5 ms·

I don't know about that. Something like an executive order can have effects years after someone is gone, momentum builds and it takes effort for a successor to

I don't know about that. Something like an executive order can have effects years after someone is gone, momentum builds and it takes effort for a successor to undo it. To say nothing about lifetime court appointments. Not just in the supreme court either.

dnissley 4y ago
Any examples? IIRC, many such orders signed by Trump were immediately undone or at the very least drastically watered down by Biden.
- aliqot 4y ago
  The Patriot Act was an executive order
  - atdrummond 4y ago
    Are you sure? Because I distinctly remember only Senator Feingold voting against it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - kube-system 4y ago
    The Patriot Act is law, enacted by the 107th United States Congress. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act You can tell because of the word “act” which refer to it being a formal legislative action.
    - aliqot 4y ago
      https://www.state.gov/executive-order-13224/ https://www.state.gov/executive-order-13224/
      - kube-system 4y ago
        What about it? EO 13224 is not the Patriot Act.
  - amanaplanacanal 4y ago
    The patriot act was passed by congress and signed by the president in 2001, and the last provisions expired in 2020.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - Mountain_Skies 4y ago
    No. >The Act passed the House by a vote of 357–66, the Act passed the Senate with a vote of 98–1.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- godelski 4y ago
  Not an executive order, but what led to the 2009 financial crisis was mostly done under the Clinton administration. Honestly I think this is something us humans are really bad at (well we're known to be bad at this). Understanding causal effects through time. Not only are we bad at understanding causal facts but we're really bad at being forward thinking and understanding temporal phenomena. But I think the main point that the gp is making is that most of the things that happen under a president aren't really felt till well after they have left office. Many wins that presidents have are due to effects from former presidents. Like both Obama and Trump got praised for high S&P 500 values at the beginning of their presidencies. Obama came in after a big crash. There's also no way Trump could be a causal factor for growth in the first 3 months of his presidency. You can't really have that kind of effect that early on. Yes these presidents contributed to these markets, but it would be naive to say that the growth was because of them. Or we can look at the long lasting effects of Regan. Or even Civil Rights and Johnson. While there was more immediate consequences under both these presidents there were also very long term effects that we still see today.
  - btilly 4y ago
    I have no idea what you think happened under the Clinton era to cause the financial crash of 2009. Most of the immediate things, such as the housing boom driven by easy lending policies, happened under Bush. So I'd need a reference to support that idea. However I'll give you another one. Most people's impression is that Carter destroyed the economy and Reagan's deregulation saved the day. But actually the facts are almost exactly reversed - Carter did the deregulating but the benefits were not seen until Reagan was in power. See https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/much-of-what-youve-heard-about-carter https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/much-of-what-youve-heard-a... for a reference.
    - winstonewert 4y ago
      The post you are responding to is probably referring to the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act. According to some, that act (signed by Clinton) was (somewhat) responsible for the financial crash. But this is certainly a matter of dispute.
- dillondoyle 4y ago
  Took a while to end 'stay in Mexico' had to go through courts iirc. Seems like a lot of the drilling and EPA stuff has been gummed up in courts too Interesting article link below talking about Biden's push and the problem with R partisan judges. and the potential that if an order goes too far, court is given opportunity to make a broad and lasting ruling that would limit powers. I can very easily see this happening. https://time.com/6205771/trump-judges-biden-executive-orders-abortion/ https://time.com/6205771/trump-judges-biden-executive-orders...
  - asveikau 4y ago
    This is one prime example I was thinking of when I wrote the comment, but I was waiting for someone else to say it. I have vague memories of other things, like maybe some Bush orders that didn't get a swift or easy rollback with Obama ... But that was longer ago. But I think more broadly and nonpartisan, a law passed by Congress or an executive order by the president that is done when someone feels they have a mandate... Often sets broad policy for years and outlasts the mandate. More than most people understand. I think this contradicts the easy, oversimplified statement people like to make that elections don't matter and the parties and candidates are interchangable.
latchkey 4y ago
All federal judges are lifetime. https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/about-federal-judges https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/about-federal-jud... https://thehill.com/regulation/3631564-five-things-to-know-about-aileen-m-cannon-the-judge-who-granted-trump-a-special-master/ https://thehill.com/regulation/3631564-five-things-to-know-a...
- andsoitis 4y ago
  From https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-judicial-branch/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-governm... Federal judges can only be removed through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction in the Senate. Judges and Justices serve no fixed term — they serve until their death, retirement, or conviction by the Senate. So retirement is an option, which is what I am guessing most choose.
- asveikau 4y ago
  That's what I was pointing out, friend. HN is one of those internet communities where people reply with what I read as an aggressive tone, but they agree with me, and it's as if they are angrily correcting me but they didn't realize I was saying their same thing. Is that just my perception?
  - latchkey 4y ago
    I wasn't being aggressive, I was filing in the blanks for others that might be interested. Your comment encouraged me do the research myself (I didn't remember who else was lifetime from my high school classes in the late 80's) and I figured I'd share that, as well as, give another link that explains a bit more context to what I felt you left out.
    - asveikau 4y ago
      Ok, thank you. The internet is funny. Neutral tones can come across as aggressive. Aggression, generally, though, can totally be all in the head of the perceiver.

