[borg16]

one thing i definitely worry is about using public lands for oil, mineral extraction purposes.

while America has a bounty of public land acreage wise, 4 years and a complete control of the government is a lot of time to do some lasting damage to the ecosystem by opening up these areas for privatization.

[autoexec]

The environment is certainly screwed. I also expect that regulations against air and water pollution will be on the chopping block so not only will the ecosystem suffer, but the population will too.

[andrei_says_]

I prefer the word “biosphere”. Our biosphere is going to be poisoned, faster, and we in it.

[_heimdall]

The recent media attention on possible lithium fields in and around Arkansas was an interesting one to me. It seems like one that I could see the DNC latching onto for battery capacity despite the fact that it would still likely meaning he same kind of impact in federal land as mining oil, coal, etc.

[fraserharris]

Lithium deposits are common -- Nevada has significant ones too. The question is if the lithium is concentrated enough to make extracting it financially viable.

[_heimdall]

That wasn't really my point though. The discovered deposits, well expected deposits since its based on modelling data, could easily lead to a massive mining operation to extract it. That will do damage very similar to the exact kind of fossil fuel extraction that is a main argument against fossil fuels and for alternative energy sources.

[MagicMoonlight]

Sure it will lead to a big hole, but is that really damage?

For me, it’s the burning of the planet which is damage. You can cover a hole back up, you can’t bring back the entire planet.

[lordswork]

Emissions are the bigger issue. Unfortunately, some sort of mining is still required for emission and emission-free sources of energy.

[i_am_a_peasant]

I highly doubt that it's just 4 years of republicans. I think they'll win the 2 terms after trump as well, so we're potentially looking at 12 years of republicans in the white house.

[xnx]

Agree. There are a lot of mistakes that can be undone, but ecological damage can take decades to restore its former beauty, and extinct species don't come back (some recent headlines notwithstanding).

[culi]

It's hard to see Trump do any worse than Biden on this front, but I'm sure he'll try. Biden admin approved over 50% more oil/drilling permits than Trump. More than any president in history

[kagakuninja]

And yet people continue to blame Biden for high energy prices. Boggles the mind.

[aksss]

In short, granting permits from lease sales performed in the last administration is a trailing indicator of.. the last administration's activity.

The more important measure for the Biden administration's energy development policy was how many new lease sales were performed, and how many leases were effectively cancelled or otherwise put in limbo.

Some resources to help "unboggle" the mind:

https://www.energyindepth.org/why-bidens-oil-drilling-permit...

"Mixed messages from the administration – like canceling lease sales one minute and touting approved permits to drill the next – create uncertainty within the energy industry, hindering long-term investments and exacerbating challenges for the United States"

https://archive.is/9x1an "The Biden administration has leased fewer acres for oil-and-gas drilling offshore and on federal land than any other administration in its early stages dating back to the end of World War II, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis."

"The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 requires onshore oil and gas leasing “at least quarterly.” While the Biden administration has been in office for six quarters, it has conducted auctions in just one of them. That happened in late June, after the administration came under increasing pressure to tame soaring gasoline prices at the pump in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine."

"Mr. Biden pledged to stop drilling on federal lands as a candidate, saying the nation needs to transition to clean energy. He softened his stance as oil prices soared following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine—calling for boosting oil supplies to ease runaway inflation—but he has nonetheless spurned a leasing program that for decades has been a go-to asset for presidents looking to raise U.S. energy production."

[ibejoeb]

The Biden admin upped production over the course of his term, but that increase is only relative to the 2020 drop-off. It only returned to previous levels in late '23. It did very slightly surpass those levels into early '24: 13 MMbbl/d at pre-covid to 13.3. So 50% more permits resulted in a rounding error at its peak.

Much of that increase went to export. On top of that, Biden sold half of the strategic petroleum reserve.

