ACIP's charter now full of anti-vaccine terms and welcomes fringe groups to CDC.
See full article...
See full article...
RFK Jr. rewrites CDC panel’s charter, opening door to anti-vaccine quacks
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
No, my point is that issuing an "Executive Order" and having Cabinet members who will take it and run requires a Federal Court to step in to tell them they can't.
NOT Congress, but a Federal Judge. More to the point, one can simply "judge shop" and pick whatever Court you think is most sympathetic. This is why I originally wrote otherwise friendly groups (groups with standing, such as Environment Group suing over an environmental law, etc.) should sue specifically to ensure it's heard in a sympathetic court, a court which will uphold the E.O. requiring the Supreme Court to either allow the E.O. to stand or shove the hearing to the top of its docket.
Upvote
16
(16
/
0)
I don't mean to be rude, but you're nitpicking...POTUS doesn't need "legal authority to force the Supreme Court" because all POTUS has to do is issue an Executive Order that's 100% sure to get immediately challenged AND ensure that challenge is heard in a "friendly" court...do that and YES, you've forced the Supreme Court to step in (or ignore it if they don't wish to block it, that's also fine for our purposes.)
Upvote
20
(20
/
0)
In theory, it can be ... but what alternative administration would upturn Citizen United? I can't really see the Democrats wanting to change it either, not after they've been elected as a result of it themselves.
Sadly, nothing will change and the US will sink further into the mud.
On the positive side, I dont live in the US, so whatever crap happens there strickly isn't my business.
Upvote
-7
(5
/
-12)
To be honest, I do think Kamala was a terrible choice, exactly because she is a woman. Not because a woman somehow less capable, mind you.
You have to recognize in what kind of country you're running for president though. No one would argue a woman would not do well in the race for the next ayatollah of Iran. Yet somehow Americans ignore the state of their own country and the immediate loss of votes from large swathes of the population anyone other than an old white man will have to contend with.
Upvote
10
(11
/
-1)
Americans not getting vaccinated or access to healthcare is also a peaceful solution to a global problem. /s Just too bad the elites makes sure their nepo-babies get vaccinated and taken care of.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
I purpose we close the EU borders to unvaccinated americans. They should show their passport and proof of vaccination for diseases like measles. If not they can get their shots at the airport at their own expense or fly back to where they came from.
Upvote
7
(8
/
-1)
Yet somehow a very articulate person of color was elected (twice). Race notwithstanding when was the last time someone other than Obama was elected and could speak or write eloquently?
Why is a woman less electable than a Black man?
I voted and campaigned for both.
Upvote
11
(13
/
-2)
Even if you folks are allowed to have fair elections again (not guaranteed) and elect a vaguely sensible human being (difficult from the shallow gene pool of the American political class), the poor soul will have a crushing task trying to fix the damage whilst managing all the normal things that need doing. It's a poison chalice of epic proportions.
We are suffering similarly in the UK following 14 years of idiocy and incompetence: the current government was being hammered within a year for not fixing things that had been deliberately undermined, if not destroyed, for a decade. People expect the impossible and have no idea how hard it is to piece together a broken cup after someone has hit it with a hammer.
We are suffering similarly in the UK following 14 years of idiocy and incompetence: the current government was being hammered within a year for not fixing things that had been deliberately undermined, if not destroyed, for a decade. People expect the impossible and have no idea how hard it is to piece together a broken cup after someone has hit it with a hammer.
Upvote
15
(16
/
-1)
Merely getting these idiots out of government isn't enough.
Examples have to be made.
Examples have to be made.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
Your fuel costs, food costs, entire cost of living are about to shoot through the roof (again).
The reason? America and Israel started a war of aggression and now the Strait of Hormuz is fucked.
What happens in the US is everybody's business so long as they have a disproportionately huge military and no morals.
Upvote
17
(18
/
-1)
States run elections, not the feds. There will be elections, and they will be free and fair even in red states.
Upvote
-17
(2
/
-19)
The SCOTUS is listening to a challenge to a EO right now.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cje47jk49k0o
So apparently it is possible. And this kind of deliberately bating the courts with challengeable things effectively forces the courts to weigh in.
Edit: it has been observed that this administration is using EOs to provoke court challenges. The gamble is whether opponents should just live with the negatives for a period and wait for a repeal, or try to challenge and set up a possible loss in the current Supreme Court and enshrining the new interpretation of the law as the right one.
Upvote
19
(19
/
0)
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
Clearly "Big Pharma" didn't come up with adequate "contributions". Just compare with AI regulation - no, no, can't have that need to keep a competitive advantage over Chyna. Vaccines? The US had world-leading research, I expect it is now rapidly migrating to Europe.
Back to the stone age.
Back to the stone age.
