5 ms·
It hardly matters what various theorists think while 6 justices on the Supreme Court are dedicated to giving the President as much power to override Congress as
by cardamomo 1y ago
It hardly matters what various theorists think while 6 justices on the Supreme Court are dedicated to giving the President as much power to override Congress as he pleases.
- caseysoftware 1y agoWhich cases do you mean specifically?
- cardamomo 1y agoI think immibis's comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44639370 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44639370) has a couple great examples of what I'm talking about. To add on, the Court has also allowed the executive branch to essentially shutter federal departments that were created by Congress, such as the Department of Education. They also ruled that lower federal courts cannot issue nationwide injunctions to stop executive action, thereby ending a check on presidential power that has vexed both parties when in office.
- caseysoftware 1y ago> To add on, the Court has also allowed the executive branch to essentially shutter federal departments that were created by Congress, such as the Department of Education. The Dept of Ed had ~4200 employees and they laid of ~1400. It is not "essentially shuttered" currently regardless of the goal. Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Ed... The important question is: "Can they fulfill their legally mandated obligations with the smaller staff?" If the answer is "yes" then we saved money and still did the job. If the answer is "no" then we have a problem. So far I haven't seen anyone identify "here are the legally mandated obligations that won't be fulfilled any longer" which would be useful and could be compelling.
- giardini 1y agoWhen do you think he will shut the entire DOE down?
- schnable 1y agoCan you elaborate on this? This past term, in the Loper Bright case[1] the Supreme Court took away a massive amount of power from the executive in interpreting statutes beyond what Congress specified. [1] https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-chevron-curtailing-power-of-federal-agencies/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-dow...
- immibis 1y agoUh, that was the past term. Have you also paid attention to the current term? The current supreme court (which was also the supreme court past term) has a very consistent pattern of taking away power from Democrats and granting power to Republicans. Since the president is a Republican, they've been consistently granting power to the president; since the last president was a Democrat, they were consistently taking away his power. You can watch the pattern continue in 2029. They ruled the president has unlimited power to do anything at all, without punishment, if it can be justified as a presidential duty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States - during the last term, but in relation to Trump. Very soon after Trump took power, they ruled that courts cannot challenge the constitutionality of Trump's orders: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf?ftag=MSF0951a18 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf?... Notice all of these sorts of decisions are always 6-3: the 6 conservative justices forming a voting bloc in support of expanding Trump's power (specifically Trump, not just any president), and all 3 non-conservative ones voting against.
- pessimizer 1y agoThis seems like a very ominous-sounding way of saying that Democrats have been losing in the Supreme Court lately and Republicans have been winning.