6 ms·

Congress seems to want a king?

by pwarner 1y ago

duxup 1y ago
[flagged]
- klipt 1y ago
  Better hope this bill that house republicans have passed dies in the senate, since in effect it lets Trump override the courts: https://robertreich.substack.com/p/the-hidden-provision-in-the-big-ugly https://robertreich.substack.com/p/the-hidden-provision-in-t...
  - cardamomo 1y ago
    Whoa. It is scary, but not surprising, to me that GOP representatives slipped that into the bill.
  - boroboro4 1y ago
    I think it might be struck down by Byrd rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_provision#Budget_Act_and_the_Byrd_Rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_provision#Budget_Act_an...)
  - deepsquirrelnet 1y ago
    That sounds like immediately forcing a constitutional crisis. It’s essentially a coup of two branches against the third.
    - fknorangesite 1y ago
      > It’s essentially a coup of Republicans Do not pretend otherwise.
  - joshkel 1y ago
    I'm not sure how much difference that bill's clause makes in practice. As I understand it (courtesy of the "Advisory Opinions" legal podcast, but any misunderstandings are my own), the problem is that, if the executive branch is going to ignore the courts, then they're going to ignore the courts. A court can recommend prosecution for contempt, but prosecutors are part of the executive branch. A court could try and appoint their own prosecutor, but then the court is both judge and prosecutor - which goes against the US system's goal of an impartial and independent judiciary. The court could issue a fine for contempt, but then the government is paying a fine to the government? It could issue a sentence of jail time, but the executive branch administers the prisons and has the pardon power. I'm disgusted with the executive branch's actions and congressional GOP's enablement. And, since the administration at times seems to want a fig leaf of legality, maybe the bill would make a difference after all by giving them more coverage. But, overall, I'm not sure that it's the "game over" step change that some commentary makes it sound like it is. I could be misunderstanding - comments / counterarguments welcome.
    - hn_acker 1y ago
      > And, since the administration at times seems to want a fig leaf of legality, maybe the bill would make a difference after all by giving them more coverage. Justice Alito and Justice Thomas in particular latch on to any fig leaf of legality to excuse the administration's out-of-court admissions of intent to break the law [1]: > If courts pay more attention to out-of-court presidential and Administration statements, that will be another example of how the “presumption of regularity”—”the courts’ baseline assumption that government officials act lawfully and in good faith,” as Alan Rozenshtein puts it—is in serious jeopardy. Justice Alito’s dissent to the A.A.R.P. order, in which Justice Thomas joined, shows that those two justices remain content to rely on the Government’s representation’s in court—and vexed that their colleagues apparently feel differently. > I'm not sure how much difference that bill's clause makes in practice. There are at least three massive problems aside from undermining the role of courts in enforcing their interpretations of the law. - The clause applies to both government-associated defendants and non-governmental defendants. [2] - Federal Rule 65(c) does not apply to final injunctions, but the wording of the clause might apply to final injunctions. [2] - The clause applies retroactively. [1] https://blog.dividedargument.com/p/in-the-trump-20-era-the-courts-are https://blog.dividedargument.com/p/in-the-trump-20-era-the-c... [2] https://blog.dividedargument.com/p/the-house-judiciary-committee-moves https://blog.dividedargument.com/p/the-house-judiciary-commi...
- megaman821 1y ago
  Usually I think saying both-sides is pretty lazy, but has any Congress in the last few decades done anything but delegate more of their authority to someone else? One party always complains about Executive Orders and interference when the other party is President, but then never curtails the power when they get a chance.
  - yieldcrv 1y ago
    There are things both sides do and it is valid for those things to annoy you and be your primary cause Campaign finance Trading on privileged information Voting as a bloc and not in favor of their constituents Being a useless and ignorable vocal opposition when their bloc is not in power, ignoring indiscretions when their bloc is in power
    - MichaelZuo 1y ago
      How does this relate to the parent comment? It seems like the parent is clearly asking for a concrete example.
  - nkrisc 1y ago
    In that regard, yes, both. However in that time they were never really faced with any president who would take the power granted anywhere near the extreme we see today. When that happened, one party recoiled in horror and the other cheered it on.
    - megaman821 1y ago
