Anyone remember how the Republicans lost their shit over Obama signing executive orders? I think Jeff Sessions called him an "emperor" and everyone was mewling about how he was exceeding his...
Anyone remember how the Republicans lost their shit over Obama signing executive orders? I think Jeff Sessions called him an "emperor" and everyone was mewling about how he was exceeding his executive authority. Where are all of those guys now?
I'm with ya there. W Bush and Obama bother really pushed the envelope and I screamed "slippery slope" every step of the way while the moderates on both sides more or less said its fine. Well, now...
I'm with ya there. W Bush and Obama bother really pushed the envelope and I screamed "slippery slope" every step of the way while the moderates on both sides more or less said its fine.
Well, now we see the end result.
Every single thing that's done should be asked 'would I be OK if the political opposition used this same tactic to implement something I don't like.'. Because it's inevitable that they will...especially Republicans, because Democrats love procedure and decorum too much.
Pretty hardcore liberal here - I think this is a big blind spot for people on all parts of the political spectrum. We cheer when the executive branch does something we like and boo when it does...
Pretty hardcore liberal here - I think this is a big blind spot for people on all parts of the political spectrum. We cheer when the executive branch does something we like and boo when it does something we don't like. But the question should be, "would I be okay with the other side having that exact same amount of unchecked power?"
If you can sign an executive order to protect gay folks, consider that someone can sign an executive order to do the opposite to some degree.
That said, presidents need power to act decisively in times of crisis. FDR was hated by many Americans who felt the New Deal was a massive overreach. John Wilkes Boothe, if he is to be believed, was super pro-slavery but was extra pissed that Lincoln was "making himself a king." In retrospect most people like Lincoln and the New Deal. But it raises questions about when and how executive powers should be used.
I think I figured it out. Back in the 90s we had a more or less functional government. But W Bush really started pushing the boundaries of executive actions. Then, when Obama was elected,...
I think I figured it out. Back in the 90s we had a more or less functional government.
But W Bush really started pushing the boundaries of executive actions.
Then, when Obama was elected, Republicans in congress began refusing to do their job. So in many ways, they hamstrung Obama from being able to accomplish much of anything without executive orders. These establishing more legal precident for doing so. Then Trump shows off just what the result of granting those powers does. I'm of half a mind that this was intentional strategy to cement what is happening now.
Obama would have been better off pushing boundaries in other ways. Like forcibly appointing a supreme court justice when the Senate refused to do their job.
Granted everything started from the effects of everything else, but a lot of contemporary government dysfunction started with Newt Gingrich and the rise of Fox News. Which was born out of...
Granted everything started from the effects of everything else, but a lot of contemporary government dysfunction started with Newt Gingrich and the rise of Fox News. Which was born out of Watergate, which had roots in the first television debate, and so on and so on. Government dysfunction isn't necessarily new, the three houses were designed around it. But offloading power and responsibility on one or the other so that a third (Congress) didn't have to do their job wasn't really anticipated.
The ones who actually have the power to do that are the Supreme Court, though. It's possible they fall in line because he appointed conservative shitheads, but it's still possible they have enough...
The ones who actually have the power to do that are the Supreme Court, though. It's possible they fall in line because he appointed conservative shitheads, but it's still possible they have enough respect for the law to not wipe their asses with the Constitution on this one. It's also possible it goes the other way, but it's all at their discretion now. The President's greatest power is his ability to appoint the ones who are really the most powerful in the US government.
I'm trying not to be too hopeful about it so it hurts less in the worst case scenario, but I can't let myself lose all hope on it either. I wouldn't have put money on Mike Pence preventing a coup prior to 2021, but he was a major reason that attempt failed. And if Mike Pence can have enough respect for the rule of law to do that, I can leave myself a sliver of hope that two conservative justices will. If they don't, we're in a much worse state than I ever predicted we'd be in.
That's what I was inferring: If the Supreme court does his bidding on this one, they'll have set a precedent that the president can just override any bit of the constitution he wants.
That's what I was inferring: If the Supreme court does his bidding on this one, they'll have set a precedent that the president can just override any bit of the constitution he wants.
The open question is will they really neuter their own power that way. Also will they blatantly reveal that their written statements about judicial philosophy are blatant lies. Everything they do...
The open question is will they really neuter their own power that way.
Also will they blatantly reveal that their written statements about judicial philosophy are blatant lies.
Everything they do is for an audience. That audience is not the general public. But the justices each cultivate and value a certain reputation.
As an aside, it's weird how some sites paywall content. In my browser I see one paragraph and then a subscribe-to-newsletter CTA and then this: Now, I have pretty well-developed media literacy...
