politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Hitler literally got a law passed so that a judge couldn't block him from doing anything. So until Trump has his Reischtag fire and declares a state of emergency it's not really comparable.
Enabling Act
We already had the "official acts" SCOTUS ruling instead.
The ruling which states that SCOTUS itself is the final arbiter of what constitutes an "official act." So if (lol) there's ever a non-GOP president again, SCOTUS has the ability to take away Presidential Immunity whenever asked to rule on a relevant case. A neat trick that everyone seemed to forget during the Biden admin.
Bluntly, if I somehow became president, I would ignore the SCROTUS and remove most of its members. Then force reforms and expansions, then put the question to them: "Should select presidents have immunity for official acts?" If the new court doesn't fix the issue, then replace SCROTUS again, until they see bloody sense and become a proper SCOTUS. It is dumb and brutish, but the times might call for being a jackass. 😒
The Constitution is a good idea, but we clearly have to update the systems it laid out - they assumed the branches would compete, and can't really account for modern realities like the size of the US and technology. Unfortunately, we will need lots of power to force corrections onto an elite establishment that relies on bad design.
IMO, the 'mid' outcome of revolution is a strongman transitioning us from dictatorship back to full democracy. Hopefully we get the 'good' timeline, where democracy improves itself for the better without a bully's mindset. The 'bad' outcome is everything Thiel and friends want.
There's no fire. He just paid a bunch of people to tear down the white house.
Sure, he'll probably blame Dems
To be fair, Congress has all but abdicated their responsibility to check the executive branch, and the courts have no enforcement mechanism. So it's not all that different, in effect.
Best we have is Civil Contempt. It's different than criminal contempt, which can be pardoned by the President and must be enforced throught the executive or the Marshalls service. A judge can appoint anyone to enforce civil contempt rulings, including someone who doesn't report to the federal executive.
Lots of people's don't understand the difference between civil and criminal, and a automatically assume criminal is always stronger. But civil is a lot more flexible because civil and criminal have different goals and remedies.
Criminal penalties are punishment for committing crimes. People think of murder and theft, but by far the most common criminal convictions are traffic violations. You get caught speeding and you have to pay a pre-defined penalty or take a driver's ed class or whatever. For the most part, criminal convictions can result in fines, imprisonment, or execution.
Civil is different. Civil cases aren't seeking punishment - they're seeking relief. That is, in a Civil case, the Court can make you do something or stop doing that thing.
For an easy example that I run into pretty often in municipal government, I'll highlight the difference between Civil and criminal cases for the same offense: building a fence past your property line into the public right-of-way.
When I take someone to court in that case, I can go criminal or civil (or both).
If I take them to criminal court, the judge can make them pay a fine. But the judge can't make them remove the fence. We can issue separate citations every day and have 14 charges on the docket each week, but that's it. There are some billionaires in some areas who actually build illegal fences and just pay the $500/day in fines because money isn't an object to them.
But when I take them to civil court, the city isn't seeking punishment for what they've done - it's seeking relief. That is, instead of a fine, the judge can order that the fence be removed, and (and this is the big point) that if it ISN'T removed after the order the judge can appoint someone else to go on the property and forcefully remove it.
We actually have a case in my city where we're have a court-appointed third-party private firm preparing to tear down a large part of house that cost 9 figures because the owner is refusing to carry out the judge's order regarding their illegal construction. The judge didn't want to put the city in charge because the impact on property tax revenue of tearing down such an expensive piece of property might convince the city to turn a blind eye.
When an order isn't obeyed, a judge can appoint someone to carry out the ruling, and unlike in a federal criminal case which requires that the judge appoint the Marshall's Office, a civil ruling specifically doesn't have that restriction on the judge.
Sorry, but that attitude is exactly why they keep gaining ground. That argument is propaganda that JD Vance and Adrian Vermule (the modern Carl Schmitt who is fucking obsessed with the OG Carl Schmitt) have been trying to promote for quite some time.
First it was JD Vance claiming that judges don't have the authority to overrule a president's executive authority. It's not that JD Vance graduated from Yale without ever learning about checks and balances. It's that he went on TV, and used his position of authority to state a lie that this administration needs to be true. When judges kept overruling Trump and using the legal system to undo much of the shit that he did, it back peddled to well he's just going to take it to the supreme court anyway.
While that's true, it's turned into the Trump administration being bogged down with hundreds of lawsuits. While the supreme court is corrupt as fuck, it takes time for them to actually hear cases and make a decision. So claiming that judges and congress don't still act as speed bumps to Trump's evil plans is frankly bullshit.
If we can make it another year and prevent him from cancelling or rigging the elections, then we can take the house back and begin actually investigating some of this bullshit. This time next year the propaganda will be back to the standard: Your vote doesn't really count, or why bother voting because both sides are the same. Just ignore the fact that some people are willing to work very hard and dump millions into propaganda campaigns discouraging voting, and rigging the law to make sure voting is made as difficult as possible.