3 ms·
> The difference between this and a real dictatorship is the courts. If we lose that, we're in trouble. We don’t have to lose the courts to be in trouble, espe
by dragonwriter 2y ago
> The difference between this and a real dictatorship is the courts. If we lose that, we're in trouble.
We don’t have to lose the courts to be in trouble, especially when the executive simply flouts inconvenient court orders with impunity.
We have a functional dictatorship with institutions which on paper have the authority and responsibility for constraining it which are either inactive because they tacitly support both the goals and dictatorial methods of the dictatorship (Congress) or too often, but not entirely, ineffective when they act (the courts). The difference between this and strongly-established dictatorship without a surviving formal basis for constraint is small and, historically, sometimes crossed rapidly and with very little additional warning.
- AnimalMuppet 2y agoWell, he's flouted them. If by "with impunity", you mean that he hasn't been removed from office yet, then yes, he's done that. If you mean that he's succeeded in making what he wanted happen despite the court order, then not so fast. We're still thrashing through the process of determining whether he will succeed in doing that. I agree that he is dangerously close to running over the last remaining checks and balances.
- defrost 2y agoI'm an outsider with an allied interest. How many times can the Republicans "stop time" on appeals to executive orders? They've already done this once to stop dead appeals to the courts in regards the "emergency tariff" executive orders with a simple rider to declare that "Each day [..] shall not constitute a calendar day" and thus bypassing a constraint that demanded an appeal be heard within a fixed number of calendar days. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43358343 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43358343 Is there no limit to checking the legal checks and balances and rendering them moot?
- rsynnott 2y ago> If by "with impunity", you mean that he hasn't been removed from office yet, then yes, he's done that. That ‘yet’ is doing a lot of heavy lifting, really. For practical purposes he can’t be removed from office. Like, at this point, it’s hard to come to any conclusion but that the system has failed.
- b0rsuk 2y ago[dead]