means any speech or expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or by Section 8, Article I, Texas Constitution, and includes assemblies, protests, speeches, the distribution of written material, the carrying of signs, and the circulation of petitions.

[Tonitrus]

So, their own law prohibiting the activity also defines said prohibition as being in contravention of the state and US constitutions? 

The lawsuit to overturn it literally writes itself... 

[Oexmelin]

I am not sure certainties about what gets to be overturned are really warranted at this point.

[Razgovory]

In Missouri we voted, by referendum, to require employers to give paid sick leave and an increase to the minimum wage.  The governor over turned it.  We voted to expand Medicare, something the legislature has still refused to do.  Last time we voted to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution, and now we have a new amendment that will over turn it.  I'm not sure what the point of voting is anymore.  Even if we win a vote it just gets overturned by Republicans.

[Zoupa]

That sounds dangerously close to being unwelcoming to republicans