dnissley 4y ago

Any examples? IIRC, many such orders signed by Trump were immediately undone or at the very least drastically watered down by Biden.

aliqot 4y ago
The Patriot Act was an executive order
- atdrummond 4y ago
  Are you sure? Because I distinctly remember only Senator Feingold voting against it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- kube-system 4y ago
  The Patriot Act is law, enacted by the 107th United States Congress. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act You can tell because of the word “act” which refer to it being a formal legislative action.
  - aliqot 4y ago
    https://www.state.gov/executive-order-13224/ https://www.state.gov/executive-order-13224/
    - kube-system 4y ago
      What about it? EO 13224 is not the Patriot Act.
- amanaplanacanal 4y ago
  The patriot act was passed by congress and signed by the president in 2001, and the last provisions expired in 2020.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- Mountain_Skies 4y ago
  No. >The Act passed the House by a vote of 357–66, the Act passed the Senate with a vote of 98–1.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
godelski 4y ago
Not an executive order, but what led to the 2009 financial crisis was mostly done under the Clinton administration. Honestly I think this is something us humans are really bad at (well we're known to be bad at this). Understanding causal effects through time. Not only are we bad at understanding causal facts but we're really bad at being forward thinking and understanding temporal phenomena. But I think the main point that the gp is making is that most of the things that happen under a president aren't really felt till well after they have left office. Many wins that presidents have are due to effects from former presidents. Like both Obama and Trump got praised for high S&P 500 values at the beginning of their presidencies. Obama came in after a big crash. There's also no way Trump could be a causal factor for growth in the first 3 months of his presidency. You can't really have that kind of effect that early on. Yes these presidents contributed to these markets, but it would be naive to say that the growth was because of them. Or we can look at the long lasting effects of Regan. Or even Civil Rights and Johnson. While there was more immediate consequences under both these presidents there were also very long term effects that we still see today.
- btilly 4y ago
  I have no idea what you think happened under the Clinton era to cause the financial crash of 2009. Most of the immediate things, such as the housing boom driven by easy lending policies, happened under Bush. So I'd need a reference to support that idea. However I'll give you another one. Most people's impression is that Carter destroyed the economy and Reagan's deregulation saved the day. But actually the facts are almost exactly reversed - Carter did the deregulating but the benefits were not seen until Reagan was in power. See https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/much-of-what-youve-heard-about-carter https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/much-of-what-youve-heard-a... for a reference.
  - winstonewert 4y ago
    The post you are responding to is probably referring to the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act. According to some, that act (signed by Clinton) was (somewhat) responsible for the financial crash. But this is certainly a matter of dispute.
dillondoyle 4y ago
Took a while to end 'stay in Mexico' had to go through courts iirc. Seems like a lot of the drilling and EPA stuff has been gummed up in courts too Interesting article link below talking about Biden's push and the problem with R partisan judges. and the potential that if an order goes too far, court is given opportunity to make a broad and lasting ruling that would limit powers. I can very easily see this happening. https://time.com/6205771/trump-judges-biden-executive-orders-abortion/ https://time.com/6205771/trump-judges-biden-executive-orders...
- asveikau 4y ago
  This is one prime example I was thinking of when I wrote the comment, but I was waiting for someone else to say it. I have vague memories of other things, like maybe some Bush orders that didn't get a swift or easy rollback with Obama ... But that was longer ago. But I think more broadly and nonpartisan, a law passed by Congress or an executive order by the president that is done when someone feels they have a mandate... Often sets broad policy for years and outlasts the mandate. More than most people understand. I think this contradicts the easy, oversimplified statement people like to make that elections don't matter and the parties and candidates are interchangable.

latchkey 4y ago

All federal judges are lifetime. https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/about-federal-judges https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/about-federal-jud... https://thehill.com/regulation/3631564-five-things-to-know-about-aileen-m-cannon-the-judge-who-granted-trump-a-special-master/ https://thehill.com/regulation/3631564-five-things-to-know-a...

andsoitis 4y ago
From https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-judicial-branch/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-governm... Federal judges can only be removed through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction in the Senate. Judges and Justices serve no fixed term — they serve until their death, retirement, or conviction by the Senate. So retirement is an option, which is what I am guessing most choose.
asveikau 4y ago
That's what I was pointing out, friend. HN is one of those internet communities where people reply with what I read as an aggressive tone, but they agree with me, and it's as if they are angrily correcting me but they didn't realize I was saying their same thing. Is that just my perception?
- latchkey 4y ago
  I wasn't being aggressive, I was filing in the blanks for others that might be interested. Your comment encouraged me do the research myself (I didn't remember who else was lifetime from my high school classes in the late 80's) and I figured I'd share that, as well as, give another link that explains a bit more context to what I felt you left out.
  - asveikau 4y ago
    Ok, thank you. The internet is funny. Neutral tones can come across as aggressive. Aggression, generally, though, can totally be all in the head of the perceiver.