3 ms·

> in the end, there are more reasonable people, but democracies needs to develop better constitutional/law systems, with very short feedback loop. It is very im

by koolba 2y ago

> in the end, there are more reasonable people, but democracies needs to develop better constitutional/law systems, with very short feedback loop. It is very important to have fast reaction on breaking the law by ruling regime. What’s wrong with the separation of powers in the USA? There’s plenty of situations where judges issue injunctions that are in effect until the case is resolved.

btreecat 2y ago
Lack of enforcement mechanisms, captured courts, feckless political stooges, gullible public. E.g. Virginia governor illegally purged voters within a certain time window. Courts said "yeah that was illegal, you need to stop" VA attorney gen said "no I don't." And while the court of appeals agreed with the lower court "yeah simple violation of the law. Reinstate revoked registration." The VA supreme court was like "nah fam, let's let the governor do his thing and we can figure this all out after the election." And everyone kinda stopped talking about it. As a poll worker I had multiple people who had voter ID cards come in last November but required filling out paperwork to re-register them and have them cast a provisional ballot. Feels like they were connected as I hadn't dealt with that in the near dozen elections I've worked prior.
- mattgreenrocks 2y ago
  I live in VA, and forgot about this until you mentioned it. Ugh. Also wanted to say thank you for your work as a poll worker.
  - btreecat 2y ago
    At least in my area of VA, the elections board does a great job supporting it's poll-workers. If you have the capacity (I understand it's not compatible with everyone's schedule or capacity) I would recommend looking into it in your area as they usually need help, and it is a paid gig. It's easy to sign up the next time you go to vote, just ask the poll workers for the signup sheet. I try to make it fun and make food for my precinct. Usually some bbq fresh bread and some sides, then feed any of the county voting board members who check in on us as well. Good luck out there!
- koolba 2y ago
  > Lack of enforcement mechanisms, captured courts, feckless political stooges, gullible public. > e.g., Virginia governor illegally purged voters within a certain time window. Courts said "yeah that was illegal, you need to stop" VA attorney gen said "no I don't." And while the court of appeals agreed with the lower court "yeah simple violation of the law. Reinstate revoked registration." The VA supreme court was like "nah fam, let's let the governor do his thing and we can figure this all out after the election." And everyone kinda stopped talking about it. The fact that he won the case means that it was not an illegal purge. It was expressly legal. The SCOTUS agreed as well: https://www.npr.org/2024/10/30/g-s1-30644/supreme-court-virginia-elections https://www.npr.org/2024/10/30/g-s1-30644/supreme-court-virg... You can't claim the result of a case is "illegal" simply because you don't agree with it. Or is the very act of appealing a ruling itself an illegal act because you do not immediately bend the knee to the first judge that sides with your opponents? > As a poll worker I had multiple people who had voter ID cards come in last November but required filling out paperwork to re-register them and have them cast a provisional ballot. Feels like they were connected as I hadn't dealt with that in the near dozen elections I've worked prior. Were they people who checked the box on their driver's license form explicitly stating that they are not a US citizen? Because those are the people who were removed from the voter rolls by that clean up.
  - NickC25 2y ago
    >The fact that he won the case means that it was not an illegal purge. It was expressly legal. The SCOTUS agreed as well: https://www.npr.org/2024/10/30/g-s1-30644/supreme-court-virg https://www.npr.org/2024/10/30/g-s1-30644/supreme-court-virg... Your whole argument basically falls apart with this logic: "Republicans wanted to cheat to put a Republican in power, until they were stopped by a court of law, and when defeated, appealed to powerful Republicans, who voted along party lines to give more power to Republicans."
    - koolba 2y ago
      > Your whole argument basically falls apart with this logic: "Republicans wanted to cheat to put a Republican in power, until they were stopped by a court of law, and when defeated, appealed to powerful Republicans, who voted along party lines to give more power to Republicans." Alternatively: "Republicans wanted to clean up the voter rolls by removing self-declared non-citizens. Democrats wanted to cheat by allowing those non-citizens to vote so they went judge shopping till they found one that was willing to temporarily stop the effort. Republicans followed the process and appealed through the court system. And the final ruling by the highest court in the land agreed with the Republicans that the action was legal.". So I'd argue the Democrats challenging the case are the ones that ended up on the illegal side.
- Henchman21 2y ago
  These voter purges changed the outcome of the election. It’s utterly disingenuous to say Trump won. They straight up cheated.
pjc50 2y ago
