Comment by steveBK123
1 year ago
This is the problem with people being OK with executive overreach when "their team" is in power. Eventually, and in fact about 50% of the time - the OTHER team is in power.. and may just push the overreach further.
We should desire that the legislative side actually legislates and each branch of the government holds the other two in check, regardless of partisan control.
Further having our judicial branch become openly partisan while remaining lifetime appointments despite younger appointees with longer lifetimes, is really the finishing touch on this slow rolling disaster.
You've nailed it. I call this the Galadriel Principle and it can be applied to many things: weapons, executive procedures, etc.:
“And now at last it comes. You will give me the Ring freely! In place of the Dark Lord you will set up a Queen. And I shall not be dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night! Fair as the Sea and the Sun and the Snow upon the Mountain! Dreadful as the Storm and the Lightning! Stronger than the foundations of the earth. All shall love me and despair!”
Oppression when Galadriel is on the throne may be better than that for Sauron; it's still oppression.
The Lord of the Rings movie that that scene so much emotional justice. Visually representing the power corrupting even with but a taste.
This is the crux of the issue. Executive power has been gradually expanded since at least the end of WWII, but things have accelerated since the early 00's. Think GWB's "signing statements" or Obama's "phone and pen." Trump I, Biden, and now Trump II have continued to push the limits, in part because of a desire for more power but also because Congress hasn't functioned as an institution in decades. Congress has passed a budget on time only 4 times since 1977, the last time being in 1997.
Presidents are elected based on promises made to various parts of the electorate, and if/when Congress won't act (often even when Congress is controlled by the president's party, nearly always when controlled by the opposition), no one generally makes a fuss if the president pushes through a popular-ish thing by executive authority. Republicans may be happy now but they won't be when a Democratic president ups the ante in a few years, just like Democrats were perfectly happy with Obama and Biden's overreaches but are furious at Trump's.
Congress needs to be expanded to do its job, and drop the filibuster. We need more, proportionally allocated representatives. Representatives that come from more than one of two parties. Representatives that spend more time at home than on the campaign trail or in DC.
I think filibusters just need to go back to how they used to be. If you feel strongly about something you better be prepared to blab for hours on end, on your feet. If you can't physically do that... well, maybe that's a sign in and of itself.
All for reps expansion. Remember that we haven't expanded in nearly 100 years because "we were out of room in the building". Meanwhile we have 435 people representing 330 million people (average of 760k people per rep), when the population representation was roughly 250k/rep the last time it expanded.
We should have at least 1000 reps by these numbers.
1 reply →
Representatives with term limits. It blows my mind that someone can be a career congressperson. It creates precisely the same adverse incentives as being a career president. Your whole focus becomes making sure you stay in power. Which for congresspeople means toeing the party line.
9 replies →
I was reading a rocking history book (Dark Continent), and it argued that Germany had already lost democracy before Hitler, as basically all rules were done by the executive. Sent a shiver down my spine when I applied it to recent US presidents. (The book was written in 1998 fwiw, so not contaminated by current events).
What you want is a parliament with proportional representation. Parliaments don't experience gridlock nearly as often.
The oldest democracy in the world is getting rusty.
While I agree with the essential point you're making, it's pretty clear this overreach was always part of this administration's game plan. At least until Pence delayed it through validating the 2020 elections.
If you are going to build a machine that can damage you, build it so that you aren't afraid of it being operated by your worst enemy.
> Eventually, and in fact about 50% of the time - the OTHER team is in power.. and may just push the overreach further.
Are you sure this is going to be a fact, in the future? How likely is it, that the next elections will still be (somewhat) fair?
Very. Election officials, across states and across parties, have been faithfully discharging their duties, often under pressure to not do so. This is a responsibility of the states, and not the federal government. If you're concerned, then work as a poll officer on election day.
In Virginia, I get to participate an incredibly professional and structured process that makes it easy for everyone who can vote to vote and makes sure there are many checks that the process is being followed correctly.