      Stuff like the Muslim ban was pretty bad the first round of Trump, but it didn't seem to motivate the Democrats to start limiting the Executive branch in any way when they got back to power. I am pretty sure, it will be the same next time they regain power.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
  - 1y ago
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 1y ago
  Isn't that every party currently in power?
  - krapp 1y ago
    No?
  - mayneack 1y ago
    10 seconds on google: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sinema-manchin-reject-biden-push-change-filibuster-voting/story?id=82230825 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sinema-manchin-reject-biden-...
  - duxup 1y ago
    This situation is historically different than anything recent.
thuanao 1y ago
Not Congress - Republicans, who have a congressional majority.
- l33tfr4gg3r 1y ago
  ... for now, and barely.
  - dylan604 1y ago
    What evidence do you have for this? The democrats are showing nothing that suggests they will take either chamber of congress. Even if they got control of the house and actually impeached, the results would be no different than the previous 2 impeachments where the senate took no action. Even if they get control of both chambers, they'd have to have an over whelming victory to reach enough seats to secure a conviction since it needs a 2/3 vote. The current administration is behaving exactly like they know this. They are also boosted by the fact that SCOTUS told essentially told POTUS that he can do whatevs without repercussions. He's even ignoring their direct orders, and still nothing. You can call me pessimistic, but these are just the facts of the situation. You're optimism is based on what?
    - fach 1y ago
      History, particularly in the last 30 years where political polarization has significantly increased: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_midterm_election#Historical_record_of_midterm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_midterm_election... Trump lost 41 seats in the house in his first term and the administration wasn't anywhere near as polarizing. The voting bloc for mid-terms is very different from presidential elections.
whoisthemachine 1y ago
A plurality of Americans voted for this government, for better or worse. The courts are one of the primary avenues for the minority to express their will, but they move slowly, although slightly faster than congress.
- MBCook 1y ago
  That assumes a fair vote, which is arguable. Between Gerrymandering, purging voter roles, suits over who is allowed on the ballot, ID checks and associated issues I’m not sure it’s so clear cut. He won under the conditions the election was performed under. That’s clear. I’m not sure I could call those fair after years of attacks on people’s voting rights.
  - rayiner 1y ago
    There are no “attacks on people’s voting rights.” It’s a canard Democrats trot out to energize their base, just like Republicans trot out lies about election fraud. For example, studies show voter ID doesn’t reduce turnout (but also doesn’t reduce fraud). https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/21/18230009/voter-id-laws-fraud-turnout-study-research https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/21/18230009/v.... Gerrymandering doesn’t affect the presidential election. But the GOP won the House popular vote by even more than Trump won the Presidential popular vote. Extensive post-election voter surveys showed that if everyone had voted, Trump would’ve won by 4.8 points: https://www.vox.com/politics/403364/tik-tok-young-voters-2024-election-democrats-david-shor https://www.vox.com/politics/403364/tik-tok-young-voters-202...
    - thomastjeffery 1y ago
      You are so dead wrong I don't even know where to start. Gerrymandering doesn't affect the presidential election? Surveys show how everyone would have voted? Do you even hear yourself?
      - trealira 1y ago
        There are attacks on people's voting rights, but gerrymandering actually doesn't affect the presidential election in the US. The electoral votes are chosen by statewide popular vote, except in Maine and Nebraska.
twic 1y ago
It seems to me that between gerrymandering and the filibuster, congress is basically unable to pass normal legislation when either party has a majority. Hence why all sorts of stuff gets passed by budget reconcilation now, because that is exempt from filibustering. And also why the parties are so keen to find creative new ways of effecting change - if they can't pass laws, they can let the president do what he wants, and just not stop him.
- Auracle 1y ago
  Why they haven't changed the filibuster back to the way it used to be (with actual speaking, but only needed a majority vote to pass things) boggles the mind.
selimthegrim 1y ago
Guarantee Clause forbids it.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
godelski 1y ago
Can't happen unless 2/3rds of congress agree they want the same king
martin82 1y ago
Congress wants powerful lobbyists with truckloads of money. The people want a king. It's Democracy going exactly the way how Plato already described it.

