[nine_zeros]

These are all reasonable standards - if they came from Congress. They are not reasonable standards if they came for a fickle and corrupt mafia at gunpoint.

The entire no kings protest is exactly about that - executive overreach overriding will of the people and causing irresponsible harm.

[patagurbon]

They are not reasonable. Ideological “balance” has no place in any of the sciences. Science is about truth not balance.

[nine_zeros]

Yes, they are not objectively "reasonable" that's why I added the "- if they came from Congress" part. And I can't imagine Congress would pass these rules because of the Senate structure.

"Reasonable" is a distributed discovery process. A unitary order can never be "reasonable".

[IAmBroom]

You miss the point. It's not any more reasonable if Congress enforced this groupthink.

[nine_zeros]

You miss the point too. Congress is going to have a tough time imposing this groupthink - because it would take convincing 217+ reps and 60 senators as opposed to the unitary 1 person.

[deeg]

The government has no business making ideological demands on universities. Period.

[nine_zeros]

Yep, they don't. That's why these demands are bogus coming from the president.

If they were to come from Congress, they'd never pass as they stand because these entities would demand their elected reps don't let this pass

[sidle_arount]

I'm not sure I follow your argument. If these would be considered reasonable standards if exactly the same were proposed by Congress, then how would they cause harm if implemented on request of the Executive?

[nine_zeros]

When requested by the executive under threat of cutting funding, these requests are not requests, they are demands.

When executive demands something of private citizens and private entities, it means they are bossing over said people/entities. Nobody elected the executive to boss over people. When Congress attempts to set these same regulations, these entities get a chance to reach out to their reps and ask for changes. When Congress sets regulations, power is dispersed among 400+ reps.

You are thinking about the outcome of the regulations feeling the same. "No kings" are demanding that the means to setting rules be distributed among reps - when the rulemaking is distributed, you'll find that the rules demanded will change - because most people don't want these exact rules as they stand. And they don't want to submit to a fickle corrupt executive who will change these rules selectively on a dime on a random Friday.

[nobody9999]

>When executive demands something of private citizens and private entities, it means they are bossing over said people/entities. Nobody elected the executive to boss over people. When Congress attempts to set these same regulations, these entities get a chance to reach out to their reps and ask for changes. When Congress sets regulations, power is dispersed among 400+ reps.

IMHO it's much simpler than that. Congress has the power of the purse -- that is to say that Congress decides what funds are disbursed by the Federal government.

While there is a small measure of flexibility for the Executive on when and/or how those funds are disbursed, the Constitution vests budgetary power (i.e., who gets funded, how much to they get, and for what purpose) in Congress and not the Executive.

The same goes for tariffs too.

Congress is not doing their job. Not only in the sense that they've abandoned the "power of the purse" to the Executive, but also in that legislators, for the most part, represent their big donors rather than their constituents.

Which isn't new, although it's pretty stark right now. With the dysfunction so high that the government is currently unfunded.

Even more, the House won't even gavel into session, as they'd then have to swear in a newly elected member of Congress which would give members just enough votes to passing a motion to publish information (The so-called "Epstein Files") widely believed to be bad news for the President as well as others in the power structure.

The Senate isn't negotiating, nor is the House drafting actual budget bill(s) which is one of their primary responsibilities.

So yes. If there's an issue with Federal research funding, it's Congress that needs to fix it. What the Executive is trying to do is not part of the powers given to them by the Constitution (you know, the *supreme law of the land) and, as such, isn't lawful.

[nine_zeros]

Yes, your assessment is accurate. The Republic is broken and the Republicans are actively breaking it as much as they can.

[thesmtsolver]

If they are "reasonable standards", it shouldn't matter what the source of them are.

This appeals to a dangerous view of morality where some entities/people are good/bad intrinsically and all their actions are good/bad by definition.

[nine_zeros]

They are not objectively "reasonable standards". Who said they are objectively reasonable standards? They are standards sent by a unitary. They might seem reasonable to one person but not to another. This is why Congress is supposed to set these rules - so that the definition of reasonable is spread all over the country. Reasonable standards are a discovery process, not a unitary dictatorial step.

Hell, this is the whole logic of the American Republic - no kings - since 1776.

[thesmtsolver]

> Reasonable standards are a discovery process, not a unitary dictatorial step.

You just described a meta standard for standards. Now, is that meta standard an objectively reasonable standard?