3 ms·

Executive orders are increasingly used to do end-runs around legislation, so don't count them out.

mindslight 6y ago
But the existing end runs are generally for things that the Executive already has administrative control over, refuses to abide by restrictions/oversight, and suffers no repercussions - similar to how none of Trump's personal crimes are being prosecuted while he's president. What are the possible results here? Finding sympathetic (ie corrupt) courts that will straight up ignore what the law says and defer to the executive's decrees? Or just directly ordering those federal goon squads to physically take over Twitter et al? I don't want to deny the possibility that such fascist takeovers could happen. They just seem unlikely, compared to gross ineptitude leading to a lack of any results.
- clusterfish 6y ago
  Why not? "Sympathetic" courts are explicitly Trump's strategy to stay in power by validating vote suppression and even allowing states to not count all the votes. And you think some puny section is exempt from such bullshit? We have a new standard for how much such technicalities as separation of power matter in America, better get used to it. It's not like Democrats will fix all that even if they sweep the election, they'll just sit on their hands as usual.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    Democrats invented obliterating separation of powers, and then bludgeoned the Supreme Court into accepting it through court packing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.L.A._Schechter_Poultry_Corp._v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.L.A._Schechter_Poultry_Corp.... > This traditional reading of the Commerce Clause was later disavowed by the Court, which after threats from Roosevelt began to read congressional power more expansively in this area, in cases such as NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.[8] However, more recent cases such as United States v. Lopez[9] perhaps signal a growing inclination in the Court to once again affirm limits on its scope. In a unanimous 2011 decision, Bond v. United States, the Supreme Court cited Schechter as a precedent.[10]
    - clusterfish 6y ago
      You don't need to go 85 years back to judge current political parties, and that was not the point of my comment. The point is, US governance is fucked, and nobody will save you.
InitialLastName 6y ago
I suspect that, after the large-scale Trump-era rollback of Obama-era executive orders (mirroring, of course, a similar transition in 2008), the electorate and political classes are starting to figure out that executive orders don't have a lot of sway once your party loses control of the executive.

But the existing end runs are generally for things that the Executive already has administrative control over, refuses to abide by restrictions/oversight, and suffers no repercussions - similar to how none of Trump's personal crimes are being prosecuted while he's president. What are the possible results here? Finding sympathetic (ie corrupt) courts that will straight up ignore what the law says and defer to the executive's decrees? Or just directly ordering those federal goon squads to physically take over Twitter et al? I don't want to deny the possibility that such fascist takeovers could happen. They just seem unlikely, compared to gross ineptitude leading to a lack of any results.

clusterfish 6y ago
Why not? "Sympathetic" courts are explicitly Trump's strategy to stay in power by validating vote suppression and even allowing states to not count all the votes. And you think some puny section is exempt from such bullshit? We have a new standard for how much such technicalities as separation of power matter in America, better get used to it. It's not like Democrats will fix all that even if they sweep the election, they'll just sit on their hands as usual.
- rayiner 6y ago
  Democrats invented obliterating separation of powers, and then bludgeoned the Supreme Court into accepting it through court packing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.L.A._Schechter_Poultry_Corp._v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.L.A._Schechter_Poultry_Corp.... > This traditional reading of the Commerce Clause was later disavowed by the Court, which after threats from Roosevelt began to read congressional power more expansively in this area, in cases such as NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.[8] However, more recent cases such as United States v. Lopez[9] perhaps signal a growing inclination in the Court to once again affirm limits on its scope. In a unanimous 2011 decision, Bond v. United States, the Supreme Court cited Schechter as a precedent.[10]
  - clusterfish 6y ago
    You don't need to go 85 years back to judge current political parties, and that was not the point of my comment. The point is, US governance is fucked, and nobody will save you.

InitialLastName 6y ago

I suspect that, after the large-scale Trump-era rollback of Obama-era executive orders (mirroring, of course, a similar transition in 2008), the electorate and political classes are starting to figure out that executive orders don't have a lot of sway once your party loses control of the executive.