Congress seems to want a king?

duxup 1y ago

[flagged]

klipt 1y ago
Better hope this bill that house republicans have passed dies in the senate, since in effect it lets Trump override the courts: https://robertreich.substack.com/p/the-hidden-provision-in-the-big-ugly https://robertreich.substack.com/p/the-hidden-provision-in-t...
- cardamomo 1y ago
  Whoa. It is scary, but not surprising, to me that GOP representatives slipped that into the bill.
- boroboro4 1y ago
  I think it might be struck down by Byrd rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_provision#Budget_Act_and_the_Byrd_Rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_provision#Budget_Act_an...)
- deepsquirrelnet 1y ago
  That sounds like immediately forcing a constitutional crisis. It’s essentially a coup of two branches against the third.
  - fknorangesite 1y ago
    > It’s essentially a coup of Republicans Do not pretend otherwise.
- joshkel 1y ago
  I'm not sure how much difference that bill's clause makes in practice. As I understand it (courtesy of the "Advisory Opinions" legal podcast, but any misunderstandings are my own), the problem is that, if the executive branch is going to ignore the courts, then they're going to ignore the courts. A court can recommend prosecution for contempt, but prosecutors are part of the executive branch. A court could try and appoint their own prosecutor, but then the court is both judge and prosecutor - which goes against the US system's goal of an impartial and independent judiciary. The court could issue a fine for contempt, but then the government is paying a fine to the government? It could issue a sentence of jail time, but the executive branch administers the prisons and has the pardon power. I'm disgusted with the executive branch's actions and congressional GOP's enablement. And, since the administration at times seems to want a fig leaf of legality, maybe the bill would make a difference after all by giving them more coverage. But, overall, I'm not sure that it's the "game over" step change that some commentary makes it sound like it is. I could be misunderstanding - comments / counterarguments welcome.
  - hn_acker 1y ago
    > And, since the administration at times seems to want a fig leaf of legality, maybe the bill would make a difference after all by giving them more coverage. Justice Alito and Justice Thomas in particular latch on to any fig leaf of legality to excuse the administration's out-of-court admissions of intent to break the law [1]: > If courts pay more attention to out-of-court presidential and Administration statements, that will be another example of how the “presumption of regularity”—”the courts’ baseline assumption that government officials act lawfully and in good faith,” as Alan Rozenshtein puts it—is in serious jeopardy. Justice Alito’s dissent to the A.A.R.P. order, in which Justice Thomas joined, shows that those two justices remain content to rely on the Government’s representation’s in court—and vexed that their colleagues apparently feel differently. > I'm not sure how much difference that bill's clause makes in practice. There are at least three massive problems aside from undermining the role of courts in enforcing their interpretations of the law. - The clause applies to both government-associated defendants and non-governmental defendants. [2] - Federal Rule 65(c) does not apply to final injunctions, but the wording of the clause might apply to final injunctions. [2] - The clause applies retroactively. [1] https://blog.dividedargument.com/p/in-the-trump-20-era-the-courts-are https://blog.dividedargument.com/p/in-the-trump-20-era-the-c... [2] https://blog.dividedargument.com/p/the-house-judiciary-committee-moves https://blog.dividedargument.com/p/the-house-judiciary-commi...
megaman821 1y ago
Usually I think saying both-sides is pretty lazy, but has any Congress in the last few decades done anything but delegate more of their authority to someone else? One party always complains about Executive Orders and interference when the other party is President, but then never curtails the power when they get a chance.
- yieldcrv 1y ago
  There are things both sides do and it is valid for those things to annoy you and be your primary cause Campaign finance Trading on privileged information Voting as a bloc and not in favor of their constituents Being a useless and ignorable vocal opposition when their bloc is not in power, ignoring indiscretions when their bloc is in power
  - MichaelZuo 1y ago
    How does this relate to the parent comment? It seems like the parent is clearly asking for a concrete example.
- nkrisc 1y ago
  In that regard, yes, both. However in that time they were never really faced with any president who would take the power granted anywhere near the extreme we see today. When that happened, one party recoiled in horror and the other cheered it on.
  - megaman821 1y ago
    Stuff like the Muslim ban was pretty bad the first round of Trump, but it didn't seem to motivate the Democrats to start limiting the Executive branch in any way when they got back to power. I am pretty sure, it will be the same next time they regain power.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
- 1y ago
kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 1y ago
Isn't that every party currently in power?
- krapp 1y ago
  No?
- mayneack 1y ago
  10 seconds on google: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sinema-manchin-reject-biden-push-change-filibuster-voting/story?id=82230825 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sinema-manchin-reject-biden-...
- duxup 1y ago
  This situation is historically different than anything recent.

