Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order • Hacker News Board

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#461

Post by thebiglebrewski » Fri, May 02, 2025, 5:41 PM UTC

You can say all you want about NPR or PBS being "left-leaning". But isn't this just a symptom of them telling the truth vs the lies that are spouted out of this administration every single day? If you report the truth now, I guess you're "left-leaning" or "biased" vs reporting whatever the admin says as fact with no comment or fact checking.

NPR and PBS fact check their reporting and have real journalists. Fox News lies all of the time on the air and has media personalities as hosts. Yes, of course, there's no absolutes and some hosts or shows are more biased than others, and people make mistakes. Hosts show their biases unconsciously sometimes too. If your host lives in New York for instance, their views are shaped by that, vs if they live in Kentucky.

But this politicization of National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service is ridiculous and just shows how much this administration is trying to get us into a post-truth world. Facts matter!

Don't succumb to this Culture of Fear.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#462

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, May 02, 2025, 5:43 PM UTC

sorcerer-mar wrote: post #350

sidewndr46 wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "states" national guard can be federalized at a moment's notice. The president need only give the order and put his signature on it. At that point, they report to the President and no one else. This isn't theory, Alabama's was federalized some time when my dad was a kid. The president never rescinded the order.

Eh this isn't quite clear. National Guardsmen take an oath to the Constitution and to follow the orders of both the President and the Governor. Above all, their oath is to the Constitution. Both SCOTUS and a Governor saying that their oath to the Constitution compels (or at least authorizes) a certain course of action would be convincing to some, I'm sure.

> Eh this isn't quite clear. National Guardsmen take an oath to the Constitution and to follow the orders of both the President and the Governor.

It's quite clear that the Constitution expressly gives the President command of state militia when called into federal service, and Congress the power to specify the conditions for that, and that the Congress has specified procedures for that in law which rest solely on a Presidential determination. Each of those is black and white in law and has been demonstrated in practice as well.

That's not to say that that constrains what can actually happen in a Constitutional crisis: that's what makes Constitutional crises possible -- the black and white rules are not self-enforcing and require human decisions to align with them, and humans are always free to decide to do something else.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#463

Post by flkiwi » Fri, May 02, 2025, 5:45 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #460

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A chance, but I suspect not much of one. If we have a unitary executive, then the president is over the Supreme Court. I suspect that at least Justices Kavanough, Barrett, and Roberts (along with the liberals) would have a problem with that. (Some of the liberals might be on board if the president was Harris rather than Trump, but no way are they going to agree with it while Trump is president.)

> If we have a unitary executive, then the president is over the Supreme Court. No, the Supreme Court is not part of the executive even under unitary executive theory. OTOH, the US Marshals Service is part of the executive, and, under unitary executive theory, Congress attempting to dictate who within the executive branch can direct them must fail, as the President has absolute and unconditionally delegable authority…

Which is why fully moving the Marshals to a department within the judiciary would be desirable, though I think there's a significant ethical issue for the judiciary to contend with re: having to actually enforce its orders. At a sort of silly level, there's probably concern that "justice is blind" cannot mix with "justice needs to see where it's aiming if it's going to enforce anything." Judge Dredd and whatnot.

But, man, if the executive is fully on board with ignoring law, what is even the point of trying?

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#464

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, May 02, 2025, 5:49 PM UTC

sidewndr46 wrote: post #270

sorcerer-mar wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SCOTUS (and other courts) can deputize whoever they want pretty much. And this is what the states' National Guards are for (very scary thought)

The "states" national guard can be federalized at a moment's notice. The president need only give the order and put his signature on it. At that point, they report to the President and no one else. This isn't theory, Alabama's was federalized some time when my dad was a kid. The president never rescinded the order.

> This isn't theory, Alabama's was federalized some time when my dad was a kid.

It was federalized and ordered to stand down after the governor had deployed it to prevent integration of a school under a federal court order. But Eisenhower didn't rely on that order alone, he also deployed the 101st Airborne to enforce the order (both the federalization of the guard and the deployment of the 101st Airborne were based on an invocation of the Insurrection Act.)

While there is a layer of legal theory around it, when it becomes an issue, it is really a question of whether the State -- both its government and the individual members of the guard -- are willing to engage in armed conflict with the federal government for whatever the dispute is at hand, more than any other consideration.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#465

Post by ruszki » Fri, May 02, 2025, 5:50 PM UTC

tzs wrote: post #394

alabastervlog wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the Fox News of the left When I watch Fox News it's usually pretty easy to spot several things that are simply made-up per day. Including entire stories. You hear much of that on NPR? [EDIT] FWIW I think NPR news is god-awful, because they focus way too much on horse-race politics crap and Monday-morning quarterbacking campaigns, I suppose because they're so scared shitless by accusations of bias that they prefer t…

During the campaign for the 2016 Republican nomination for President they actually dropped several negative stories that their reporters assigned to the Trump campaign submitted, because their reporters assigned to the Cruz, Rubio, etc. campaigns were submitting a much lower percentage of negative stories and they assume the difference must be due to some flaw in their reporting.