> What’s wrong with the separation of powers in the USA? Once the same party controls the Senate, House, Presidency and Supreme Court, the powers are no longer meaningfully separate. Which is now the case. (state powers are still separate; I'm guessing we'll see action from state AGs against sudden Federal actions which have disadvantaged their state) Also, as Musk has figured out, the simple power of fait accompli. If you don't comply with a court order, someone has to make you. All of whom are Federal employees. Who are on the OPM payroll. Which he controls.
- koolba 2y ago
  > Once the same party controls the Senate, House, Presidency and Supreme Court, the powers are no longer meaningfully separate. Which is now the case. Three out of four of those are the direct will of the voters. And the fourth is the indirect will of the voters as expressed by their President. I think insisting that they always be at odds with each other is unrealistic and goes against the fundamental idea that people have a right to form a government that represents them. It's like insisting that someone who is appointed to run a given department (e.g., Education, Interior, or EPA), is required to promote more spending or expansion of that department. There's no requirement like that and the decision to pare things back and limit the scope of a department again falls in line with the will of the voters. There's no rule that government is only allowed to grow bigger.
  - pjc50 2y ago
    > I think insisting that they always be at odds with each other is unrealistic and goes against the fundamental idea that people have a right to form a government that represents them. Sure, but then there's no longer meaningful separation of powers and you've converged on a UK-like system where a majority, no matter how narrow, conveys all the power - but with a politicised court (UK SC is still generally agreed to be nonpolitical). It's a really serious problem for the US that lots of very important rights like, say, interracial marriage in Loving v Virginia, came about as court cases despite and often against the will of the voters.
  - mostin 2y ago
sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
Part of the problem is the incredible corruption at the Supreme Court. The courts increasingly can't be trusted to be a stopgap. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/06/supreme-court-justices-millions-dollars-gifts-clarence-thomas.html https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/06/supreme-court-justices-milli... Then you have the current administration making veiled threats against senators to ensure they vote as intended. https://www.rawstory.com/morning-joe-today-2671089005/ https://www.rawstory.com/morning-joe-today-2671089005/ This is why we need reinforcement of the governmental structures and guardrails. The good faith handshake approach is broken, as we can see through current events. It is not resilient against a malicious executive.
- koolba 2y ago
  > Part of the problem is the incredible corruption at the Supreme Court. The courts increasingly can't be trusted to be a stopgap. Just because a body disagrees with your desired interpretation of the law does not mean its corrupt. I disagree with the liberal justices on just about every split decision, but I don't think they're on the take. They simply have a different philosophy of the law. I challenge you to find any specific court case taking up by the SCOTUS where you think the outcome was the result of corruption. > Then you have the current administration making veiled threats against senators to ensure they vote as intended. I'm more concerned about the other direction where the (at the time) Senate majority leader expressly threatened the SCOTUS to vote a particular way or they will "you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price": https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/rare-rebuke-chief-justice-roberts-slams-schumer-threatening-comments-n1150036 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/rare-rebuke-c...
  - sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
    For your challenge: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/supreme-court-grants-trump-broad-immunity-for-official-acts-placing-presidents-above-the-law https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/supreme-court-grants-tru... The context of the Supreme Court choosing to reverse 50 years of precedent regarding abortion is pretty important there. Especially as the justices involved were going against their explicit answers from their confirmation hearings, that it was settled law. Schumer also did not threaten violence.
michaelt 2y ago
> What’s wrong with the separation of powers in the USA? From an outsider's perspective, it doesn't look like it's working very well for you. I'm not just talking about Trump - the "separation of powers" seems like a recipe for government shutdowns, pork-barrel spending to buy support, a politicised justice system, and being unable to hold politicians to account for failing to deliver their promises.
vharuck 2y ago
Separation is a good idea, but the implementation in the US needs some work. As majgr said, the feedback loop needs to be short. It's good that policy takes a while to change, because that allows debates, public comments, investigative reporting, etc. But the checks on power need to be fast, because if a president goes outside the legal framework, there's no debate or anything for as long as it takes to file a court case. IANAL, but I believe that a judge can only order an injunction if a suit is filed by somebody who can show they have been out will be harmed by the action. It'd be nice if judges could be proactive for procedural or Constitutional violations.

