Thanks. Is there a reason they can’t bring lawsuits without the calling investigations via Congress? I read about orgs or states suing the gov. What am I missing that they can’t bring suits now? Maybe they aren’t the wrong party in a super black and white way?

Thanks for all this.

I understand what suing is (or at least I assume it’s not that far off from tort law)

What I don’t understand is why the democrats would have to have the majority in the house of representatives to sue. Does it have to be congress to sue? Doesn’t the blurb say citizens can sue? In this case does congress mean the senate or the house of representatives? Either or both?

Could someone explain how having a majority would impact the ability to sue people?

Aren’t the courts separate from the house of representatives?

In the majority, Democrats would have the ability to sue the Trump administration in a more effective way since they have not had standing to do so in the minority. Whether it is compelling testimony from a top administration official, escalating a fight over obtaining documents or trying to halt the construction of Trump’s White House ballroom, Democrats plan to be strategic and aggressive about taking their fight to court.

Eta: Thanks all. I read the article again after the replies and noticed something I missed:

But Democrats say they are not deterred by that, including a recent decision by the Supreme Court that cleared the way for Trump to continue construction of his massive new ballroom project at the White House, concluding that a preservation group lacked the legal right — known as standing — to challenge the project.

A different article explained the particulars:

One of the government’s principal arguments in the case is that the Trust lacks the legal right – known as “standing” – to sue in the first place. Lower courts have said that the Trust has standing because one of its members, Alison Hoagland, has shown that her enjoyment of the White House as an architectural historian is being harmed by the new ballroom.

As others noted the idea might be that if they are bringing suit about the office of the president ignoring congress, then if they sue as congress (by having the majority) it would be less likely to be challenged as not having standing.

Off topic but in the rest of the world we hear about how easy it is to sue in the states… but it seems it’s a lot easier for orgs to sue on behalf of others outside of the states!

Even though I am a noted hater of Ottawa as a city, I just had to celebrate this achievement. Isn’t it amazing what people can accomplish when they put their minds to it and prioritize safety and livability?

Spoken like a man who insists on driving around in circles trying to find a good enough street parking spot, adding to road volumes and generally being a menace.

What a bunch of nerds

“We will find out” if Canada is getting in the way of the more than 2,000 Jewish Canadians who have expressed interest in relocating, Rapert said.

The article talks about relocation to the US, and points to this article: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/michael-a-sachs-some-jewish-canadians-planning-exit-strategies-to-more-welcoming-u-s

The announcement refusing to scrap the Digital Service Tax ,along with the recent declaration by Prime Minister Mark Carney to recognize a Palestinian state, are but two examples where some might say that Canada unnecessarily provoked negotiations during a delicate moment.

So the roadblock to people leaving canada to the US is the poor relationship with the US. :|

ETA the “terrorism” bit:

CBC’s reporting on terrorism, wherever it occurs, has always been guided by the principle of attribution, and like other major news organizations, it has been our practice for decades. The reason for the extreme care around the use of the words “terrorist” and “terrorism” was detailed in this earlier editor’s blog.

From an editors blog.

The lefty actor purchased the apartment for $521,000 on Sept. 14, 2022 — just two days after selling the triplex with her relatives.

She didn’t even inherit a whole ass house from her dead aunt?

Would it be better if she became a landlord? At least that would be a real job, eh?

It’s a Yiddish word that I think originally had more negative connotations but means nerve or audacity. It is used in more positive ways today, more like courage.

I’m not commenting to pick on you but because I think it’s really important that people understand the details of laws so that they can make informed choices. People often think they have more rights or protections than they do, and they might not make the same choices if they knew otherwise.

If you are referring to FERPA, the decision about whether an email is an education record depends on the content and the context for which it is used. I don’t think it would hold that all emails from an educational account are educational records. ( https://www.aalrr.com/EdLawConnectBlog/a-reminder-that-emails-may-be-education-records )

From the above and specific to whether an email itself can be a record (when there was a paper copy on file)

The court held the electronic messages themselves were not “education records” for purposes of FERPA because, while they related to the student, they were not “maintained” by the educational institution.

(Please note: “the decision was unpublished and therefore cannot be cited.”)

Getting a little more specific: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-A/part-99/subpart-D/section-99.31

An educational agency or institution may disclose personally identifiable information from an education record of a student without the consent required by § 99.30 if the disclosure meets one or more of the following conditions:

B) A contractor, consultant, volunteer, or other party to whom an agency or institution has outsourced institutional services or functions may be considered a school official under this paragraph provided that the outside party—

(1) Performs an institutional service or function for which the agency or institution would otherwise use employees;

(2) Is under the direct control of the agency or institution with respect to the use and maintenance of education records; and

(3) Is subject to the requirements of § 99.33(a) governing the use and redisclosure of personally identifiable information from education records.

