- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
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.
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.
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.
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.