Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Matt Blaze (mattblaze@federate.social)'s status on Saturday, 01-Feb-2025 11:55:33 JST Matt Blaze

   Disclaimer: I am not a constitutional scholar, but I still harbor a quaint belief in the rule of law and stuff.

   I don't see how Musk can operate in his current role without Senate confirmation. The appointments clause requires any principal officer of the United States (who exercises "significant authority") to be confirmed first. And if locking agency heads out of their own systems isn't "significant authority", I don't know what could be.

   Sigh.

   • Blurry Moon likes this.
   • Rich Felker repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     Matt Blaze (mattblaze@federate.social)'s status on Saturday, 01-Feb-2025 11:55:36 JST Matt Blaze

     in reply to

     I know there's probably little in practice that can be done about this, given the state of congress and the courts right now. And, yes, this is perhaps not the most outrageous of the many assaults against norms and values being committed right now.

     But it's an example of how the damage being done goes beyond merely just bad policies, and involves foundational democratic institutions being dismantled.

     Steve's Place repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     Matt Blaze (mattblaze@federate.social)'s status on Saturday, 01-Feb-2025 15:58:22 JST Matt Blaze

     in reply to

     Why does the appointments clause matter? Because other than the president (and, sort of, the VP), there are no other elected officials in our largest branch of government. The ONLY granular control we have of the individuals running agencies and carrying out our laws and policies is through the senate confirmation (and impeachment) process. It can be something of a rubber stamp (when the president and senate are of the same party), but it's all we've got, and at least provides some transparency.

     Steve's Place repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     Blurry Moon (sun@shitposter.world)'s status on Sunday, 02-Feb-2025 06:17:24 JST Blurry Moon

     in reply to

     • Amoshias
     @Amoshias @mattblaze Bill Clinton probably did this with his wife in 1993 when he appointed her to design national health care. There's probably arguments for and against it but it was really controversial at the time for basically the same reason. Nobody in power has actually cared about the constitution in my lifetime.
   • Embed this notice
     Amoshias (amoshias@esq.social)'s status on Sunday, 02-Feb-2025 06:17:35 JST Amoshias

     in reply to

     @mattblaze so in all seriousness, I respect your writing, but I feel like you have not been paying a lot of attention over the last few years.

     We are living in a post-constitutional america. Nobody cares that what musk is doing is blatantly unconstitutional.

     Sorry, let me be a bit more accurate. Nobody with any political power cares.

   • Embed this notice
     Blurry Moon (sun@shitposter.world)'s status on Sunday, 02-Feb-2025 06:19:41 JST Blurry Moon

     in reply to

     • Amoshias
     @Amoshias why is that a troll? it's a fact. trivially verifiable.
   • Embed this notice
     Amoshias (amoshias@esq.social)'s status on Sunday, 02-Feb-2025 06:19:42 JST Amoshias

     in reply to

     • Blurry Moon

     @sun @mattblaze shush troll.

   • Embed this notice
     Blurry Moon (sun@shitposter.world)'s status on Sunday, 02-Feb-2025 06:25:54 JST Blurry Moon

     in reply to

     • Amoshias
     @Amoshias I actually think you are trolling because 1. it's proof it's been done way before your "a few years now" even if you personally "don't care" 2. national health care was pretty huge and 3. I was being intellectually honest and said probably because it was controversial and it was seriously debated. I think we're done here, have a nice evening.
   • Embed this notice
     Amoshias (amoshias@esq.social)'s status on Sunday, 02-Feb-2025 06:25:58 JST Amoshias

     in reply to

     • Blurry Moon

     @sun first of all, you said probably.

     Second of all, you turned that "probably" into "nobody has cared for my entire lifetime."

     Third, it seems impossible that you actually think that these two things, which are superficially similar except that one is 10,000 times larger, are equivalent.

   • Embed this notice
     Blurry Moon (sun@shitposter.world)'s status on Sunday, 02-Feb-2025 06:27:10 JST Blurry Moon

     in reply to

     • Amoshias
     @Amoshias you're an idiot.
   • Embed this notice
     Amoshias (amoshias@esq.social)'s status on Sunday, 02-Feb-2025 06:27:11 JST Amoshias

     in reply to

     • Blurry Moon

     @sun lol.

   • Embed this notice
     Matt Blaze (mattblaze@federate.social)'s status on Sunday, 02-Feb-2025 10:44:36 JST Matt Blaze

     in reply to

     It's notable and concerning - separate and apart from whatever policies he's advancing - that we have no real idea what Musk and his "Department of Government Efficiency" are actually responsible for or what the limits of its authority are supposed to be. Congress wasn't involved in its creation, and Musk was installed in his position without Senate confirmation. Yet he appears to have broad authority over several agencies (whose leaders are required to be Senate confirmed).

     Steve's Place repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     Matt Blaze (mattblaze@federate.social)'s status on Sunday, 02-Feb-2025 10:44:43 JST Matt Blaze

     in reply to

     Congress (and especially the Senate) historically has been pretty steadfast in guarding its authority in this regard, even with presidents of the same party and agenda. Their passivity about this right now is extremely conspicuous.