So having access to and using the information in the emails is not necessarily a violation so long as the personally identifiable information is not redisclosed.

Schools have a duty to ensure that the access is for “legitimate educational interests” which is subjective but I could see email tools or copilot being argued as meeting that.

I guess we won’t know until someone challenges it 😉

It’s interesting to hear Photoshop and GIMP have diverged so much! I haven’t used Photoshop in 20 years but when I initially made the switch it was pretty simple. I guess photo processing has changed a lot in that time, eh? 😅

Good luck!

You may already be aware but perhaps some of the rationale from these projects could help bolster your argument:

https://eu-os.eu/

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/petitions/en/petition/content/html?petitionNumber=0729%2F2024

https://www.numerique.gouv.fr/sinformer/espace-presse/souverainete-numerique-reduction-dependances-extra-europeennes/

Wow what terrible design 😬

What I find really fascinating about the response to this comment is the fear of “what if…” with respect to being challenged on it.

I’m not downplaying what a pain that will be. The alternative is making discriminatory rules based on something that isn’t even technically required, and that feels so… wrong? It’s so much easier to say “nah” to a “should” rather than a “shall”. It just takes a tiny bit of chutzpah.

I retain hope that case law will find the guidance unlawful because of how violating enforcement would be. But as another commentator pointed out, damage is already being done as it is being adopted.

There absolutely is a way for a party (or rather the Congress itself) to confine a President to their role,

I don’t think I expressed myself well.

When I said

If the president can do whatever he wants within the confines of his role

I was trying to be specific that I was looking at my understanding of the system as designed, from day one.

What if we had a king but used a different word" theory

I yapped about it too much over here but like…

If the president can do whatever he wants within the confines of his role

And there is no way for his party to hold him to account

And there isn’t even an overall party platform so we can’t even pretend there is a mandate

How is it not just choosing a new king every 4 years?

It’s likely I’m not understanding your point so I would appreciate it if you could correct my interpretation…

I’m hearing that it’s important to choose a leader because a party or movement without a leader could not communicate the platform effectively and would surely lose even if people agreed with them. I wasn’t suggesting that within an electoral system a political party should not have a leader or at least a spokesperson.

I realize my example doesn’t have the same meaning to people who are unfamiliar with other political systems but parties just yeet leaders and move on. I suppose there are structural differences that make that impossible in the states, like having the election for president being entirely separate from electing local representatives and that being party leader or even PM in canada doesn’t require you to hold a seat. I also keep forgetting about primaries lol. Those are not a thing.

I was looking at US congressional election results to see if I could imagine a comparable scenario but I think the systems are too different…

In 2019 the new leader of the Conservative party lost the election. His party wasn’t in power before, and they actually gained 26/343 seats but he had to step down as leader because his party was not happy with his gains. He’s still in office and still a member of the party. He even served as interim leader again when the next guy got ousted.

The next election in 2021 had a new leader and they lost again but did not gain or lose any seats. His party was still mad but this time it was more about him not being right wing enough:

On January 31, 2022, Conservative Calgary Heritage MP Bob Benzen submitted a letter with signatures from 35 Conservative MPs calling for a leadership review on O’Toole’s leadership to the Conservative caucus chair, Scott Reid. In the letter, Benzen criticized O’Toole’s reversal on repealing Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s carbon tax and assault weapons ban.

He kept served the rest of this term but did not seek election.

I remember some of the discussion around Bidden stepping down from reflection and how it seemed to be portrayed as a weakness of the party or something that would doom the party. I also think about how the president can basically do whatever they want without needing to get buy in from the party, especially in the context of “blue no matter who” and the question of supporting Palestine in 2024. There is no party cohesion because there isn’t a mechanism to have consequences for pissing off large sections of your party while you are in office. A more positive framing would be there is no mechanism to ensure the party leader is representing the wishes of the party, which is assumed to be the wishes of the public who elected them. If I understand correctly platforms are individual rather than party based as well that doesn’t really help with a cohesive message either.

I think I now understand better why emphasis on the individual is so important in this system:

• A leader for a party (presidential candidate) is chosen shortly before the general election. They get no practical experience before hand because choosing a leader is part of the election process and cannot happen until then.
• They get the job, presumably based on the platform that won them the primary and was crafted by the party after the primaries.
• Once they are in office you better hope they toe the line because to question them would be to question the whole party even though the party has no say in how they conduct themselves.

In contrast, in other systems you don’t need an election for the party to say “nah you don’t represent us any more” and the person doesn’t lose their seat/you don’t topple the government. It’s rare it happens to the sitting PM, but our last PM resigned from the job basically under duress because his own party was like “don’t make us kick you out” and the opposition was like “don’t make me trigger an election”.

it’s not a magic approach. The last PM broke his promise on electorial reform and his party did not care at all, but obviously they had vested interest in it not changing. But that was more about the public losing faith, not the party.