Overton @overton_news · Jan 11 NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman explains why President Trump is one of the MOST pro-space presidents in modern history. Isaacman says Trump understands space is about more than just exploration...it’s national security, economic power, and long-term dominance. He also confirmed plans for an American moon base. ISAACMAN: “Space certainly is a national security issue. The high ground has always mattered throughout human history.” “We have a president in President Trump who knows that and appreciates it.” “President Trump created the Space Force during his first term specifically to have a dedicated team of war fighters that are capable of protecting that ultimate high ground.” “President Trump also appreciates the peaceful exploration for science and discovery in space, that’s what he created the Artemis Program during his first term, which was committing American astronauts to return to the moon.” “And now recently he established a national space policy that says; not only will we go back to the moon but we’re going to build a moon base, were going back to stay.” “We’re going to build the infrastructure on the moon to realize its scientific, economic and national security potential and do the other things.” “The president said we have to invest in nuclear power and propulsion in space to set up for future giant leaps to Mars and beyond.” “The president said we need an orbital economy in space so that space is not perpetually funded by taxpayers and the president said we need to increase the rate of world changing science and discovery; more telescopes, more rovers on Mars and beyond.”

No comments:

Post a Comment

EXPLAIN THIS IN TERMS OF THE SHADOW DOCKET Thought for 31s The shadow docket is one of the main practical channels through which the Supreme Court has exercised greater relative power as the administrative state has been weakened.The shadow docket (also called the emergency or interim docket) consists of the Court’s quick orders on applications for stays, injunctions, or other temporary relief. These are decided with limited briefing, usually no oral argument, and often little or no written explanation of the reasoning or the vote. They are not final merits decisions, but they frequently control whether a policy can operate while full litigation continues in the lower courts.How it connects to the weaker administrative stateAggressive efforts to shrink and reorient the bureaucracy (DOGE-related workforce cuts, DEI program terminations, agency reorganizations, firings of independent-agency officials, grant cancellations, etc.) have produced a high volume of lower-court injunctions blocking those actions. The Trump administration has responded by filing emergency applications at the Supreme Court at a historically high rate—dozens in the first year of the second term, quickly matching or exceeding the entire Biden administration’s total and far above the pace under Bush and Obama. cnn.com The Court has granted a large share of these requests (reports from the early period put the administration’s success rate above 70% on decided applications). Examples include stays that allowed certain workforce restructuring plans and DOGE-related access or activities to proceed, stays involving removals of independent-agency officials, and other orders that kept executive actions in force while appeals continued. natlawreview.com In functional terms, this means:Lower courts try to enforce statutory or constitutional limits on executive moves that reduce agency size, independence, or program scope. The Supreme Court, via the shadow docket, often restores the status quo the administration prefers in the short run. The practical effect is that major steps to weaken or restructure the administrative state frequently take effect (or continue) under Court-approved temporary relief, even before the legal questions are fully resolved on the merits. This is distinct from, but complementary to, the longer-term shift created by Loper Bright. Loper Bright and the major questions doctrine change the permanent rules of statutory interpretation and the outer bounds of agency authority. The shadow docket manages the interim power struggle over whether those executive actions can operate while the full cases play out. Together they increase the Court’s day-to-day influence over the boundaries and implementation of administrative power.Scale and recent trendsTrackers show the second Trump administration filed on the order of 30–40+ emergency applications involving its actions in the early period, with a high grant rate. Volume and success rates moderated somewhat in the 2025–26 term (fewer applications and a lower success rate in some tallies), but the overall pattern of heavy reliance on the emergency docket for high-stakes administrative and executive disputes has continued. scotusblog.com Critics argue the process lets the Court shape major policy outcomes with limited transparency and reasoning. Defenders note that the orders are temporary, that the administration has chosen cases carefully, and that lower-court injunctions against executive action have also been unusually aggressive. In either framing, the shadow docket has been a central mechanism by which the Court has intervened in—and often facilitated—the rapid reduction of traditional administrative-state structures and independence.