Comment by Zamaamiro

The DOJ regularly provides guidance about its interpretations of laws. These letters are also “deciding what it means in practice.”

https://adata.org/interpretation-letter

Nobody complains about this though.

That’s an unrelated issue.

> Who will enforce following the law if the executive branch ignores the judicial?

Congress through impeachment. If they don't do that, all bets are off.

There is no suggestion that that’s going to happen.

The question of whether you'd be happy to have the other guy do it always applies. If you wouldn't, people moaning when it happens is always a good thing.

It’s not fascinating in any way, it’s completely habitual for fascists to use every means at their disposal to prevent their opponents from doing anything only to ignore all roadblocks when in power.

The GOP has been ramping up their support of unitary executive theory since the 80s yet no democratic president has been able to take a piss without cries of tyranny.

yes but if the executive just pretends there is no issue does it matter

part of the supreme court hasn't exactly been known to defend the constitution in word and spirit but find excuses to reinterpret it

and worse by giving themself the right to authoritative misinterpreted law they can prevent any such cases ever appearing in front of the supreme court and/or very effectively blackmail people into not making or dismissing cases

and Trump abusing power to blackmail people to get changes in of court related proceeding (to ironically black mail someone else to force them to fall in line or a court case against them gets reopend/not dismissed) did already happen, openly in public just a few days ago

They don’t actually believe in unitary executive theory, as can plainly be seen any time a democrat is elected president.

Perfect timing when he's just tweeted out that he is The King

Disbanding of both the legislature and judiciary would be on any dictator's playbook from the last N centuries. I can't imagine either of those bodies would be ok with getting shuttered but it seems they are both pushing for it. Why?

It 100% was written with the explicit purpose of giving Trump the power to do whatever he wants. Including ignoring the Supreme Court hilariously enough.

Anyway, the whole discussion is moot because Trump is turning America into a authoritarian state, so rules and laws and elections soon don’t matter anymore.

The president can arguably pack the court and with his majorities nobody will stop him

If you believe the Supreme Court is an effective guardrail against tyranny then you're deeply mistaken. The only true safeguard against tyranny is the American people refusing to comply and responding with force of arms if pushed.

Yeah nearly all the discussion here seems circular…

At this point your working assumption should be that the target operating model is similar to Russia.

> the Democrats are ineffectual by design.

The Democrats are people who believe in the rule of law, and they act like it. When pitted against people who have no qualms to win at all costs, even it means breaking the law and destroying the constitution, Democrats lose; if you value those things you can't preserve them by destroying them yourself. We are where we are because Republicans convinced themselves they deserved the power they have taken. The people who voted for them were convinced as well. That's the only failure we should be talking about right now. The Democrats, flawed as they are, did the right thing.

That said, they will not be the people to lead us out of this. They know how to fundraise, campaign, and maintain the status quo. They're not built for this, so it's time to just look for someone new rather than try to reform people who are clearly not made for this moment.

> the Democrats are ineffectual by design

In many situations, those who have morals and scruples will be ineffectual when faced with an adversary who has none. Biden didn't "clean house" because he believes in the rule of law, and believes that if he'd done that, he should go to jail, even if he wouldn't.

Not everyone has an ethical code that only exists because they're afraid they'll go to jail if they break it. Some people just don't think it's ok to do the wrong thing.

Put another way: if you become the monster you're trying to fight, that's often not materially different from the monster winning in the first place.

Having said that, I do think that Democrats should fight a little dirtier sometimes. I think that would be possible to do without becoming that monster.

Not even that. Trump controls federal law enforcement. If Congress or a federal court says "arrest cabinet member XYZ for contempt", Trump can just say "no".

Congress does have some law enforcement personnel, but I doubt they'd be interested in getting in a standoff with the Secret Service.

It's pretty simple, working class mostly conservative white Americans have been feeling extremely disenfranchised and the right phrase is nearly "discriminated against" by the left and what were mainstream republicans. This bloc of people were used by entities foreign and domestic to wield power. Large disgruntled groups of people are really good for this. Donald Trump is the perfect symbol for this group and there are even some strange almost religious feelings towards him in a few.

It is not just a case of people misplacing the blame. There was massive amount of lying and demonization of anyone not conservative right going on. There was a lot of fearmongering and hate ... all enabled by "moderates".

The movements like these did not just happened because people were unhappy. They are result of long political project that was enabled, excused and defended for years.

It's definitely bad that Democrats could not come up with a single candidate, and a strategy for that candidate, but held on to Biden and then presented Kamala as a saviour when she was a meh candidate at best

Perhaps the winning formula of the Obama years was the absence of rampant social media use and the spread of propaganda / misinformation at the time. Not saying those things did not exist - but they did not have the ability to spread like wildfire compared to today.

Eh agree in part, disagree in part. In 2016 a bunch of people who would otherwise not be interested in politics were interested in two politicians - Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. The Democratic party leadership made a concerted effort to drown Sanders' economic populism before it could succeed. That sent a message that it had no place in the party, killing their ability to grow the base, and giving MAGA (via the Bannon faction) control of economic populist messaging. Economic populists left the Democratic party, leaving them to rely on elites and cultural leftists to carry the party messaging, which resulted in what you described. And most of what you described only exists in a Fox News fever dream, but the Democrats opened the door right up for it to happen.

