I fail to see how a minor bureaucrat refusing to allow the presidential transition to begin is somehow preventing us from descending into “anarchy and fascism”.
In fact, this opinion that if we allow Biden to start the transition to his new administration that will begin January 20 means that we will be opening the door to “anarchy and fascism” is downright strange. And by strange, I mean that this opinion is fucking crazy.
The tweets that insist that Trump really really won the election are not normal. They are crazy-town tweets.
Stalling the process of transition is DANGEROUS. It is not normal. The promotion of this idea is abnormal.
This is nonsense. No one is demanding that she “act on her own opinions.” They are demanding that she do her job, like everyone else in that position before her. What she is doing - or rather failing to do - is NOT NORMAL.
What her job is, is to follow the instructions of elected executive government. The president. Not your instructions, not the instructions of the president elect, not her own opinions about what “is right” or “is convention”.
What she is doing is the democratic/ rule of law thing to do. What you are suggesting is, as I wrote before, the anarchist or fascist thing to do.
Contrary to your false understanding, I didn’t say that it was the path to anarchy or fascism. I said previously, as I say this time, that it would be literally anarchist or fascist. As in, that’s what those words mean.
You are hardly the first person to think that anarchist or fascist actions are more moral and more correct than responsible government.
How long does anyone think Murphy would last if she made an ascertainment in favor of Biden? She’d be gone the same day. I’m guessing she’d immediately be replaced by a Trump stooge who would rescind the order, making her decision moot.
Unprecedented? Sure. Crazy unprecedented things have been happening since November 2016.
I have no idea why you would say this to me, because I said nothing about anarchy or fascism, so you may want to pay more attention to whom you are responding.
But again, you are wrong. You are thinking there is some order from the President or Executive Branch that says “OK, Emily, you can start now” or the opposite and that she is following those orders. That’s not the case, as I understand it. It’s HER JOB to make that adjudication. The nonpartisan Center for Presidential Transition, veterans of previous administrations said: “While there will be legal disputes requiring adjudication, the outcome is sufficiently clear that the transition process must now begin.”
The NY Times reported: “Ms. Murphy has the legal authority to “turn on” the transition, releasing the $6.3 million in federal funds budgeted for the effort, making office space available and empowering team members to visit agency offices and request information.” SHE has the legal authority, and she is not using it as she should. It’s not a question of her following instruction of the executive, as you falsely claimed.
But you are hardly the first person to bend the facts to suit their preferred narrative.
Yeah, no. The executive branch doesn’t operate as a top down micromanaged little desmesne wherein each official works at the specific beck and call of the President, especially in an agency with such a specific and defined beaureaucratic function that far removed from the White House. Trump is welcome to fire her, that’s the limit to what he can do as far as how she chooses to carry out her duties in her official capacity, and that duty is clear with decades of precedent and successes from which to model her actions. She has a job to do. Trump hired her to do that job, it is not her job to soothe his hurt ego or undermine the incoming administration. If she chooses to do those things instead of facilitate a successful presidential transition like the 14 transitions before, she is in dereliction of her duty. If Trump directs her to do otherwise, he is abusing the power of his office and her only ethical response should be to resign; not to buck the well oiled machinery of an enormous federal government we the people depend on, that she is charged to maintain.
Not a lawyer, but section 3(b) seems to say the administrator “shall” expend funds for services she is authorized to expend funds for, beginning November 4 and ending March 20.
ETA: But then there's section 3(c)
The terms ‘President-elect’ and ‘Vice-President-elect’ as used in this Act shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the office of President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained by the Administrator following the general elections held to determine the electors of President and Vice President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 1 and 2.
Firefighters are municipal employees, right? They ultimately answer to the mayor, who can hire or fire them at will (lets ignore unions for now). Now, say a fire breaks out at a property owned by the mayor’s political rival, and the mayor orders the fire department not to put out the fire. Should the firefighters stay in their stations, or should they go put out the fire? Should they follow legal orders, or should they do their jobs?
(This is what’s known as a rhetorical question. It may seem like there are several possible answers, but in fact, there’s only one. Just wanted to make sure you understood).
Unless it’s been amended, that section reads “The Administrator shall expend no funds…” [emphasis added]. It’s saying the GSA administrator can only expend funds under the Act from the day after the election until the day of the inauguration. I don’t see any requirement that she must expend funds, just a limit on when she can.
I don’t think she’s been told NOT to ok the transition. If the Trump administration wanted to totally own this, by ordering it, I think I’d feel different.
In her normal course of duties, she’s a lawyer, not a clerk, and she’s supposed to evaluate and apply the law. That she is giving it apparently the most narrow possible reading in a time of crisis is on her, here. We’ve never ever waited for the electoral college to vote before we start transition.
She would have been had she done so 7 to 10 days ago. At this point, in my book, I hope she’s relegated to minimum wage work / unemployment, along with all of Trump’s other bootlikckers.
The President is supposed to serve at the pleasure of the citizenry.
“Businessman” Trump was never a CEO for reasons that have become self evident. CEOs serve at the pleasure of the board of directors and stockholders. They are not dictators. Trump is a wannabe dictator.
New law is created when people like Trump make it necessary. We apparently need about a billion new laws to haircut the president and what Trump is doing. If Team R actually wants a democracy anymore, that is.
My god, yes! Something along these lines (a Great Reckoning or something of that ilk) would be possible if half the population weren’t Trump enablers. Unfortunately now things like decency, fact and truth are evidently completely open to opinion.
Section 3(b) has been amended since 1964, specifically by the Presidential Transition Enhancement Act of 2019 (Public Law 116–121). Section 3(b) currently reads thus:
(b) The Administrator shall expend funds for the provision of services and facilities under this section—
(1) in connection with any obligation incurred by the President-elect or Vice-President-elect, or after the inauguration of the President-elect as President and the inauguration of the Vice-President-elect as Vice President incurred by the President or Vice President, during the period—
(A) beginning on the day after the date of the general elections held to determine the electors of the President and Vice President under section 1 or 2 of title 3, United States Code; and
(B) ending on the date that is 60 days after the date of such inauguration; and
(2) without regard to whether the President-elect, Vice-President-elect, President, or Vice President submits to the Administrator a request for payment regarding services or facilities before the end of such period.
What’s the argument that that “shall” actually imposes any relevant obligation on Murphy, though?
If she expends funds under that section based on obligations incurred not during the period outlined, or if she fails to expend funds without regard to whether the PE, VPE, etc. submit a request, then she isn’t following the act. But nobody would argue that any of that language requires that she have made an ascertainment by November 20, 2020.