thuanao 1y ago

Not Congress - Republicans, who have a congressional majority.

l33tfr4gg3r 1y ago
... for now, and barely.
- dylan604 1y ago
  What evidence do you have for this? The democrats are showing nothing that suggests they will take either chamber of congress. Even if they got control of the house and actually impeached, the results would be no different than the previous 2 impeachments where the senate took no action. Even if they get control of both chambers, they'd have to have an over whelming victory to reach enough seats to secure a conviction since it needs a 2/3 vote. The current administration is behaving exactly like they know this. They are also boosted by the fact that SCOTUS told essentially told POTUS that he can do whatevs without repercussions. He's even ignoring their direct orders, and still nothing. You can call me pessimistic, but these are just the facts of the situation. You're optimism is based on what?
  - fach 1y ago
    History, particularly in the last 30 years where political polarization has significantly increased: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_midterm_election#Historical_record_of_midterm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_midterm_election... Trump lost 41 seats in the house in his first term and the administration wasn't anywhere near as polarizing. The voting bloc for mid-terms is very different from presidential elections.

whoisthemachine 1y ago

A plurality of Americans voted for this government, for better or worse. The courts are one of the primary avenues for the minority to express their will, but they move slowly, although slightly faster than congress.

MBCook 1y ago
That assumes a fair vote, which is arguable. Between Gerrymandering, purging voter roles, suits over who is allowed on the ballot, ID checks and associated issues I’m not sure it’s so clear cut. He won under the conditions the election was performed under. That’s clear. I’m not sure I could call those fair after years of attacks on people’s voting rights.
- rayiner 1y ago
  There are no “attacks on people’s voting rights.” It’s a canard Democrats trot out to energize their base, just like Republicans trot out lies about election fraud. For example, studies show voter ID doesn’t reduce turnout (but also doesn’t reduce fraud). https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/21/18230009/voter-id-laws-fraud-turnout-study-research https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/21/18230009/v.... Gerrymandering doesn’t affect the presidential election. But the GOP won the House popular vote by even more than Trump won the Presidential popular vote. Extensive post-election voter surveys showed that if everyone had voted, Trump would’ve won by 4.8 points: https://www.vox.com/politics/403364/tik-tok-young-voters-2024-election-democrats-david-shor https://www.vox.com/politics/403364/tik-tok-young-voters-202...
  - thomastjeffery 1y ago
    You are so dead wrong I don't even know where to start. Gerrymandering doesn't affect the presidential election? Surveys show how everyone would have voted? Do you even hear yourself?
    - trealira 1y ago
      There are attacks on people's voting rights, but gerrymandering actually doesn't affect the presidential election in the US. The electoral votes are chosen by statewide popular vote, except in Maine and Nebraska.

twic 1y ago

It seems to me that between gerrymandering and the filibuster, congress is basically unable to pass normal legislation when either party has a majority. Hence why all sorts of stuff gets passed by budget reconcilation now, because that is exempt from filibustering. And also why the parties are so keen to find creative new ways of effecting change - if they can't pass laws, they can let the president do what he wants, and just not stop him.

Auracle 1y ago
Why they haven't changed the filibuster back to the way it used to be (with actual speaking, but only needed a majority vote to pass things) boggles the mind.

selimthegrim 1y ago

Guarantee Clause forbids it.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

godelski 1y ago

Can't happen unless 2/3rds of congress agree they want the same king

martin82 1y ago

Congress wants powerful lobbyists with truckloads of money. The people want a king. It's Democracy going exactly the way how Plato already described it.