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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    42 hours ago

    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?

    • @taiyang
      link
      22 hours ago

      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.

  • JaggedRobotPubes
    link
    English
    165 hours ago

    Get all the lead time you can, California. Batten down hatches.

    • @ATDA
      link
      54 hours ago

      Fr, save all the policies for us for when we get there fleeing magats.

  • @cmbabul
    link
    407 hours ago

    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

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      145 hours ago

      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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      26 hours ago

      I know Trump will be absolute dogshit but I heavily doubt there will be a civil war in the next four years.

      • @cmbabul
        link
        206 hours ago

        Whatever drugs you’re taking please share them with the rest of us

          • @AlijahTheMediocre
            link
            36 hours ago

            Can I buy them in bulk? I wanna feel detached for the next 4 years.

            • @cmbabul
              link
              16 hours ago

              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

          • @cmbabul
            link
            36 hours ago

            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

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              16 hours ago

              The national guard was sent in 2020 to blue cities and there was resistance.

              That’s far from a civil war though.

  • Buelldozer
    link
    fedilink
    75 hours ago

    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.

    • @taiyang
      link
      22 hours ago

      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.

  • @rhacer
    link
    English
    17
    edit-2
    7 hours ago

    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.

    • Buelldozer
      link
      fedilink
      8
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      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.

      • @atomicorange
        link
        23 hours ago

        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.

      • @rhacer
        link
        English
        44 hours ago

        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.

  • HubertManne
    link
    fedilink
    36 hours ago

    northeast and west coast along with middle region friendly states should have a regular yearly conference to strategize.

  • @Crackhappy
    link
    English
    27 hours ago

    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.