Meanwhile the SAVE act is working it's way through congress. This bill has language that seems to prevent a lot of people from voting:
Women who changed thier last name to their husband's.
Naturalized citizens who come from places where the language requires non ascii characters.
Anyone without a passport.
Anyone from a place where the courthouse burned down taking thier original birth certificates with it... Copies don't count.
To name tens of millions. Maybe trump will interpret the law in a way that lets people vote, or maybe he'll decide that correct interpretation is to limit voting to people more likely to vote for his third term.
2 replies →
Past performance is no guarantee of future results. This administration is already much more aggressive and corrupt than the previous go around. Trump has been abundantly clear that he does not like or respect democracy and he might very well have the power to end it now. Congress's authority is already being usurped in blatant ways and they are openly talking about not following court orders. If they completely toss the courts aside and survive the resulting backlash (very likely) our system of government as we know it is over.
The conditions for this are being set as we watch. Dictators always prize loyalty above competence, which is exactly what our current leader is doing.
I don't doubt that nearly everyone involved in managing our recent elections are conscientious and professional, but what are they going to do if a bunch of troops with guns show up to change the results?
4 replies →
I would put the odds at 99.9% that the US will hold an election in 2028 and that it will be the international consensus that regardless of the outcome, the election will be decided fairly by the voters and will not be "hacked" or "unfair" as current and past fringe commentators have tried to present.
I mostly agree, but GOP efforts to disenfranchise voters they don't like have only stepped up further in recent years. (In particular, the SAVE Act, if passed, could really mess things up even more.) But I think the left sees the whole frothing-at-the-mouth "stop the steal" stuff as counterproductive and won't go that route, so I'd agree that, for the most part, the 2028 elections will be judged to be fair and free of fraud, regardless of outcome, at least by anyone who is not a Republican.
That's the reaction some extreme Trump supporters I know had after 2020. They claimed there would never be another fair election because of the manipulation of the electronic voting machines
That is a complete false equivalence. What evidence was there of fraud in 2020? We are watching what Trump is doing and saying with our own eyes right now.
There were a bunch of people who are easily tricked who latched onto the election fraud claims by habitual liars. That doesn't make the claims true.
I really don't understand what you are trying to do other than distract.
4 replies →
That's not really the point, though. Elections for federal offices are run by the states. The Trumpers can complain all they want about voter fraud and vote manipulation, but if the evidence isn't there (which it almost certainly won't be), then it will be a fair and free election.
Obviously I would prefer if these morons on the right wouldn't fall for Trump's conspiracy bullshit, as democracy functions much better when everyone has faith in the integrity of elections. But as long as the elections are fair, that's still something in the "plus" column.
That's nothing like the current situation. Those claims were based on stupid conspiracy theories with no supporting evidence. Everyone can see what this administration is saying and doing. Trump is telling us that he doesn't respect laws or democracy, and is following that up with action.
That’s why the current administration is going to make sure the other side doesn’t get in power again.
I'm debating on whether they will manage to stir up enough chaos to suspend the constitution, or whether there will be enough independent thought left in the military to oust them when the time comes for new elections - although I can't rule out Russian-style elections, one-man one-vote, and his vote is what counts.
My gut says there will be elections and they might even be "fair" but that there won't be much left to actually govern, having been sold off to corpo looters or just outright destroyed. Trump is his own aggressive buffoon, but ultimately still just a tool of the corpo authoritarians that have had a death grip on this country for decades (at least) - doubly so with the deals he undoubtedly had to make to get a second term to assuage his pitiful ego. Hence the captains of the surveillance industry throwing their support behind him with Musk gaining the de facto executive power.
Can we give this fear-mongering a rest? This is his second term, he didn't topple democracy in his first term and everyone made the same arguments back then.
If anything the democrats were the party to get rid of some of their democratic process. They didn't even vote on their parties candidate, and no, that doesn't scare me either.
Not to mention the democrats had far more private money spent all three times fighting Trump and yet he still won democratically twice and lost once democratically.
The system isn't great or even good, but it's still functioning.
14 replies →
If you have to count on the military to save you, you are lost already.
