''Nobody Elected Elon Musk Act'': Dems float legislation to make Musk liable for DOGE's actions

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Salon

Published February 8, 2025 4:36PM (EST)


Reps. Melanie Stansbury, D-N.M., and Jamie Raskin, D-Md., are proposing a bill to stop billionaire Elon Musk’s efforts to dismantle the federal government in its tracks. The ‘‘Nobody Elected Elon Musk Act’’ is the latest push from Democratic lawmakers to rein in DOGE, the Trump administration cost-cutting scheme that has set its sights on USAID and the Treasury Department.

Musk’s front-seat role within the administration – parodied by a Time Magazine cover that the president seemed less than impressed with – has attracted major condemnation from elected officials and some setbacks from federal courts. Stansbury and Raskin’s bill would make the world’s richest man personally liable for his department’s dismantling of federal services.

Outside of Congress, federal workers, blue states and student groups have all filed lawsuits seeking to block the unelected billionaire’s goons from accessing the nation’s most sensitive data. A federal judge restrained the department’s unvetted lackeys from accessing payment systems on Saturday morning, emphasizing security and privacy risks.

On a Friday call, Stansbury estimated that Musk’s illegal activities would trigger “millions of dollars in damages.” She said the act proposal would make sure “the American taxpayers are not left on the hook for that liability… [and instead] the liability squarely falls on Elon Musk and those responsible for it.”

Read more: https://www.salon.com/2025/02/08/nobody-elected-elon-musk-act-dems-float-legislation-to-make-musk-liable-for-doges-actions/?in_brief=true

[Hugin]

1. K&R n/t

[Martin Eden]

2. Will Mike Johnson bring it up for a vote?

Last edited Sun Feb 9, 2025, 09:53 AM - Edit history (1)

Not criticizing the authors or the bill itself, but it doesn't have a snowball's chance in the hell we are witnessing.

[FBaggins]

3. It doesn't have either a snowballs chance of passing...

Or a chance of getting past the courts.

The good news is that it was never intended to. The author knows that such a bill would not be constitutional… but the only purpose of the bill (like a one-member impeachment) is to produce this reporting. So it has already accomplished that

[Martin Eden]

5. Any way Democrats in the resistance can make their voices heard

Is to be commended.

Has Trump committed impeachable offenses with his illegal orders and empowering Musk to commit the cyber crime of the century in the destruction or crippling of federal agencies created by Congress?

I think the obvious answer is YES.

Can Democrats successfully impeach Trump while R's control Congress?

Obviously, NO.

But the effort will garner attention, and put R's on record defending this criminal.

[Igel]

8. By sponsoring and claiming as Constitutional something that isn't ...?

That's the problem.

Even the DOGE is just the USDS renamed. Now, does Trump have the authority to rename the "service" that was created under Obama's watch? Dunno.

Does he have the authority to appoint and fire people without having it go to the Senate for confirmation? Dunno.

Does Trump have the authority to pretty much go anywhere in the Executive branch--or designate proxies? Dunno. But that's the question, isn't it?

I work for a school district. Does the superintendent have the authority to look at personnel records? visit my classroom? check out the computer center or look at accounting records? Yes--but that's because the school board gave her that right. So what does Article II of the Constitution mean?

Again, I know what the clear meaning, even adjusted for changes in English syntax and semantics since the divers parts of the Constitution were approved, seems to be--but I've learned in my 60+ years that "clear meaning" even with those caveats is seriously contested when one's ox is being gored, even it's "one's own" out of ally-ship. As a paralegal said when I pointed out to her, quoting the statute verbatim, the text of a law that clearly said how a decision had to go, "The law is whatever a judge says." In other words--case law, often capricious. Of course, on appeal often a saner judge will overrule the idjit on a lower court bench, but not always. Because, well, the clean meaning is contested when one's ox is being gored and even SCOTUS judges, each and every one, has an "ox". It's hard to get ideology--call it "values," "religion," "gut feeling", "what's just" "arc of history", "doing the right thing" ... there are lots of near synonyms that cover that multitude of wrongs on any side--out of the judge. (What I admire is when a judge says that everything in him/her says X, but the law clearly says Y so the ruling goes against what the judge would like. Then the judge's principle is "rule of law" not "rule by man" [ or "person" ] . Even if I personally despise the judge's ruling. The law is the text, informed by Congressional intent.)

[Deminpenn]

4. This is a good strategy in 2 ways

First, it lays the groundwork for a continuing news story and media coverage.

Second, it takes the focus off Trump, thus not engaging the cultists, while also implying to Trump that Musk is really the one in charge which will drive a wedge between Trump and Musk because of Trump's insatiable need to be the top dog.

[Martin68]

6. I think the only way to scare Musk is to make him personally liable for damage caused by his AI DOGE intrusions

into government. He should not be protected by the protections afforded federal employees, elected officials, or corporate officers. "Millions of dollars" in damages is a gross underestimate of the potential damage Musk's wild AI experiment could cause.

[Delmette2.0]

9. Questions about Musk

Is he here on a visa? A work visa? Does he even have a valid passport?

[republianmushroom]

7. Like it.

[4catsmom]

10. YEs!

Do this!!