politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Basically he said that he thinks this should be left up to the governor, whoever that is, and no matter how righteous and well intentioned, the issue shouldn’t be decided for all time this way, eroding future governors’ authority.
What a spineless position. Why pass any laws at all? Why not leave everything up to the whims of whoever is in office?
Doesn’t the legislature decide issues all the time and enshrine those decisions for the future in law? Isn’t that what they do? Why the fuck should extradition for providing healthcare be any different? Isn’t he “eroding the authority” of the legislature in saying no, we should leave this as governor’s discretion, just in principle?
I’m not just hating Newsom reflexively here. I seriously don’t understand his argument, despite trying.
His argument is that other republican states will use this as precedent for disobeying federal law, I'm just not sure how he hasn't realized Republicans don't care about precedent at all
I'll attempt to suss it out a little bit, as you seem to have given his argument it's due, even if it doesn't click for you. It doesn't for me either. My cynicism tells me that, if he weren't eying a White House run, he would have just signed it. However, as pretty much the presumptive establishment Dem favorite, he's been listening to the ghouls in the DNC who say things like "Trans rights are a losing issue, we have to divest ourselves of 'fringe' politics". As a smokescreen for that bit of realpolitik, he is couching his stance in terms of "eroding executive authority".
My understanding (IANAL in Cali or otherwise) is that California law currently grants the office of the Governor exclusive discretionary power in whether to honor extradition requests from other states (provided the governor is not otherwise compelled to respond in a certain manner e.g. a federal court issues the request or something). Newsome's argument is that it is improper for him, a term-limited outgoing governor, to "willingly" divest the office of an exclusive discretionary power like that. It's similar, in principle, to the arguments some years ago regarding the Senate confirmation of political appointees during a President's second term. I.e. it wasn't "fair" that a lame duck might have a chance to stuff the government with "their guys", possibly sabotaging the incoming President of a different party. Not exactly the same, but the principle stands, I think.
Of course, when McConnell made those arguments, he was lying through his teeth, as is Newsome, I assume. It's just a convenient cover story that makes the common clay of the New West (y'know...morons!) think, "wow, that's a level-headed so and so with a mind for good governance and bipartisan cooperation, that sure is something that this country could use!"
Where the argument falls down is that, as you pointed out, the Legislature passed this. He already had the perfect smokescreen to say, "there's nothing I could do, I'm no loonie lefty, but the people of California spoke through their elected representatives and I had no right to veto it merely because it slightly reduced the power of the executive office." He chose not to, because he's deathly afraid of the pro-maga-ganda machine painting him as a coastal elite out of touch with middle America, as if that's not going to be their exact tactic against him regardless of his record. I'd stop just short of him saying he's eroding the Legislature's authority though. He's using the veto power of his office as it's intended. In theory, overriding the passage of legislation popular enough to make it through that whole process will harm him politically, which is happening to an extent. This is a biased space, obviously, but clearly his decision is unpopular here. Whether or not it helps or hurts him in primaries or the general remains to be seen.
I would hope that the legislature could override his veto, but I am not familiar enough with California state politics to know if they have the votes.