- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Summary
Following Donald Trump’s election victory, California Governor Gavin Newsom announced a special legislative session to “Trump-proof” the state’s progressive policies, pledging to safeguard rights on issues like immigration, reproductive health, and environmental standards.
Newsom, along with other Democratic leaders and attorneys general in blue states, is preparing for legal battles against potential federal actions from a Trump administration.
State AGs, like California’s Rob Bonta, emphasize protecting vulnerable communities, while critics worry Trump’s judicial appointments could hinder challenges.
Newsom reiterated California’s commitment to resisting conservative federal policies.
You must log in or register to comment.
I appreciate what Newsom is doing here and hope other blue governors follow suit. But this is all just window dressing for what is really coming when Trump goes to implement his agenda. Civil war
Newsom may like to show up as a liberal crusader, and he does like to defend rights on social issues, but the guy has been selling California down the river to his corporate masters since he was mayor of San Francisco.
The fact that he heavily campaigned against prop 33, which would have made rent control legal, says everything.
I know Trump will be absolute dogshit but I heavily doubt there will be a civil war in the next four years.
Whatever drugs you’re taking please share them with the rest of us
I’ll take two please
Can I buy them in bulk? I wanna feel detached for the next 4 years.
I know we’re running with a bit here. But straight up we probably don’t want that, we’re gonna need our wits about us if we want to survive. Time to cork the champagne folks
Fair point. I’ll be there regardless.
Too bad they aren’t putting RFK in charge of shutting down the DEA
You willing to take a bet. 60-40 odds in your favour?
Why would anyone make that bet, when I’m right there’s a good likelihood we’ll both be involved like it or not. Additionally I don’t want to be fucking right about this fool! If you don’t think it’s possible for Trump to send troops into blue cities and states to enforce his agenda and that won’t be met with resistance and then escalation I don’t know what reality you’ve been living in. Either you haven’t paid attention at all or you’re acting in bad faith. I won’t respond to you further, good luck living in denial
The national guard was sent in 2020 to blue cities and there was resistance.
That’s far from a civil war though.
🫶
northeast and west coast along with middle region friendly states should have a regular yearly conference to strategize.
deleted by creator
Get all the lead time you can, California. Batten down hatches.
Fr, save all the policies for us for when we get there fleeing magats.
Fuck me. I was born in Sacramento but do not consider myself a Californian. However, I do support them thumbing their noses at the upcoming federal douchebags.
Are we starting to understand yet why it was a horrible idea to give the Federal Government so much power over literally everything? It’s precisely why the framers of the Constitution tried so hard to limit what the Federal Government could control and its why the “States Rights” argument has always rung true.
I hope California is successful in their efforts to “Conservative Proof” their State. What they are attempting to do flies in the face of nearly 140 years of precedent but its EXACTLY how this damn country was intended to work.
I mean, it’s the whole point of the “states rights” things. Republicans use that hypocritically, but there’s truth to it. But you’re right in that it’s been eroded for a long time; that and the executive branch has gained more and more power too. Constitutionalists should be up in arms but again, hypocrites every last one of them.
What’s stopping Trump from sending the armed forces (or just the FBI in), arresting the Californian government and appointing an administrator?
And second question: who decides whether this is, in fact, unconstitutional?
He wasn’t able to do it in 2016 for the same reason this time around— probably, anyway. My guess is it’s mostly not a priority compared to enriching billionaires, but also some Republicans probably aren’t that interested in overthrowing State governments (especially Californian house members lol). You also have the issue of compliance, as the military and FBI aren’t exactly Hitler’s generals. Yet, anyway.
Not progressive, and I roll my eyes at many things California does. That said I 100% applaud this. I wish more states used their power as individual states to reign in the Federal government.
Remember The Constitution says any rights not specifically granted to the Feds are the States.
Good for California.
Remember The Constitution says any rights not specifically granted to the Feds are the States.
The Supreme Court, to thunderous applause and cheering, killed that notion a LONG time ago. I wish California the best of luck in trying to resurrect the idea, I truly do, but I wouldn’t hold your breath.
Even now most Progressives wouldn’t like the idea in practice. They’ve spent over a century fighting to create a Federal Government that is Large and In Charge.
I think the federal government should play a really big role in preserving rights and freedoms. Preventing individual states from becoming little tyrannies is important! The feds are also useful for big interstate projects - public health, highways, climate protection. It helps prevent states from fucking each other over.
The issues that are truly local in scale do exist, but the world is shrinking. Is law enforcement local? Mostly. Economics? Kinda. It’s easy to see how our interconnectedness is leading to bigger federal scope.
There’s only a few things I can confidently say aren’t at all in the federal government’s wheelhouse. They shouldn’t be restricting our individual rights, overriding state level protections. Dictating what is a valid marriage, restricting speech, outlawing abortion or gender transition, etc. They could PROTECT those rights, but taking them away should be a state-by-state decision.
Just my opinion if we want a federation of states that preserves freedoms instead of a cluster of warring fiefdoms.
This is a fantastic post. Thank you. I do know that the Feds often use the Commerce Clause to put the lie to my original statement, but with the abandonment of Roe, I’ve repeatedly heard “it’s in the hands of the States” so maybe my hope is that someone somewhere my see a need to remain intellectually consistent.
Pipe dream, but a nice thought.