4 replies →
This is an example of what I like to call the "both sides fallacy". There are several reasons why people try and make a both sides equivalence in US politics. For example:
- As a way of not having to know anything while appearing intellectual or somehow "above it all";
- Genuine and fundamental misunderstanding of the political forces in the US. Example: thinking there's such a thing as "socialism" or "the far left" in America;
- To knowingly deflect from the excesses of the conservative movement.
Here are the two political forces in American politics:
1. The fascist party who has had a 50+ year project to take over and subvert every aspect of government to destroy any aspect of democracy and create a neofuedal dystopia masquerading as a Christian theocracy; and
2. The controlled opposition party who loves nothing more than to be out of power and, when in power, to do nothing. It's why Democrats not in office are suddenly for progressive policies like medicare-for-all (as Kamala Harris was in 2019) but when on the cusp of taking power, they have a policy of no longer opposing the death penalty, capitulating to right-wing immigratino policy, arming a genocidal apartheid state and the only tax breaks proposed are for startups.
Look at how successful progressive voter initatives were in the last election compared to the performance of the Democratic Party. Florida overwhelmingly passed recreational marijuana and abortion access (~57% for, unfortunately you need 60%+ to pass in Florida) while Trump carried the state by 14. Minimum wage increases passed in deep red Missouri. In fact, abortion access has never failed to garner a mjaority of votes whenever it's allowed to be put in front of voters, no matter how deep red the state.
So why if progressive policies are so popular, are the Democrats so opposed to them as a platform? Really think about that. The Democratic Party doesn't exist to abuse power. It exists to destroy progressive momentum at every level of government above all else.
Yeah, it's the higher-amplitude wobbles of a complex system before it snaps and finds a new equilibrium.
> having our judicial branch become openly partisan
A lot of the decisions that have been flagged as "openly partisan" are just the Supreme Court saying exactly what you're saying: the executive branch and judicial branch don't have the authority to write laws and both branches should really stop writing laws and force Congress to do that.
We will see this year and in coming years whether this Supreme Court is partisan or just activist in tearing down executive authority. If they uphold this administration's opinions about executive power, then yes, they're blatantly partisan and have no integrity. If they stand in the way, then maybe they just finally had the numbers to rein in the executive branch like conservatives have been arguing for for generations.
I don't think we have enough information at this point to judge which is more likely (though I know most here will disagree with me on that point).
What say you of the Trump vs United States (appropriately named) ruling that gives the president immunity from crimes committed while in office? Does that align with the idea that SCOTUS may reign in presidential power?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States_(2024...
I think that decision was wrong, but I don't think we can necessarily use that as a template for future SCOTUS decisions about the things Trump might do. During his first term (even after he'd appointed justices), there were still rulings that went against Trump's administration. Just as during Biden's time in office, there were rulings in favor of his administration. While I do not like the ideological bent of the current Supreme Court, it is not clear that they are in favor of the dismantling of government through illegal means.
(A nit: the word you're looking for is "rein", as in the thing you hold when riding a horse, not "reign", the ruling period of a monarch.)
The article you attached does not say that the ruling gives the president immunity from all crimes committed while in office.
2 replies →
Having a permanent bureaucracy that ignores directives from the executive only really benefits democrats (look at the Washington DC presidential vote totals). So this executive order is not a both sides thing, or about executive overreach.
Something like the REINS Act, forcing regulations to be voted on by congress, would be something that hurts both sides & prevents executive overreach.
I’d note that the Washington DC vote totals mainly reflect people who live in the District proper, most of whom are not federal civil servants. Plenty of those seem to live in the Virginia and Maryland suburbs, or closer to their federal workplaces in other parts of the United States.
Something tells me presidential vote totals around Fort Bragg or Oak Ridge—both home to notable numbers of career federal employees—might give a different impression.
E.g. https://news.clearancejobs.com/2025/01/18/the-data-shows-whe...
> look at the Washington DC presidential vote totals
Most federal civil servants live in Maryland or Virginia, not in DC.