9 years is a lot. In my home country, Hungary, dissenting in the right wing government media was possible, and happened quite often in 2012, nothing which would have reminded you of the first half of the previous century. By 2015, there was proper fascist propaganda, without any possibility to dissent. So, it was changed completely in 3 years. I would even say that any comparison in this context to anything from 9 years ago is meaningless.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#466

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, May 02, 2025, 5:51 PM UTC

mikepurvis wrote: post #415

ta1243 wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Emoluments, tax returns, the porn star, lying under oath, J6, "fake news", losers and suckers, bone spurs, snubbing Carter, crowd size bullshit, grab em by the pussy, obvious nepotism, lock her up, separating families at the border, "very fine people on both sides", "stand back and stand by", sparring with Fauci, now jailing judges, deporting people off street corners, letting Musk gut government agencies, etc etc.…

I don't think this kind of middlebrow cynicism is helpful— "ah yes, well, all politicians have their scandals, just another day in government." What other major US politicians in our lifetimes has had even a quarter of this and retained their office through it? Do you think after all this that Trump would go down for spying on political opponents (like Nixon in the 70s) or receiving sexual favours from an intern (lik…

> Do you think after all this that Trump would go down for spying on political opponents (like Nixon in the 70s) or receiving sexual favours from an intern (like Clinton in the 90s)?

Uh, Clinton factually did not "go down" for that, he was impeached and acquitted for things related to it, and served out his full two terms, and left office as the most popular outgoing President in the period that polling had been conducted up to that point.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#467

Post by kaishiro » Fri, May 02, 2025, 5:55 PM UTC

nataliste wrote: post #458

kaishiro wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your position is "I don't care anymore", then you're not making a principled argument - you're venting. That's fine, just don't pretend it's a policy stance.

"When I am weaker than you, I ask you for Freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles." likewise isn't a policy stance, it's naked hypocrisy. It's a free country so people are afforded the right to be hypocrites, but nobody is entitled to receive public funding when doing so.

You're not actually critiquing hypocrisy - you're just deciding whose version of it gets a microphone. Pulling public funding doesn't eliminate bias, it just ensures the only voices left are the ones with capital to shout the loudest.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#468

Post by archagon » Fri, May 02, 2025, 5:56 PM UTC

ta1243 wrote: post #397

hwillis wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the grounds that he should have been sent to literally any other country, totally inapplicable to any of the other cases without specific preexisting orders against ES specifically. And notably they have outlined exactly nothing except that the administration had better say how they plan to get him back- the SCOTUS response to the executive saying "we have no plan" was just to say again that they wanted to know th…

> The government is imprisoning people indefinitely (forever?) for unproven allegations and misdemeanors. They should be able to file habeas petitions for unlawful imprisonment. The courts are doing fuck all about it because the government is contracting to a foreign country to physically imprison them. That's crazy. This doesn't sound too dissimilar from the Guantanamo bay situation, which Bush, Obama, Trump and Bid…

Guantanamo was a legal morass on account of being under US jurisdiction: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/02/05/frankly-in...

That’s the El Salvador “hack.”

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#469

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, May 02, 2025, 6:00 PM UTC

wing-_-nuts wrote: post #256

RajT88 wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My view (maybe shared by GP) is that while Trump deserves a lot of the blame, he's just a figure head over the rest of the republican party. Exactly this. Debated at length in the 2016 election cycle and onward since. The Republican establishment didn't (and doesn't) love Trump as a politician, but they love that he puts them in power, and they have been trying to figure out how to reproduce that kind of popularity…

>their focus is on removing the teeth from congress I mean, without a constitutional amendment how can that be done?

> I mean, without a constitutional amendment how can that be done?

1. Ignore the laws passed by Congress, and rule by executive decree

2. Experience no consequences, and thereby

3. Establish and institutionalize the idea that Congress is meaningless and decorative.

What documents say the law is doesn't mean anything if it what the people with guns do doesn't reflect what those documents say.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#470

Post by throwawaymaths » Fri, May 02, 2025, 6:02 PM UTC

jasonjayr wrote: post #421

throwawaymaths wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Trump is acting in opposition to the legislation that directs the executive to have its finger in more pies. is that so true? i don't doubt that in probably 10-20% of the cases this is so, but i would bet that in the vast majority of cases the legislation as written is flexible enough that picking an amount of action that is zero is within the bounds of the law. i am watching trump carefully for the moment when he…

> vast majority of cases the legislation as written is flexible enough that picking an amount of action that is zero is within the bounds of the law. While that may be true; is that actually within the spirit of their respective laws? Passing legislation that directs the executive to do something, but then letting the executive just slow-walk it until it's moot seems counter productive.

if it incentivises congress to be more specific and reduces executive free reign style legislation in the future I'm not too terribly bothered (oh shit do we not want to give the president the authority to change tariffs in an "emergency" without defining the scope of an emergency?? yeah let's pass non stupid laws). there's lots of other stuff in this administration to be critical about.