Hacker News Reader

Comment by llamaimperative | Hacker News Reader

The specific law that Trump is very obviously breaking is the Securing Inspector General Independence Act of 2022, which says Congress must be notified 30 days in advance and given "substantive" rationale for dismissing inspectors general.

This law was passed specifically in response to Trump breaking the antecedent law, Inspector General Reform Act of 2008, during his first term.

Will the "party of law and order" do anything? Nope.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11546

Good on Ms Fong for refusing to leave.

View on HN

I'm tired of congressional Republicans being treated as unmentioned bystanders in this.

Reporters should be pushing microphones in their faces asking why they approve of the latest thing Trump did, or at least what they think of him breaking laws they passed.

Absolutely agreed.

Reporters are doing that. But politicians in general and Republicans in particular excel at using rhetorical fallacies and other tactics to avoid answering difficult questions. Here's an example from last year where a bunch of Republicans simply booed and abused a reporter whose question they disliked: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4274345-republican-tells-...

The media has many shortcomings, but how are reporters supposed to hold accountable people who simply do not care?

The Trump people went extremely well prepared into this. They are spamming with a ton of things, often legally questionable. They know that Congress doesn't have a backbone and lawsuits will take a very long time. It's a brilliant strategy.

Lawsuits take a very long time, but a court injunction can control which way that time is spent.

A number of (especially recent) administrations have performed a large number of legally questionable acts which were often structured in such a way as to be difficult to challenge (the CFPB comes to mind). Trump’s innovation seems to be taking this tactic to an extreme, remarkably early in this administration.

Say more about how the CFPB was illegal? It was created by an act of Congress.

There are/were a number of issues with its structure, some of which are described in the lawsuits mentioned on its Wikipedia page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Financial_Protectio...

Its constitutionality was literally upheld in SCOTUS

So no, not really. You have a list of complaints from the regulated parties.

That’s one of the decisions; on the other hand, the director was made removable at will (by the courts, in response to a challenge, and contrary to the original statute), and there have been other proposed challenges. This change has proved consequential.

Ah yes, the little known legal loophole of "nobody is going to stop me".

In all seriousness, the situation is very dire. The future does not, currently, bode well for the common man.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com