Upvote
1
(2
/
-1)
because large parts of the US population, have a bias - conscious or subconscious - against a female leader ? It is usually assumed they have to prove being as tough, hardened and in an emergency ruthlessly smart as a male counterpart. While male candidates are automatically assumed to have these qualities, until proven wrong. It's an uphill battle. Tough women are always seen as the rare exception, and that exceptionality has to be visible and proven. Shown as being there. There is a distinct macho culture in the US.
Looking at say Angela Merkel - who slipped into the job, exceeded initially low expectations and is very smart (Doctorate in physics, magna sum laude ) , went through a complete public image overhaul and has the electoral privilege to be elected by parliament, not direct vote. Successful enough, to be re-elected 3 times. yet everyone called her Mutti ("mom") . Yeah. Imagine referring to the US president as "Pa " .
Never mind, that Kamala was also billed as a female leader of colour (her skin pigmentation should not matter at all ) and there was very little done to actually recommend her except her having been Biden's VP . What major projects did she have to her name that would recommend her to the general public ? Any legal initiatives ?
From the outside, Kamala, for all her possible virtues, never struck anyone as forceful, determined, the "Gal with a plan " or as "in charge".
On top of that she was also not particularly eloquent, or good at striking an emotional cord that resonated with the electorate.
Also since the electoral defeat she has very much kept her head down, instead of rallying the opposition or providing a clear and outspoken alternative to "el presidente".
i'd at best give her a 3/5, if that^^
Last edited:
Upvote
4
(7
/
-3)
theres also the 35% of americans that would support trump ordering people dragged into the street and shot for disrespecting him.
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
I think you may have missed the point. You are correct that an Executive Order cannot actually order the Supreme Court to do something. 100%, they cannot be ordered around like that.
I believe what the OP meant by "forcing" the supreme court to do something is actually meaning that an EO can make a topic something of critical importance right now, the biggest topic of the day so to speak, basically inviting court challenges and uproar. Basically making the topic so big that the supreme court feels like they really need to step in now when they'd rather be off golfing or something.
Because yeah, the supreme court can just ignore stuff or dismiss things or throw them back to lower courts all day long. There's probably rules about it, but I'm not sure anyone has any enforcement authority over the supreme court, so it's really up to them to do what they want. They COULD ignore EOs from now until the end of time, but the bigger the uproar, the bigger the political cost to them for ignoring it. And the more they ignore things, the more impotent they look, and having the supreme court look weak and meaningless would be a bad thing from the perspective of the supreme court justices...
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
I have sometimes felt that life would be so much easier (and more profitable) if I were not afflicted by the sense that facts matter and that the effects of my actions upon others is important. Even for trivial actions like posting on ars I have a distinct feeling that if I were to say something wrong, stupid or offensive here someone, the mods in the latter case, would gently correct me.
Life for the likes of RFK jr must be so much easier than it is for us plebs who actually need to make things work correctly.
I blame my parents for bringing we me up well and exposing me to such 'terrifying doubts' about my own ability's!
/s
Life for the likes of RFK jr must be so much easier than it is for us plebs who actually need to make things work correctly.
I blame my parents for bringing we me up well and exposing me to such 'terrifying doubts' about my own ability's!
/s
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
Here’s an example from a scientist I know: NIH grants have gotten super selective, with an R01 acceptance rate in many case ½ or even ⅓ of what it used to be even a year before. At least in their field, those grants are the key career step for going from being a postdoc researching in someone else’s lab to starting your own lab. There is some private funding but it’s much smaller and not going up.
This is going to force a generation of researchers out of science, and given the demographics, that will produce a bubble where boomers retire, their labs close, and there’s no replacement. That means less research now and fewer spots for graduate students, exacerbating the problem in the future.
Even if Republicans reconsider the wisdom of gifting the 21st century to China, there’s no quick way to retrain researchers. Like burning down a building, the destruction can happen so quickly compared to the time it takes to rebuild.
Last edited:
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
And Trump never denied election results nor sent ICE, one of the most funded military organizations in the world now, to bully blue states, it is well known.
Upvote
18
(18
/
0)
The downvotes are because you're focused on pedantically defining "forced". No, and EO doesn't "force" SCOTUS to do anything, but EOs put a lot of illegal activity in front of the court. Just look at Trump's EO on mail-in voting, that is 100% headed to SCOTUS. States certainly have standing to sue over the EO so if a lower court decides for Trump, they're appealing all the way to SCOTUS. And if Trump loses, he has a loooooooooong track record of appealing all the way to SCOTUS. So while SCOTUS won't be "forced" to do something, this is landing on their docket and they have to address it, even if that is "Nah, not worth our time".
And if you don't think SCOTUS is impacted by EOs, maybe take a look at the shadow docket. That is chock full of SCOTUS decisions about Trump's EOs.
