Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The U.S. Department of Justice Wednesday filed a suit in Los Angeles against California, Gov. Gavin Newsom and other state officials over laws the Trump administration alleges impose burdensome red tape on the production of eggs and poultry products nationally in violation of federal law.

The DOJ contends laws and regulations challenged by the complaint impose requirements on farmers that have the effect of raising egg prices for American consumers by prohibiting farmers across the nation from using commonly accepted agricultural methods that helped keep eggs affordable.

Regulations on farm animal confinement were passed by voters in 2018 with 62%. Proposition 12 created new minimum requirements on farmers to provide more space for egg-laying hens, breeding pigs, and calves raised for veal, expanding on a 2008 voter-passed law that prohibited their confinement.

The federal government contends California's requirements stand opposed to the Egg Products Inspection Act, which sets standards to ensure eggs and egg products are properly labeled and packaged and preempts state laws that impose additional regulatory hurdles, according to the complaint.

"It is the prerogative of the federal government alone to regulate the quality, inspection, and packaging of eggs," the lawsuit reads.

The California Attorney General's Office responded with the following:

"Pointing fingers won’t change the fact that it is the President’s economic policies that have been destructive. We’ll see him in court."

“But Trump!”

Has Trump said he is fighting the oligarchy?  No which means this issue has absolutely nothing to do with him. 

Show me the next time Bernie or Mamdani donates their salary to charity - or in other words, puts their money where their mouth is. 

Sigh.
It's not "but Trump," it's "but hypocrisy."

People don't need to donate their entire salary to prove a point.  You're not very good at this.

How would the doctor incriminate himself by answering some questions?  Did he somehow break a law?

In an extended congressional deposition, probably a lot of ways. Best to be conservative in those sorts of things.

As for hypocrisy, I lean to thinking it's required for politicians.

The concept of "checks and balances" is pretty astute, I don't know how else things could work well, though some other countries have of course different ways of doing things.  The concept of "innocent until proven" is another great concept.  Trial by jury, I never thought up another good way to do that. 

The concept of a Senate is good, I think, though one can certainly argue the compromise on its structure is ... debatable.  The concept of the Electoral College has strengths, and weaknesses, like most things.  Democrats don't like it, Republicans usually do, because it favors or disfavors their strengths.  No need to get into them, the EC isn't going away, though the Compact of the States could change things without an Amendment.  Maybe.

Can you imagine California voters learning their electors voted for Trump?  Ha.

Been reading a book that gives us somewhat interesting history of the Senate. Seems like the original intent was to apply elite wisdom as a sort of restrictor plate against populism.

There have been some interesting era where that could be considered good or bad.

$430,000 in legal fees for an elected official to prep for a congressional hearing?  It’s like Monopoly money to these people.

sounds like a couple law firms were beneficiaries.  I'm guessing the billing is a bit ridiculous.   
Purchasing influence? future campaign donations? 

Tim Walz blasted for costing Minnesota taxpayers $430K in legal prep ahead of Hill hearing

A little more credible, to me.  Maybe it's so.  I would have expected wider coverage of the story, but perhaps not.

I remain suspicious, and leary.