The general point is that you can drill all you want, but sending it overseas doesn't help Americans. The best result is that we buy back gasoline at a margin that's tolerable, but that's not helping either price at the pump or overall energy costs.

There is a partisan disagreement on energy independence.

[xnx]

> sending it overseas doesn't help Americans.

In a global market like petroleum, doesn't production anywhere reduce prices everywhere?

[ibejoeb]

Overall, maybe. But the local price is certainly sensitive to production costs, depending on the derivative. Like a pipeline is much more efficient than lng in container.

[nitwit005]

A lot of the "Thanks Biden" stickers quietly went away when gas got cheaper.

[TrapLord_Rhodo]

Biden was clearly anti-oil.

He canceled pipelines and repeatedly refused to extend leases. Just because he "Approved" more, speaks to the business climate and pricing of oil. It'd be better to see how many his administration actively fought against for just the politics... Take the keystone oil pipeline... It was effectively finished and they canceled it... how wasteful.

[danudey]

4 years and a complete control of the supreme court guarantees lasting damage to the ecosystem (and all other aspects of society) since all the conservative/right-wing issues just need to be appealed up to SCOTUS and they'll get their way - and set legal precedent on the way.

There's two justices ready to retire, and if Trump replaces them (and he will) that'll be five supreme court justices appointed by Trump and chosen by his cronies. The entire legal system will be corrupted for decades.

[lelandfe]

Bingo. The Tea Party went away. MAGA, though, is now harpooned straight into the checks and balances for a lifetime.

[chucke1992]

Yeah, well essentially republican went through 2 transformations over the last 8 years.

[qingcharles]

Right. This is the biggest damage Trump can do because it lasts so long after his presidency.

[scotty79]

You can't really tell how long his presidency lasts. Two term limit is just a rule that can be changed with help of judiciary branch. If Americans want him for a third term who'd object?

[lelandfe]

Trying to reinterpret "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice" to allow for that would be quite a spectacular feat of jurisprudence.

[sirbutters]

Key word here is "elected". Prepare for their justification like "well XYZ is not really an election so...."

[raisedbyninjas]

Just expanding the court with pure loyalists seems easier.

[scotty79]

It's just 22nd amendment. Can't be more important than the will of the nation. The only question is do the Americans like Trump as much as they like booze or can it be at least made to look like they do.

[barkerja]

Theoretically, if changes were put into place to allow a run for a third term (which is highly unlikely given age), then that also opens the door for someone like Obama running again.

[psunavy03]

People don't seem to understand that even Trump's judges still see themselves as JUDGES. They're not going to just make stuff up that's not in the law, and there were several instances in his first term where his own SCOTUS Justices told him to pound sand. It's not so simple as "nominated by Trump == inherently corrupt," much as he'd like it to be that way.

[hackernewds]

you must have not heard of Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas and Aileen Cannon

[lelandfe]

As a counter point, almost all of the Trump decision was "made up." Especially all of the stuff about admissibility of evidence is whole cloth law.

[scotty79]

> They're not going to just make stuff up that's not in the law,

The mechanism is that Trump makes up the law, then it's sent to judges and they say "yup, this law is fine and just and in line with US law system".

> Justices told him to pound sand

He learned. Now he selects for loyalty alone.

[hackernewds]

new legislation can be passed at any point by an elected house

[chucke1992]

Trump is too old at this point.

[scotty79]

Only saving grace. Although Putin is just 6 years younger and his strive to leave legacy already messed up the world. One can only wonder what mess will Trump's attempts at leaving legacy cause.

[chucke1992]

I am not talking about the legacy. The legacy will live one - I mean technically the world has changed post 2016 and it has not gone back since then. And it won't. With 2024 it might change the landscape more.

[TomK32]

Well, the size of the Supreme Court is not fixed at nine. A future Democratic president might just work to increase it to give it more balance.

[jayGlow]

wouldn't that just start an arms race of each side trying to stack the court whenever they're in power?

