3 ms·

Why is this country insisting on this ridiculous infighting? Why do you have a democracy if your bureaucracy is set up to resist the person the people elected?

Why is this country insisting on this ridiculous infighting? Why do you have a democracy if your bureaucracy is set up to resist the person the people elected? Didn't this exact sort of thing happen when a democrat was elected, the republicans basically stonewalled all progress? Now the dem bureaucracy is stonewalling the republicans? Is this how checks and balances is supposed to work? Am I being naive in thinking it wasn't always like this?

EthanHeilman 1y ago
> Is this how checks and balances is supposed to work? Yes, check and balances assume a conservative* theory of government in which politicians should be restrained and changes should be require overwhelming support to implement. *- not conservative in the sense of political ideology, but conservative in the sense of attempting to conserve.
- blobbers 1y ago
  White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller said to X, "The judicial coup is out of control." This is starting to sound like `Wool`
  - EthanHeilman 1y ago
    Do illegal thing, court says it is illegal, blame court for enforcing laws and constitution like that isn't their job.
  - AnimalMuppet 1y ago
    > White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller said to X, "The judicial coup is out of control." So? That's the same overheated rhetoric they trot out every time the courts rule against Trump. It's pretty tired by now. It's like they can't even come up with a new set of inflammatory adjectives; they're always reaching for the the same old ones. The White House deputy chief of staff making a post on X has exactly zero to do with whether the decision was right or wrong. In particular, the Trump camp acts like every time the courts rule on the legality of Trump's actions it's an overreach of judicial authority. They either failed Civics 101, or they want everyone else to forget what it said. This is the courts' job. > This is starting to sound like `Wool` ?
adamors 1y ago
> country insisting on this ridiculous infighting? Why do you have a democracy if your bureaucracy is set up to resist the person the people elected The president doesn’t have the powers to handle tariffs, Congress does. This was the mockery of democracy and the courts are finally stepping in.
Aloisius 1y ago
Yes, it has always been like this. We elect Presidents to faithfully execute the law, not Dictators to ignore it. The courts have always ruled against executive for disobeying the law. Preventing any one branch from amassing too much power is the whole reason the system of checks and balances exists. The system, while sometimes aggravatingly slow to change, has allowed us as a country to continually operate under the same system of government with peaceful transfers of power for nearly 250 years.
- seanmcdirmid 1y ago
  Executive orders are shot down by courts all the time. And it always starts in lower courts, with appeals going up to higher courts (both sides can appeal!). This is true for any president, Democrat or Republican, the judicial system is a check on executive power, with the understanding that the executive gets to nominate judges and congress gets to approve them. It is really weird how many people don't get this, and think Trump is getting special treatment! And an executive order with lofty legal reasoning will always be challenged. And judges on either side...they actually have some idealistic notion that law matters, not who nominated, so the 3 judges who unanimously decided against trump: one was a Trump appointee, one was an Obama appointee, and one was a Bush appointee. In an idea system, judges try to be impartial to law (they don't have to, and their only check is that they can be impeached by congress).
  - PleasureBot 1y ago
    The discourse coming from the political right is clearly meant to attack the Judicial branch. They are going after what they call "Partisan judges" or "Activist judges" or "Radical leftist judges" or "Clinton and Obama appointees". They want to remove all judges who do not let them support whatever the administration wants to do.
    - seanmcdirmid 1y ago
      Ya, it is going to be awkward when they start removing "Trump appointees."
thatswrong0 1y ago
[flagged]

EthanHeilman 1y ago

> Is this how checks and balances is supposed to work? Yes, check and balances assume a conservative* theory of government in which politicians should be restrained and changes should be require overwhelming support to implement. *- not conservative in the sense of political ideology, but conservative in the sense of attempting to conserve.

blobbers 1y ago
White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller said to X, "The judicial coup is out of control." This is starting to sound like `Wool`
- EthanHeilman 1y ago
  Do illegal thing, court says it is illegal, blame court for enforcing laws and constitution like that isn't their job.
- AnimalMuppet 1y ago
  > White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller said to X, "The judicial coup is out of control." So? That's the same overheated rhetoric they trot out every time the courts rule against Trump. It's pretty tired by now. It's like they can't even come up with a new set of inflammatory adjectives; they're always reaching for the the same old ones. The White House deputy chief of staff making a post on X has exactly zero to do with whether the decision was right or wrong. In particular, the Trump camp acts like every time the courts rule on the legality of Trump's actions it's an overreach of judicial authority. They either failed Civics 101, or they want everyone else to forget what it said. This is the courts' job. > This is starting to sound like `Wool` ?

adamors 1y ago

> country insisting on this ridiculous infighting? Why do you have a democracy if your bureaucracy is set up to resist the person the people elected The president doesn’t have the powers to handle tariffs, Congress does. This was the mockery of democracy and the courts are finally stepping in.

Aloisius 1y ago

Yes, it has always been like this. We elect Presidents to faithfully execute the law, not Dictators to ignore it. The courts have always ruled against executive for disobeying the law. Preventing any one branch from amassing too much power is the whole reason the system of checks and balances exists. The system, while sometimes aggravatingly slow to change, has allowed us as a country to continually operate under the same system of government with peaceful transfers of power for nearly 250 years.

seanmcdirmid 1y ago
Executive orders are shot down by courts all the time. And it always starts in lower courts, with appeals going up to higher courts (both sides can appeal!). This is true for any president, Democrat or Republican, the judicial system is a check on executive power, with the understanding that the executive gets to nominate judges and congress gets to approve them. It is really weird how many people don't get this, and think Trump is getting special treatment! And an executive order with lofty legal reasoning will always be challenged. And judges on either side...they actually have some idealistic notion that law matters, not who nominated, so the 3 judges who unanimously decided against trump: one was a Trump appointee, one was an Obama appointee, and one was a Bush appointee. In an idea system, judges try to be impartial to law (they don't have to, and their only check is that they can be impeached by congress).
- PleasureBot 1y ago
  The discourse coming from the political right is clearly meant to attack the Judicial branch. They are going after what they call "Partisan judges" or "Activist judges" or "Radical leftist judges" or "Clinton and Obama appointees". They want to remove all judges who do not let them support whatever the administration wants to do.
  - seanmcdirmid 1y ago
    Ya, it is going to be awkward when they start removing "Trump appointees."

thatswrong0 1y ago

[flagged]