As an aside, it's weird how some sites paywall content. In my browser I see one paragraph and then a subscribe-to-newsletter CTA and then this:
You’ve read your last free article. Subscribe now to keep reading. If you're already a subscriber, sign in.
Now, I have pretty well-developed media literacy skills so I'm familiar with the fade-into-paywall model. But if my media literacy was less developed I could easily assume that the whole article is one paragraph long! Even the text seems to suggest that the last paragraph that I read was my last free article.
This might seem like a stretch to some of the older generation who have gone from newspapers to iPads but it would really confuse a younger me. I might get the impression that one paragraph is all you needed to be on the front page. They really should add a bit more explanation or CSS gradients, etc
Anyone remember how the Republicans lost their shit over Obama signing executive orders? I think Jeff Sessions called him an "emperor" and everyone was mewling about how he was exceeding his executive authority. Where are all of those guys now?
Not a republican, one of the people pissed at what Obama did, feel like he absolutely helped contribute to where we are now.
I'm with ya there. W Bush and Obama bother really pushed the envelope and I screamed "slippery slope" every step of the way while the moderates on both sides more or less said its fine.
Well, now we see the end result.
Every single thing that's done should be asked 'would I be OK if the political opposition used this same tactic to implement something I don't like.'. Because it's inevitable that they will...especially Republicans, because Democrats love procedure and decorum too much.
Pretty hardcore liberal here - I think this is a big blind spot for people on all parts of the political spectrum. We cheer when the executive branch does something we like and boo when it does something we don't like. But the question should be, "would I be okay with the other side having that exact same amount of unchecked power?"
If you can sign an executive order to protect gay folks, consider that someone can sign an executive order to do the opposite to some degree.
That said, presidents need power to act decisively in times of crisis. FDR was hated by many Americans who felt the New Deal was a massive overreach. John Wilkes Boothe, if he is to be believed, was super pro-slavery but was extra pissed that Lincoln was "making himself a king." In retrospect most people like Lincoln and the New Deal. But it raises questions about when and how executive powers should be used.
I think I figured it out. Back in the 90s we had a more or less functional government.
But W Bush really started pushing the boundaries of executive actions.
Then, when Obama was elected, Republicans in congress began refusing to do their job. So in many ways, they hamstrung Obama from being able to accomplish much of anything without executive orders. These establishing more legal precident for doing so. Then Trump shows off just what the result of granting those powers does. I'm of half a mind that this was intentional strategy to cement what is happening now.
Obama would have been better off pushing boundaries in other ways. Like forcibly appointing a supreme court justice when the Senate refused to do their job.
Granted everything started from the effects of everything else, but a lot of contemporary government dysfunction started with Newt Gingrich and the rise of Fox News. Which was born out of Watergate, which had roots in the first television debate, and so on and so on. Government dysfunction isn't necessarily new, the three houses were designed around it. But offloading power and responsibility on one or the other so that a third (Congress) didn't have to do their job wasn't really anticipated.
Less than he thinks and more than I would like.
At this point, I am unsure of that. If birthright citizenship gets axed without a constitutional amendment then constitutional law is dead.
The ones who actually have the power to do that are the Supreme Court, though. It's possible they fall in line because he appointed conservative shitheads, but it's still possible they have enough respect for the law to not wipe their asses with the Constitution on this one. It's also possible it goes the other way, but it's all at their discretion now. The President's greatest power is his ability to appoint the ones who are really the most powerful in the US government.
I'm trying not to be too hopeful about it so it hurts less in the worst case scenario, but I can't let myself lose all hope on it either. I wouldn't have put money on Mike Pence preventing a coup prior to 2021, but he was a major reason that attempt failed. And if Mike Pence can have enough respect for the rule of law to do that, I can leave myself a sliver of hope that two conservative justices will. If they don't, we're in a much worse state than I ever predicted we'd be in.
That's what I was inferring: If the Supreme court does his bidding on this one, they'll have set a precedent that the president can just override any bit of the constitution he wants.
The open question is will they really neuter their own power that way.
Also will they blatantly reveal that their written statements about judicial philosophy are blatant lies.
Everything they do is for an audience. That audience is not the general public. But the justices each cultivate and value a certain reputation.
As an aside, it's weird how some sites paywall content. In my browser I see one paragraph and then a subscribe-to-newsletter CTA and then this:
Now, I have pretty well-developed media literacy skills so I'm familiar with the fade-into-paywall model. But if my media literacy was less developed I could easily assume that the whole article is one paragraph long! Even the text seems to suggest that the last paragraph that I read was my last free article.
This might seem like a stretch to some of the older generation who have gone from newspapers to iPads but it would really confuse a younger me. I might get the impression that one paragraph is all you needed to be on the front page. They really should add a bit more explanation or CSS gradients, etc
Mirror: https://archive.is/pw1d6