Comment by tptacek
8 months ago
A consent decree doesn't give the White House binding control over Columbia; it gives a federal judge that control. Consent decrees with universities aren't unprecedented; there are several over ADA issues, for instance.
I'm not saying this is good (I have no idea, but given the actors involved, probably not), and this isn't a normative claim.
This particular consent decree would a give judge binding control to enforce whatever the White House says.
The ADA is, in important contrast to this situation, a law.
As I said: it gives a judge binding control, not the White House.
A distinction with out a difference because this is entirely about whether Columbia agrees to do whatever the White House says it has to do.
3 replies →
A very important detail: Who picks the judge?
2 replies →
>A consent decree doesn't give the White House binding control over Columbia; it gives a federal judge that control.
It’s gives the judge control to enforce the White House’s decree. What meaningful distinction are you making?
The distinction between Article III and Article II of the Constitution? A randomly-chosen SDNY judge is overwhelmingly likely to be a Clinton, Obama, or Biden appointee?
I still think this will be a shitshow, but the headline that "the White House is seeking binding control via a consent decree" is misleading; that's not how a consent decree works.