Upvote
15
(15
/
0)
Scary Devil Monastery
Ars Scholae Palatinae
One of the main reasons the US has come to this point is the sheer, staggering complacency, ignorance and lack of national self-awareness of the sane and rational americans. Because these facts are true about the US:
54% of the american citizenry read at a 6th grader's level or less.
21% are functionally illiterate.
40% actively and aggressively deny science, being creationists who think scientists and doctors are evil pawns of some satanist global cult disguised as atheists.
36% or so are irredeemable malicious clowns willing to harm themselves and their own children as long as it means some trans kid somewhere gets to suffer.
40% of the american population are so apathetic that when the choice stands between a bigoted fascist surrounded by white supremacists and literally any other normal politician they do not care about or do not see the difference.
Racism, misogyny, hell, all forms of bigotry, are endemic and deeply rooted in much of the country to the point where taking down statues of traitorous sadistic slavers guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity is protested against.
Meanwhile everyone not stark raving mad and/or malicious has ended up in one and the same party - one which now contains everything from bleeding-heart progressive liberals social democrats to reaganite pseudo-libertarian closet racists. A party which comes to blows with itself over a bloody lunch menu, let alone policy platform, and which thus needs every political standpoint to be so milquetoast and inoffensive to everyone it can at least get almost all the democratic votes.
And even then, failing some form of purity test will see voters for this party turn their back on their candidated, or even vote for the fascist strongman of the GOP out of spite.
It's fucking insane on the face of it, but I think I know why.
Democratic voters are every bit as gaslit by the myth of american exceptionalism as the GOP is.
Only that in their case the myth they keep falling for is that the country they live in is a good one where the majority of people are good. That they can somehow "enlighten" the fence-sitters and/or malicious into their point of view.
The proof that this was wrong was made crystal clear in both the elections Trump won. Normal decent people are in the decided minority.
Roughly one in three.
The other two thirds of americans are either malicious village idiots or apathetic village idiots who think there's no significant difference between a Trump and a Biden or Harris or do not care what that difference is.
It still hasn't sunk in among many democratic voters just what that says about the country they live in.
If the democratic party wants to win their country back they'll need to get the 40% of non-voters on board, preferably without losing their normal voter base. And I don't think they can either sell the compromises they'll need to do to their normal voter base or muster the political will to grab and use whatever power they're given to actively fight the GOP the way it needs to be fought.
Upvote
12
(13
/
-1)
I'm not sure charmingly is quite right. I'm thinking something like alarmingly is far more appropriate.
I don't think it's at all overreacting to claim that US democracy is literally on the line. Trump has said he wants to be a dictator. He laments that he's not a king. Believe him, and believe that he will do whatever he can (legally or illegally) to remain in power.
Upvote
14
(14
/
0)
Impeach cabinet members Kennedy Jr, Hegseth, Gabbard, Ratcliffe, Vought, Miller (if legally possible, run a hearing to do so anyway), justices Thomas, Alito, and obviously Trump.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
MilanKraft
Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
One foot planted on the Dock of Sanity, the other already planted on the USS Failboat. Destination: Neo-fascism, 21st Century style.
We're about 50% there, as the old administrative and bureaucratic processes means it will be a somewhat drawn-out thing (can't happen overnight like in the movies). The next big shoe to drop will be the changes to election laws and vote-gathering (in the works). This will most likely occur only in red states and purple states at first, where there are enough ignoramus sympathizer types in election roles to "get 'er done." Because that's all they need.
Many sane people still assume 2028 will be a "regular election," where we can throw the incompetent bums out, if only we can get a few percent of those fence-sitters on our side. Very bold assumption.
As usual, from where I sit / what I can see, humans gonna human... among those with the power to do something NOW.... all sounded alarms ignored, all mention of imminent threats hand-waved away, because when faced with self-destruction of whichever society they're living in, humans rarely do the right things to avert disaster.... we always wait until the disaster has occurred then scramble to perform the usual mix of finger-pointing, hand-wringing, and too-little-too-late remediation of actual rules and policy.
Misanthropic is the way. Only honest self-evaluation of our inherent flaws (selfishness / greed, irrational fear of the other, short attention spans, you name it) can lead to better systems of self-governing, commerce, etc. No American would've believed it possible 20 years ago, but we are absolutely swirling in the shitter today... right NOW. It's going to happen, so prepare yourselves... blue state folks better be ready to protect your families by any means necessary, because there will be no oasis from this shit when that other shoe finally drops and the whole country goes "OH... HUH... what did we just do to ourselves / how did this happen?"
On a brighter note: Happy 250th, America!! Surreal.
Last edited:
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
The removal of RFK, Jr. is a litmus test for Democrats. If they can't remove this guy they're useless.
Upvote
-9
(2
/
-11)
It is a long way down... It will take decades more to really become a failed state.