by koolba 2y ago

btreecat 2y ago

Lack of enforcement mechanisms, captured courts, feckless political stooges, gullible public. E.g. Virginia governor illegally purged voters within a certain time window. Courts said "yeah that was illegal, you need to stop" VA attorney gen said "no I don't." And while the court of appeals agreed with the lower court "yeah simple violation of the law. Reinstate revoked registration." The VA supreme court was like "nah fam, let's let the governor do his thing and we can figure this all out after the election." And everyone kinda stopped talking about it. As a poll worker I had multiple people who had voter ID cards come in last November but required filling out paperwork to re-register them and have them cast a provisional ballot. Feels like they were connected as I hadn't dealt with that in the near dozen elections I've worked prior.

mattgreenrocks 2y ago
I live in VA, and forgot about this until you mentioned it. Ugh. Also wanted to say thank you for your work as a poll worker.
- btreecat 2y ago
  At least in my area of VA, the elections board does a great job supporting it's poll-workers. If you have the capacity (I understand it's not compatible with everyone's schedule or capacity) I would recommend looking into it in your area as they usually need help, and it is a paid gig. It's easy to sign up the next time you go to vote, just ask the poll workers for the signup sheet. I try to make it fun and make food for my precinct. Usually some bbq fresh bread and some sides, then feed any of the county voting board members who check in on us as well. Good luck out there!
koolba 2y ago
> Lack of enforcement mechanisms, captured courts, feckless political stooges, gullible public. > e.g., Virginia governor illegally purged voters within a certain time window. Courts said "yeah that was illegal, you need to stop" VA attorney gen said "no I don't." And while the court of appeals agreed with the lower court "yeah simple violation of the law. Reinstate revoked registration." The VA supreme court was like "nah fam, let's let the governor do his thing and we can figure this all out after the election." And everyone kinda stopped talking about it. The fact that he won the case means that it was not an illegal purge. It was expressly legal. The SCOTUS agreed as well: https://www.npr.org/2024/10/30/g-s1-30644/supreme-court-virginia-elections https://www.npr.org/2024/10/30/g-s1-30644/supreme-court-virg... You can't claim the result of a case is "illegal" simply because you don't agree with it. Or is the very act of appealing a ruling itself an illegal act because you do not immediately bend the knee to the first judge that sides with your opponents? > As a poll worker I had multiple people who had voter ID cards come in last November but required filling out paperwork to re-register them and have them cast a provisional ballot. Feels like they were connected as I hadn't dealt with that in the near dozen elections I've worked prior. Were they people who checked the box on their driver's license form explicitly stating that they are not a US citizen? Because those are the people who were removed from the voter rolls by that clean up.
- NickC25 2y ago
  >The fact that he won the case means that it was not an illegal purge. It was expressly legal. The SCOTUS agreed as well: https://www.npr.org/2024/10/30/g-s1-30644/supreme-court-virg https://www.npr.org/2024/10/30/g-s1-30644/supreme-court-virg... Your whole argument basically falls apart with this logic: "Republicans wanted to cheat to put a Republican in power, until they were stopped by a court of law, and when defeated, appealed to powerful Republicans, who voted along party lines to give more power to Republicans."
  - koolba 2y ago
    > Your whole argument basically falls apart with this logic: "Republicans wanted to cheat to put a Republican in power, until they were stopped by a court of law, and when defeated, appealed to powerful Republicans, who voted along party lines to give more power to Republicans." Alternatively: "Republicans wanted to clean up the voter rolls by removing self-declared non-citizens. Democrats wanted to cheat by allowing those non-citizens to vote so they went judge shopping till they found one that was willing to temporarily stop the effort. Republicans followed the process and appealed through the court system. And the final ruling by the highest court in the land agreed with the Republicans that the action was legal.". So I'd argue the Democrats challenging the case are the ones that ended up on the illegal side.
Henchman21 2y ago
These voter purges changed the outcome of the election. It’s utterly disingenuous to say Trump won. They straight up cheated.

