He could have overruled all the governors by executive order any time he chose.

This is 1000% wrong.  My governor is a liberal psycho.  Aside from Trump declaring marshall law, there's nothing he can do to affect my state.  Trump is not a monarch.

Ahhh...but first you said he could just issue an 'executive order'.  Now you're saying he has to use passive-aggressive tactics?

Trump pretends to hate the swamp and the swamp pretends to hate Trump. You don't make it in Jєω York real estate to the point of being a billionaire without being a part of the swamp.

I don't see how it is "NOW" a sin to vote for Trump?  We have known for a long time that he's pro-sodomite.

So this doesn't really change things.

There's still a possibility to argue from double effect.  Someone might vote for Trump because, for instance, it's likely that Ginsberg will either retire or receive her eternal reward within the next term.

Even if an anti-sodomite President were elected, it's not as if anyone is going to outlaw sodomy anytime soon.

But I've been pushing back against double effect precisely on the grounds that if it's evil to vote for a a pro-sodomite candidate, then you can't do it even if the other guy is worse.  I'm not sure whether it's OK to divide a candidate by his positions.  I am voting for anti-abortion Trump but not pro-sodomite Trump.

This is something that the trained moral theologians really should deal with more; it's a neglected area of theology.

Nope.
He could have cut off federal aid for highways or any number of other federal aid packages.
He chose not to.

And just below that SSPX blurb is this concerning piece:

"However, it can be permissible to tolerate the lesser of two evils for a proportionate reason [without necessity? -SJ], and such toleration can be for the common good, precisely because it is the lesser of two evils. Thus it is possible to vote or even campaign for a candidate whose platform contains evils with which we do not agree. Everything depends upon a hierarchy of the most important values and issues taking priority over lesser ones.

For a Catholic, there can be no doubt that the issues that take the highest priority must be the moral issues, and not personal or economic issues. The whole continuation of society as we know it depends upon this, and those who deny the most basic principles of the natural order are bringing about an unheard of perversion. Consequently, it is permissible and prudent to vote on the one single issue of proscribing abortion, or forbidding same-sex marriages, or putting an end to euthanasia, or freedom of the Catholic Church to run educational institutions. All of these issues are of the utmost importance. Consequently, it would be permissible and prudent to vote for a candidate who promotes an unjust war, on the basis of one or other of these issues. Consequently, it is likewise permissible to vote for a candidate who is known to be a Freemason, although Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is an evil society condemned by the Church and opposed to the Catholic Church, if he maintains an important principle of the natural law such as the evil of abortion.

Lesser issues are also of moral importance, such as the justice or injustice of a particular war, or the paying of a just wage to employees, maintaining the right to private property by limiting government intervention, and so on. All other things being equal, one could vote on the basis of such issues. However, it would be wrong to vote for a candidate who has a correct position on one of these issues, but a perverse and wrong position on a more important issue.

Consequently, it would be manifestly immoral and sinful to vote for a candidate who pretends to be Catholic, but who in fact is pro-abortion, pro-gαy, or pro-euthanasia."