This is just scratching through the protective cover. "You see, paint is not needed! Look how shiny and beautiful the metal is! Paint makes everyone sick. Take it all off!"
Next? RFK enjoying a car that is completely stripped of paint. Next? After a week of sunshine, rain comes. Small brown spots appear but this is not an issue. Just lightly sand it off... Others say the spots are beautiful. Then winter hits. Snow hits, salty roads hit... The last ones stop denying paint is bad the moment the car is nothing more than a pile of rust. Oh but maybe if we cover it in oil... Sticky oil, with an additive that hardens it out...
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
Let's not under sell how bad the original research was. It was funded by lawyers who speaicalised in vaccine law suits, lead by someone with a patent on an alternative vaccine, did not get ethical approval for perfomring medical tests on children, and when investigated by the regulator was found to have "four counts of dishonesty and 12 involving the abuse of developmentally disabled children".
Wakefield can burn in hell.
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
Too many Americans still want to believe that a majority of their fellow citizens, i.e. 50% +1, can be reached with facts and reason.
In the last year, I have finally understood that that's not true. I went through all of the stages of grief on the way here.
Decency, as I think of it, never had a 50% +1 majority. Stupid, hateful and greedy were just disorganized enough to allow decency to believe that it was ascendant.
The forces of stupid, hateful and greedy got their shit together, got Reagan elected in 1980, and they've been building toward this moment since then. In the mean time, the Democratic Party learned all the wrong lessons from Carter's defeat, and then it continued to lose its way after Clinton's victories.
Any serious attempt to make a better future for America must begin with an honest assessment of what we are as a country today, and not what we wish we were.
Those who value decency and who want to live in an evidence-based world must understand that we are a minority, and think in terms of generations, not election cycles.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
This and the comment above from mg224 @1:18 AM, which points to a particular instance of a case before SCOTUS based on an EO, do the good work of supplying a rationale for SCOTUS intervention, including a concrete example. So, thanks. In fact, my former employer sued the administration over an EO that withheld university research funds, and they have so far prevailed in lower federal court. I'm not saying that properly disposed plaintiffs can't sue over an EO. I am saying that it's difficult, and standing is a preliminary hurdle, because one has to show injury to get into court. Thus, for example, the UC Berkeley suit involved the administration's funding cuts. That's an injury. The other example involves denial or refusal of US citizenship. That's an injury. Note that "injury" is not merely "something of critical importance." These are unusual circumstances. Compare the ACIP charter, the biannual renewal of which is required by law. I don't know whether the APA even permits going to court over a dispute about the terms of an agency document like the charter, but if it does, or if the administration issues an EO forcing CDC or DHS to do such-and-such in accordance with the new charter, a plaintiff would have to show direct injury to get into court. The standard to prevail is likely a showing that the agency acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it revised the charter or executed its terms; that's a very high bar, though RFK, Jr., is certainly a vulnerable candidate among defendants. In the examples, the likelihood of success for the plaintiffs is better than on average. Put another way, Trump's actions are so egregiously absurd and injurious that even a federal court can sympathize with the plaintiffs.
Over the years, hundreds of EOs have been issued without a peep. Trump is, uh, different, for sure. And Trump's SCOTUS is different, too. But the fact that even it "seemed unconvinced the US should stop granting citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants and some temporary US visitors" suggests that these are outlier suits, and illustrates that POTUS can't force an outcome from SCOTUS, as you agree.
Enforcement authority over SCOTUS? POTUS gets to appoint candidates to the federal courts with Senate approval, and Congress can change the laws. That's about it. No guarantees.
Upvote
0
(1
/
-1)
The only way to remove Kennedy would be through impeachment. And unless the Democrats win the House and 100% of the Senate seats up for grabs, they won't have a majority capable of impeaching AND convicting.
So remind us all how Democrats should be held accountable for Republican shortcomings?
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
That's science fiction.
If you want something a little closer to reality, how about an all politician / celebrity version of Alone with no tapping out or extraction for medical reasons allowed? Let them prove just how tough they are(n't). Maybe start them off somewhere in the middle of nowhere in Alaska or Montana and if they can get to Washington DC (without assistance from anyone else; the show is called Alone after all) they win.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Upvote
-1
(0
/
-1)
it can be undone instantly.
the problem is that now they've gone and turned medicine into a partisan issue.
everything Trump touches dies.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
There’s been a number of actual attempts to create isolated societies through self-selection. Some tech/crypto bros tried it several times, there’s also been attempts by conservative/libertarian groups, militias, and religious groups. They tried islands, ships, compounds, bunkers, residential developments, and resorts. They all failed, mostly though incompetence. All the people that feel like they need to get away from the “liberals ruining our country” or whatever soon run smack into the wall of disillusionment that comes when they realize that doing things is hard and requires people around who know WTF they are doing.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)