pjc50 2y ago

> What’s wrong with the separation of powers in the USA? Once the same party controls the Senate, House, Presidency and Supreme Court, the powers are no longer meaningfully separate. Which is now the case. (state powers are still separate; I'm guessing we'll see action from state AGs against sudden Federal actions which have disadvantaged their state) Also, as Musk has figured out, the simple power of fait accompli. If you don't comply with a court order, someone has to make you. All of whom are Federal employees. Who are on the OPM payroll. Which he controls.

koolba 2y ago
> Once the same party controls the Senate, House, Presidency and Supreme Court, the powers are no longer meaningfully separate. Which is now the case. Three out of four of those are the direct will of the voters. And the fourth is the indirect will of the voters as expressed by their President. I think insisting that they always be at odds with each other is unrealistic and goes against the fundamental idea that people have a right to form a government that represents them. It's like insisting that someone who is appointed to run a given department (e.g., Education, Interior, or EPA), is required to promote more spending or expansion of that department. There's no requirement like that and the decision to pare things back and limit the scope of a department again falls in line with the will of the voters. There's no rule that government is only allowed to grow bigger.
- pjc50 2y ago
  > I think insisting that they always be at odds with each other is unrealistic and goes against the fundamental idea that people have a right to form a government that represents them. Sure, but then there's no longer meaningful separation of powers and you've converged on a UK-like system where a majority, no matter how narrow, conveys all the power - but with a politicised court (UK SC is still generally agreed to be nonpolitical). It's a really serious problem for the US that lots of very important rights like, say, interracial marriage in Loving v Virginia, came about as court cases despite and often against the will of the voters.
- mostin 2y ago

sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago

Part of the problem is the incredible corruption at the Supreme Court. The courts increasingly can't be trusted to be a stopgap. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/06/supreme-court-justices-millions-dollars-gifts-clarence-thomas.html https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/06/supreme-court-justices-milli... Then you have the current administration making veiled threats against senators to ensure they vote as intended. https://www.rawstory.com/morning-joe-today-2671089005/ https://www.rawstory.com/morning-joe-today-2671089005/ This is why we need reinforcement of the governmental structures and guardrails. The good faith handshake approach is broken, as we can see through current events. It is not resilient against a malicious executive.

koolba 2y ago
> Part of the problem is the incredible corruption at the Supreme Court. The courts increasingly can't be trusted to be a stopgap. Just because a body disagrees with your desired interpretation of the law does not mean its corrupt. I disagree with the liberal justices on just about every split decision, but I don't think they're on the take. They simply have a different philosophy of the law. I challenge you to find any specific court case taking up by the SCOTUS where you think the outcome was the result of corruption. > Then you have the current administration making veiled threats against senators to ensure they vote as intended. I'm more concerned about the other direction where the (at the time) Senate majority leader expressly threatened the SCOTUS to vote a particular way or they will "you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price": https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/rare-rebuke-chief-justice-roberts-slams-schumer-threatening-comments-n1150036 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/rare-rebuke-c...
- sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
  For your challenge: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/supreme-court-grants-trump-broad-immunity-for-official-acts-placing-presidents-above-the-law https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/supreme-court-grants-tru... The context of the Supreme Court choosing to reverse 50 years of precedent regarding abortion is pretty important there. Especially as the justices involved were going against their explicit answers from their confirmation hearings, that it was settled law. Schumer also did not threaten violence.

michaelt 2y ago

> What’s wrong with the separation of powers in the USA? From an outsider's perspective, it doesn't look like it's working very well for you. I'm not just talking about Trump - the "separation of powers" seems like a recipe for government shutdowns, pork-barrel spending to buy support, a politicised justice system, and being unable to hold politicians to account for failing to deliver their promises.

vharuck 2y ago

Separation is a good idea, but the implementation in the US needs some work. As majgr said, the feedback loop needs to be short. It's good that policy takes a while to change, because that allows debates, public comments, investigative reporting, etc. But the checks on power need to be fast, because if a president goes outside the legal framework, there's no debate or anything for as long as it takes to file a court case. IANAL, but I believe that a judge can only order an injunction if a suit is filed by somebody who can show they have been out will be harmed by the action. It'd be nice if judges could be proactive for procedural or Constitutional violations.