« first day (1088 days earlier)      last day (43 days later) » 

12:12 AM
This is inexplicably the dumbest thing I have seen today, even after Trump's conference!
"Ah shit gotcha Collins you checks notes voted for Romney when he was running against Obama"
 
12:40 AM
US calls for shower rules to be eased after Trump hair complaints bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53761744
> Under a 1992 law, showerheads in the US are not allowed to produce more than 2.5 gallons (9.5l) of water per minute.

> The Trump administration wants this limit to apply to each nozzle, rather than the overall fixture.

> Consumer and conservation groups argue that it is wasteful and unnecessary.
> The changes were proposed by the Department of Energy on Wednesday following complaints by Mr Trump at the White House last month.

> "So showerheads - you take a shower, the water doesn't come out. You want to wash your hands, the water doesn't come out. So what do you do? You just stand there longer or you take a shower longer? Because my hair - I don't know about you, but it has to be perfect. Perfect," he said.
Just 5 more years of this, after which we'll get to listen to Jared Kushners nonsense for 8 years
 
The one saving grace is that Jared Kushner is far too unpleasant for anyone to vote for
Like the things that make Trump unpleasant are somehow attractive to certain people but Jared Kushner is just universally like a 12 year old you desperately want to shut up
 
@TimStone We'll see
Judge orders Trump campaign to produce evidence of voter fraud in Pennsylvania cnn.com/2020/08/13/politics/…
 
12:55 AM
@TimStone Mitch McConnell's a RINO!!! He supported JOHN MCCAIN!
 
 
1 hour later…
2:06 AM
@TimStone except when in 5 years the presidency becomes a monarchy
just that it wont seem like that after prevent people from voting so that the GOP keeps getting in and Trump decided who the next GOP leader is
......i think i just described how Russia elects it's leaders
 
2:17 AM
that dog casually putting fuel on the fire while saying "this is fine"
 
 
11 hours later…
1:24 PM
@Ave Jim Sterling agrees with you
 
Ave
1:55 PM
@Nzall I am not surprised, but I am happy that he shares my view anyways. Thank God for Jim Sterling.
 
2:28 PM
@TimStone niiice. And, the remedy for this invalid appointment? Its not just removal, its the invalidation of every action those executives have taken in their position
seriously
 
Someone compared this to Kellyanne Conway having violated the Hatch Act (where the remedy was ignoring it) but I think this is actually theoretically more actionable?
 
@BradC Hang on, is that the official remedy, or just the one you propose?
 
@Nzall no, that's written into the law, spelled out in the vacancy act
This episode unfortunately doesn't have a transcript yet, but Opening Arguments Podcast episode 407 (from July 27th) goes into great detail on this
Title of the episode is "Trump’s Illegal DHS Secretary"
But from the footnotes, here's the key: 5 U.S. Code § 3348.Vacant office, section (d) (1):
> An action taken by any person who is not acting under section 3345, 3346, or 3347, or as provided by subsection (b), in the performance of any function or duty of a vacant office to which this section and sections 3346, 3347, 3349, 3349a, 3349b, and 3349c apply shall have no force or effect.
In fact SCOTUS ruled just that in a recent similar case, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. Southwest Ambulance
1. The NLRB filed an "unfair labor practices" complaint against a company, which was confirmed by an administrative law judge
2. The company appealed the ruling, claiming the filing was invalid, because the head of the NLRB was illegally appointed according to the vacancy act
3. The appeals court agreed, vacating the complaint
4. SCOTUS affirmed the appeals court
 
2:47 PM
This... feels more like a "The Court wanted to rule against the NLRB" situation rather than a "The Court recognizes that Congress is the only one with the power to confirm people"
Like there's a solid chance if they get their hands on this they'll come up with some "well, you know, national security though,"
 
Listen to the podcast episode linked above for more, and yes, there are somewhat narrow definitions of what an "action taken in the performance or duty of a vacant office" means, but the law is pretty clear here.
 
Yeah but the court makes shit up all the time
 
@Unionhawk no argument, but there is a limit to how brazen Roberts thinks he can get away with
 
That's why if it comes up (it probably won't) it'll be written per curiam
or maybe like alito will put his name on it
 
 
2 hours later…
4:29 PM
FYI, if anyone is truly interested, the relevant segment from the podcast episode OA407 about the DHS Secretary and the Vacancy Act starts at exactly 20:00.
 
5:09 PM
I just re-listened to it, and although there are many caveats, one major one I failed to mention above is that 5 USC 3348(d)(1) will invalidate all official actions taken by an official in violation of the Vacancy Act from the moment his position is improper, not necessarily from the beginning of his appointment.
So if an acting official is allowed (by the Vacancy act) to remain in position for, say, 180 days, but remains in that position for longer, any official actions after that 180 days are the ones that could be invalidated
 

« first day (1088 days earlier)      last day (43 days later) »