Democratic party did not moved left, not even close to it. Stop blaming left who holds no power for what right does.

Democratic party systematically promotes centrists and measured politicians.

Exact text from Project 2025 have shown up in dozens of Trumps EOs.

https://www.politico.com/interactives/2025/trump-executive-o...

Verify it how exactly? By taking Trump's word for it?

Sure, but Trump is no Napoleon.

Musk is probably more like Napoleon since he understands mathematics.

There is so much evidence that he is actually, intentionally, emulating Hitler though. He quotes Hitler "poisoning the blood of the country", kept Hitler's speeches by his bedside, was reported by his cabinet to have admired Hitler.

Modern-day America exhibits striking parallels to Nazi Germany prior to Trump’s election, revealing serious concerns about the current state of national identity and political culture.

One of the most significant similarities is the prominent use of the eagle as a national symbol, which deeply reinforces American patriotism. This motif is prominently showcased in iconic films and features in imposing architecture, such as the U.S. Capitol and various government buildings. Though rooted in ancient Rome, its invocation in modern America serves to solidify a sense of unity and national pride.

Moreover, the practice of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in schools is a powerful tool for instilling civic identity among students. This act fosters a strong collective loyalty to the nation, echoing how Nazi Germany indoctrinated its youth. Mass gatherings—be it political conventions, presidential inaugurations, or significant events like the Fourth of July—serve to invigorate the populace and create a palpable emotional connection to the state.

Nazi Germany revered the military as the backbone of society, exemplified by uniforms and grand military parades showcasing their might. The United States mirrors this sentiment through events such as Veterans Day, honoring those who have served by prioritizing them in boarding processes and glorifying military prowess during flyovers at major sporting events.

Uniforms and visual identity are crucial in both contexts. Nazi Germany was obsessed with uniforms—whether the imposing SS black or the earthy brown of the brownshirts—which represented discipline and loyalty to the regime. Similarly, in the U.S., uniforms convey a range of services, from military camouflage to police blue and even political campaign attire. While Nazi uniforms symbolized rigid hierarchy, American uniforms reflect a diverse array of service and community; both utilize attire to assert belonging and authority.

Leadership cults flourish on both sides of the political spectrum. Nazi ideology unflinchingly fixated on racial and cultural “purity,” scapegoating and vilifying groups such as Jews and Romani people. In modern America, incendiary debates over immigration, “American values,” and “law and order” revolve around preserving a cohesive national identity, often at the expense of marginalized communities.

The glorification of physical fitness plays a vital role in both societies. The Nazis showcased Aryan athleticism at the 1936 Berlin Olympics, weaponizing athletic success to promote their ideology. Likewise, America celebrates its sporting champions across football, basketball, and baseball, intertwining national pride with athletic excellence.

Color schemes serve as powerful symbols in both contexts. The swastika flag’s black, white, and red colors were deliberately designed to evoke the ideas of blood, soil, and purity—central tenets of Nazi ideology. In contrast, the U.S. flag’s red, white, and blue represent foundational ideals like valor, purity, and justice. Both nations skillfully leverage bold, simple color schemes to provoke visceral emotions and establish a coherent identity, despite starkly different histories and narratives.

The narrative of an "enemy from within" was fundamental to the Nazis and continues to resonate today. While the U.S. is not engaged in genocide on its own soil, political rhetoric often frames “elites,” “socialists,” or “extremists” as existential threats to the nation. The Nazis exploited this fear to justify horrific purges; in America, similar dynamics fuel extremism and exacerbate partisan divides, tapping into deep anxieties of betrayal.

Additionally, monumental engineering feats—like the Autobahn and V-2 rockets—were proudly showcased by the Nazis to assert their technological superiority and national prowess. The United States boasts monumental achievements like the moon landing, groundbreaking innovations from Silicon Valley, and advanced military technology. Both societies firmly link innovation to national greatness; however, while Nazi pursuits were driven by warfare, America aims to enhance its global image and achieve broader ambitions through its technological advancements.

The groundwork for a potential dictatorial state has been meticulously laid over the years. Trump is not merely facilitating change; he is actively pushing for a fundamental shift that could redefine the very fabric of democracy.

What’s the solution you have in mind? Anyone in the Executive branch can interpret the law for themselves and disobey an order if they believe they have a legal basis to do so?

That would be completely paralyzing.

"Hitler opened the meeting by boasting that millions of Germans had welcomed his chancellorship with “jubilation,” then outlined his plans for expunging key government officials and filling their positions with loyalists. At this point he turned to his main agenda item: the empowering law that, he argued, would give him the time (four years, according to the stipulations laid out in the draft of the law) and the authority necessary to make good on his campaign promises to revive the economy, reduce unemployment, increase military spending, withdraw from international treaty obligations, purge the country of foreigners he claimed were “poisoning” the blood of the nation, and exact revenge on political opponents. “Heads will roll in the sand,” Hitler had vowed at one rally."

Sounds way too familiar.

Good share, thanks.

What branch of government do these independent agencies exist in, and where is that defined in the Constitution?

To serve notice to the FCC, FTC, SEC, and CFTC that Trump intends to override their internal legal interpretations.

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying those internal checks are a good thing; I mean that the President already has extensive mechanisms to control what these agencies do.