On the legality of DOGE

[Horace]

@jon-nyc said in On the legality of DOGE:

By the way a useful mental exercise is to imagine if, four years ago, President Biden had established the Department of Government Equity, co-led by Ibrahm X Kendi and Nicole Hannah Jones, with the mission of bringing racial and gender equity to every aspect of government policy.

Would you want them to be transparent? Publish who they met with and when? Document their meetings and findings and decisions?

Does every DEI office in every government department act that way? This seems to be a "useful mental exercise" only for those who believe a "department of government equity" would be a novel initiative that doesn't already exist as a distributed system of 1000s of DEI cells in thousands of departments. Just as, in Biden's time, almost all large corporations had such a department.

[jon-nyc]

You’re missing the point. FACA governs external groups staffed by non-governmental employees. Government departments have their own transparency and accountability rules, for what they’re worth.

[Mik]

I was listening to NPR on the way to haircut this morning. They had some DEI person on who said the Trump EOs won't matter much because it's not really about race and gender, DEI is about a color and gender blind meritocracy. Then she said when you walk into a room or a meeting and look around you'll know whether they have DEI or not.

[Horace]

@jon-nyc said in On the legality of DOGE:

You’re missing the point. FACA governs external groups staffed by non-governmental employees. Government departments have their own transparency and accountability rules, for what they’re worth.

Ok then. The "useful mental exercise" yields a yawn from me, considering we already have a distributed system for the purpose described, all of which have nominal reporting requirements. It would have moved zero needles, but for pundit talking points at the worst, to have a department of DEI with no reporting requirements.

[Horace]

@Mik said in On the legality of DOGE:

I was listening to NPR on the way to haircut this morning. They had some DEI person on who said the Trump EOs won't matter much because it's not really about race and gender, DEI is about a color and gender blind meritocracy. Then she said when you walk into a room or a meeting and look around you'll know whether they have DEI or not.

DEI is about the opposite of what DEI is about? Is that what the rhetoric of the left has become? Or maybe just that particular pundit.

[jon-nyc]

@Horace said in On the legality of DOGE:

@jon-nyc said in On the legality of DOGE:

You’re missing the point. FACA governs external groups staffed by non-governmental employees. Government departments have their own transparency and accountability rules, for what they’re worth.

Ok then. The "useful mental exercise" yields a yawn from me, considering we already have a distributed system for the purpose described, all of which have nominal reporting requirements. It would have moved zero needles, but for pundit talking points at the worst, to have a department of DEI with no reporting requirements.

The broader point I was making is that both sides, when their guy is in power, seem to want very few constraints on executive power, forgetting that eventually the office will be occupied by someone they wish were more constrained. It’s useful to imagine some alternative scenario where the other is in the office so you can be careful why you wish for.

You may want Trump to be able to coerce states into doing his bidding by withholding highway funds. But do you president AOC to be able to do that? No? Ok then, be thankful that’s not allowed.

[Horace]

@jon-nyc said in On the legality of DOGE:

@Horace said in On the legality of DOGE:

@jon-nyc said in On the legality of DOGE:

You’re missing the point. FACA governs external groups staffed by non-governmental employees. Government departments have their own transparency and accountability rules, for what they’re worth.

Ok then. The "useful mental exercise" yields a yawn from me, considering we already have a distributed system for the purpose described, all of which have nominal reporting requirements. It would have moved zero needles, but for pundit talking points at the worst, to have a department of DEI with no reporting requirements.

The broader point I was making is that both sides, when their guy is in power, seem to want very few constraints on executive power, forgetting that eventually the office will be occupied by someone they wish were more constrained. It’s useful to imagine some alternative scenario where the other is in the office so you can be careful why you wish for.

You may want Trump to be able to coerce states into doing his bidding by withholding highway funds. But do you president AOC to be able to do that? No? Ok then, be thankful that’s not allowed.

I can't speak for everybody else here, but I'm familiar with basic principles of critical thought. I'm pretty sure everybody else is too. Remember the drumbeat about what all the lawfare against Trump might mean when the shoe is on the other foot? That would be an application of this principle.

[Copper]

If Mr. Biden can have an ERA, Mr. Trump can have a DOGE.

Fair is fair.

[jon-nyc]

Trump already tweeted out a constitutional change and it’s just as worthless as the one Biden tweeted out.

[George K]

@jon-nyc said in On the legality of DOGE:

Trump already tweeted out a constitutional change

Let's see what the courts say about "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

It will be an interesting argument.

[Axtremus]

@George-K said in On the legality of DOGE:

Let's see what the courts say about "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

It will be an interesting argument.

That's about as interesting as saying let's see what the courts say about "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ..."