[ndiddy]

Sure but after a few decades of packing we'd eventually end up with a direct democracy where every adult citizen is a Supreme Court justice and the legislative branch would be sidestepped entirely. Seems better than our current system IMO.

[nocoolnametom]

Yes, but each time diluting the power of the justices individually. Right now if you have one wacko justice who decides on the basis of political ideology instead of some of the established legal theories they have 11% of a say in things. Add another few justices who are relatively normal and the ability of the wacko to swing things into dangerous territory goes down. Even if the tit-for-tat tries to cram more wackos in you have to try to convince the Senate to let more and more obviously terribly choices through.

[hackernewds]

Are you suggesting the supreme Court should be another House of Congress?

[nateglims]

Yeah, same with ending filibuster and other speculated tactics. I don't think you can close the door behind you without a constitutional amendment, which won't happen.

[refurb]

FDR tried and members of his own party came out against him.

It’s a non-starter.

[TomK32]

There are good reasons to increase the size though, mainly it being one of the smallest Supreme Courts in the world.

[refurb]

“Smallest in the world” doesn’t seem like a good reason at all.

The reason why the Democratic party revolted against FDR attempt to stuff the Supreme Court was because it was such an obvious runaround of the Constituion.

[trinsic2]

Everyone thinks that the Dems and Republicans are different sides, but they are on the same side, money. This has been going on for at least 50 years. Every 5 years I hear this bull shit. IF the dems got in it would be more balanced. Nothing changes until we reevaluate our support for system that doesn't serve us.

[paulryanrogers]

Dems at least talk about taking money out of politics. McCain Feyngold was a big step in the right direction but IIRC SCOTUS shut that down hard.

[trinsic2]

They talk and do nothing, they are supported by the same system of money that reb get. The only difference is of a perceptual nature.

[samatman]

So you're saying that President Trump can appoint as many Supreme Court justices as he would like to in January?

[TomK32]

It might take a little more than that to update the Judiciary Act of 1869 that defined the current number of justices on the court.

[samatman]

Ok but the Republicans will have full control of both houses, and can also put aside the filibuster if they would like.

Are you saying it's therefore ok for Trump to pack the courts? That does appear to be the logical extension of your original comment.

[bas]

Indeed. 5th Circuit -> SCOTUS will easy mode for right-wing causes (if it isn't already).

[partiallypro]

Realistically the GOP will have the complete control for only 2 years. Dems will sweep the midterms.

[xp84]

It depends -- for all his bad ideas (and there are many) some of the things he promises could be good and impactful, and he may have enough leverage and power to do this time, especially when contrasting SCOTUS 2017 with SCOTUS 2025.

I think 2026 will be a referendum on:

- Has Trump F'd things up severely?

and

- Have Democrats stopped running on DEI as the main reason to vote for them and instead clearly laid out and justified their plans? And have they gained any support outside the elites?

[crdrost]

One irony atop another: securing this land (against the onslaught of big business) was a celebration for Conservatives, not Liberals.

That and, I miss the Republican party that didn't actively try to piss off the ACLU every hour on the hour. It's just nonstop…

• book bans • rhetoric about sending the military after political opponents • politicians ruled as being above the law • short circuiting due process with immigrants, both illegal and not • breaking up families of would-be asylum seekers for no damn reason • the Trump Muslim ban • the constant erection of/for Ten Commandments statues

It used to be a thing in some conservative circles, “No, that teacher is Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912, not Council of 1879, I don't want his people educating my child about what he thinks the Ten Commandments really mean!!”

I used to fancy myself a conservative back then. The ACLU and libertarians were the people that the Left had kind of given up on, and we were happy to say “yes, come be conservative with us, and we will try not to piss you off.” Now everyone has given up on them, they had to hold their noses and vote Kamala and pray for a few more years of “not again.”

I'm not even a libertarian, just don't understand why we are wasting resources pissing them off