4 ms·
If the Supreme Court and Congress has no enforcement power, though, what recourse is there?
by dclowd9901 2y ago
If the Supreme Court and Congress has no enforcement power, though, what recourse is there?
- dwaltrip 2y agoProtest and revolt. Government for the people and by the people
- hn_throwaway_99 2y agoA majority of Americans voted for Trump. There was a pollster who was on CNN a day or two ago who looked into people who voted for Clinton and Biden in 2016 and 2020, but then for Trump in 2024. These people were (of course generally speaking) happy with Trump's performace so far this term. There frustration with the Democrats was what they perceived as a lack of action, and they see Trump as "moving fast". It's clear the American people (again, majority speaking - I mean, I certainly care) don't care about what is going on with the federal government right now. The only thing that will make them care is if the economy tanks or if inflation spirals out of control.
- dreamcompiler 2y ago> A majority of Americans voted for Trump Not true. A majority of the Americans who chose to vote voted for Trump.
- plagiarist 2y agoWho chose to vote and who were not prevented from voting.
- timoth3y 2y ago> Not true. A majority of the Americans who chose to vote voted for Trump. Not true. A plurality of the Americans who chose to vote voted for Trump. Trump: 49.8% Harris: 48.3%
- ks2048 2y ago> A majority of Americans voted for Trump 22.73% of Americans voted for Trump. 22.06% of Americans voted for Harris.
- etc-hosts 2y agoI wish Trump wasn't able to act like he has a huge massive sea change mandate, when he only won by 1%
- nowandlater 2y agosic semper tyrannis
- montagg 2y agoHopefully we never get there. But America should suffer no kings.
- mrtesthah 2y agoThis executive order just brought us there.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y agoLike this guy, tweeted out by the official Whitehouse X account? https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/1892295984928993698 https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/1892295984928993698
- shrubble 2y agoThis could be construed as a threat, given they were the words of Lincoln's assassin.
- timoth3y 2y agoI know this sounds corny, but people are the recourse. We are part of the checks and balances. Whether it is as overt as a soldier refusing to follow an illegal order knowing they are risking court marshal, or as clandestine as mid-level bureaucrat slow-walking damaging policies, or people actually voting in local-to-national elections. Democracy is not a passive form of government.
- pessimizer 2y ago> I know this sounds corny, but people are the recourse. We are part of the checks and balances. By "we" here, it seems you mean bureaucrats. But what if your opinions, as an individual, unelected bureaucrat are bad? I don't care what a mid-level bureaucrat's opinions on what policies are damaging is. He could be a neo-nazi for all I know. Constitutionally, we should go with the opinions of the people who won an election, instead of some random dude. I was taught that was what "democracy" was, not some random person taking advantage of their position to advance their personal goals. When the guy paid to guard the door starts making his own decisions about who should get to come in, it's not good. It's corruption.
- repeekad 2y agoYou’re right. But if the guy paid to guard the door is told to start letting gangsters in by management, whistleblowing and civil disobedience become championed by the public rather than condemned, that’s “the people’s” check and balance to power. I don’t think we should legally protect the guard’s right to disobey orders, but we MUST protect the guard’s right to protest publicly.
- thaumasiotes 2y ago> I don’t think we should legally protect the guard’s right to disobey orders, but we MUST protect the guard’s right to protest publicly. That's already protected and the executive order doesn't claim otherwise. >> No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance [...]
- 2y ago
- johnnyanmac 2y agoCongress has all the enforcement power, they can impeach the president whenever they want. Will they? I don't know, he's already gone so far in constitutional overreach that he's making Nixon blush. Judiciary has more power than you'd think too. It's just that they try to act in good faith and generally do not want to throw people into civil contempt that often. The SCOTUS can even re-re-interpret the presidential immunity that Trump has abused to a pulp if they are angry enough. That was their call after all. Will they do this? Highly unlikely, at least for Trump. I wouldn't be surprised if Musk flies too close to the sun, however.
- chii 2y ago> Will they do this? so the question is why? The point about what they're legally allowed to do, and could do, is moot, if there's no will.
- johnnyanmac 2y agoJudiciary is easy. They don't want to take drastic actions unless absolutely pushed. The entire idea is to be meticulous and try to avoid the political climate when making judgement. They are taking action but they havent taken their gloves off yet. Congressional's reasons: your guess is as good as mine. Their majorities aren't that wide. moving 3 senators can affect policy, moving half the senators can get an impeachment trial. We'll see how things proceed there.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago> Congress has all the enforcement power, they can impeach the president whenever they want. <Sad clown laughing noises> Regarding the power of the judiciary in this, Trump's team is arguing right now before the Supreme Court that the judiciary has no power to constrain the President's power when he's acting solely within the Executive branch (which is basically all the time...) Oh, and as part of that filing he reminded the Supreme Court that they just granted him full immunity from prosecution. For the cherry on the cake, the official Whitehouse X account tweeted out "GOD SAVE THE KING" with a picture of Trump with a crown on his head (I thought this was fake when I first saw it). Sorry, the Republic is toast.
- throw0101c 2y ago> If the Supreme Court and Congress has no enforcement power, though, what recourse is there? While maybe not practical for the president, but at least for various cabinet Secretaries or Directors: if they do not follow court-issued orders could be found in contempt and jailed until the corrective orders are implemented?
- drawkward 2y agoJailed by whom? Trump controls the executive branch.
- tsimionescu 2y agoTrump's new doctrine is that all employees of the executive branch, such as federal police, must take his interpretation of the law as correct. So if a court ordered that the Secretary of State be jailed, Trump can issue a memo saying "the Executive Branch interprets this legal decision as meaning that the Secretary of State should not be jailed", then any federal police officer or agency head has to comply with the official interpretation of the president or be fired.
- boredatoms 2y agoI think this is what the second amendment was about