3 ms·

Well, it's true. They aren't allowed to control his legitimate power. Question is, what is his legitimate power? Often, that's what the court case is decidin

Well, it's true. They aren't allowed to control his legitimate power. Question is, what is his legitimate power? Often, that's what the court case is deciding - Trump claims X power, and the court has to decide whether it is legitimately his. And this isn't something new. The courts have been doing this for decades, maybe centuries. FDR famously had a bunch of his New Deal declared unconstitutional - that is, not legitimately within his power. In the last few days, a number of people seem to be pushing for removing judicial restraint from the power of the president. They need to be very careful there. They want to remove the constitution, but it's the constitution that gives the president any power at all. Without it, he's just a loudmouth real estate developer from New York. So if we're removing the constitution, let's remove Trump with it.

elmerfud 2y ago
I agree with you that the courts job is to decide what our legitimate powers to be exercised. I do take exception with the statement that it is only in the last few days people have been pushing to remove judicial restraint. This has been a common refrain for many years now. Those that disagree with the court's decision criticize the court's for judicial overreach. This is regardless of political persuasion. I have seen people from all political parties argue for the "benevolent dictator" setup. We have seen presidents prior to this one issue executive orders that they themselves believed were unconstitutional. We have also seen prior presidents and bureaucrats blatantly ignore the court's decisions. So this is not new it's More of an optics thing on what you support and what you do not support.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  Well, I at least partly agree with you. FDR threatened "court packing" to give himself a majority on the Supreme Court, clear back in the 1930s. To me, I think it's turned up a notch with the current administration. It's more blatant and aggressive, and sooner in the term of office. (At least, that's my perception. I didn't live through FDR...)

elmerfud 2y ago

I agree with you that the courts job is to decide what our legitimate powers to be exercised. I do take exception with the statement that it is only in the last few days people have been pushing to remove judicial restraint. This has been a common refrain for many years now. Those that disagree with the court's decision criticize the court's for judicial overreach. This is regardless of political persuasion. I have seen people from all political parties argue for the "benevolent dictator" setup. We have seen presidents prior to this one issue executive orders that they themselves believed were unconstitutional. We have also seen prior presidents and bureaucrats blatantly ignore the court's decisions. So this is not new it's More of an optics thing on what you support and what you do not support.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
Well, I at least partly agree with you. FDR threatened "court packing" to give himself a majority on the Supreme Court, clear back in the 1930s. To me, I think it's turned up a notch with the current administration. It's more blatant and aggressive, and sooner in the term of office. (At least, that's my perception. I didn't live through FDR...)