3 ms·

Biggest challenge is that people bleat about executive overreach when their team is not in power, then smirk with glee when they have it. Similar to debates ab

by gedy 9mo ago

Biggest challenge is that people bleat about executive overreach when their team is not in power, then smirk with glee when they have it. Similar to debates about freedom of speech, etc.

postflopclarity 9mo ago
[flagged]
- vessenes 9mo ago
  It's 100% both sides. We haven't had a president work to roll back his own power, since ... Hmm. Maybe Gerald Ford? I guess Carter was fairly principled on some of this. This part of the system - executive power grabs - is supposed to be curtailed by the courts first and congress second in the US system.
  - happytoexplain 9mo ago
    There are light years of space between the behavior we're seeing now and "a president working to roll back his own power," and even that has arguably happened in many presidencies, depending on what you mean. You would need much more than that to demonstrate anything approaching behavioral parity on this dimension. Otherwise - yes, politicians from every party, forever, everywhere, exhibit some similar faults.
  - postflopclarity 9mo ago
    > We haven't had a president work to roll back his own power, this is just not true. For example, all under the Obama administration * the closure of Guantanamo Bay and other black sites, the prohibition of torture as an interrogation method including updates to Army Field Manual and mandatory access of Red Cross to any POW, all represented a significant reduction in executive power in how we treat detainees. * following the Snowden leaks there were several actions taken to curtail executive power in applying surveillance programs to both US citizens and non-US persons. these also rolled back several components of the PATRIOT act (passed under his predecessor we all know and love, Dubya) * the signing statements reform meant the executive no longer had an effective line-item veto * the AG under Obama implemented a new DoJ policy limiting the use of "state secret" privilege during litigations.
    - api 9mo ago
      I agree with those things but they were not rollbacks of executive power. That was Obama using executive power to reel in bad policy, not ceding the power entirely. Of course perhaps he couldn’t. Congress needs to do that, and the courts, and neither seem interested in doing their job. Lower courts sometimes step up but the Supreme Court seems to be on the side of a dictatorial executive for some time now. What does Congress even do these days? Seems like half crackpot debate club and half hospice care facility.
    - nickff 9mo ago
      The Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility is still open, and hosting detainees: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp Obama rejected signing statements on the campaign trail, but his actions in office were more nuanced: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement#Obama_administration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement#Obama_admini... Eric Holder, notable AG under the Obama administration had a very mixed record, and did not support limitations of his power, or oversight of his actions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Holder#Tenure_as_Attorney_General_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Holder#Tenure_as_Attorney...
      - postflopclarity 9mo ago
        > The Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility is still open, and hosting detainees remind me, who reopened it?
        stackskipton 9mo ago
        It never closed. Congress with support of many Democrats prevented its closure and Obama just kind of gave up. Trump obviously wants it open and Biden kind of just ignored it so it remains.
- mothballed 9mo ago
  Democrat FDR was responsible for a lot of the expansionism of the federal powers of the modern era through threatening to pack the courts and 'the switch in time that saved 9'. Under his oversight the feds defended the state in Wickard v Filburn which opened the barn door to the massive expansion of the federal apparatus and everything being interstate commerce.
  - postflopclarity 9mo ago
    > Democrat FDR literally a century ago
    - mothballed 9mo ago
      >>>" long term plot " >> mentions long term history impacting modern federal powers >... not like that!
      - postflopclarity 9mo ago
        ... I mean yeah. because FDR is not relevant. I am speaking about "long term" as in "within the lifetime of individual actors I can name and are political relevant today and are effecting plans making the US dramatically more authoritarian than I remember it to be just a few years ago." George Washington also increased the power of POTUS substantially, from 0 to 1, but I don't think he's relevant to this discussion either.
      - johnnyanmac 9mo ago
        FDR was taking drastic actions in response to a depression within the United States. In addition to many other issues like having old blue collars rotting on the street, expanding benefits for soldiers to boost morale (just in time for the 2nd world war), and setting some basic standards in the job market that we still enjoy today. Yes, if we're going to push the envelope, it should be in times of crisis and for the people. Trying to compare that to what happened in 2025 just feels dishonest. But yes, if I had to sacrifice fast response to crises to not allow a felon executive to destroy the country in the course of 12 months, I vote to limit all the powers.
- gedy 9mo ago
  You sound as if you might be one who would then say: "In order to reverse this long term plot, a Democrat president should definitely use executive orders to accomplish this", etc. (Which is my point.)
  - johnnyanmac 9mo ago
    No, no I wouldn't. That's how you get more EO's negated by the inevitable next shift, or court rulings that much more slowly get co-opted because we never codified them into federal law. I'd much rather end congress gridlock and get laws in that can't simply be thrown away by 1-6 people later on.
    - gedy 9mo ago
      I agree with you
  - postflopclarity 9mo ago
    no. that's a whole different sentence. https://x.com/AustingrahamZ1/status/1029385497213366279 https://x.com/AustingrahamZ1/status/1029385497213366279
- terminalshort 9mo ago
  There are very few things that have been more bipartisan than the concentration of power in the executive branch over the last 100 years.
johnnyanmac 9mo ago
I don't think the executive overreach happening last year alone can be compared to anything from the D side until you go all the way back to FDR. And that was to establish stuff that actually benefitted us for the next 90 years. Meanwhile we're in "weekly Watergate" mode right now. If there's nay overreaches from the Biden/Obama era, I'd happily close those loopholes to never have 2025 happen again.

by gedy 9mo ago

Biggest challenge is that people bleat about executive overreach when their team is not in power, then smirk with glee when they have it. Similar to debates about freedom of speech, etc.

postflopclarity 9mo ago

[flagged]

vessenes 9mo ago
It's 100% both sides. We haven't had a president work to roll back his own power, since ... Hmm. Maybe Gerald Ford? I guess Carter was fairly principled on some of this. This part of the system - executive power grabs - is supposed to be curtailed by the courts first and congress second in the US system.
- happytoexplain 9mo ago
  There are light years of space between the behavior we're seeing now and "a president working to roll back his own power," and even that has arguably happened in many presidencies, depending on what you mean. You would need much more than that to demonstrate anything approaching behavioral parity on this dimension. Otherwise - yes, politicians from every party, forever, everywhere, exhibit some similar faults.
- postflopclarity 9mo ago
  > We haven't had a president work to roll back his own power, this is just not true. For example, all under the Obama administration * the closure of Guantanamo Bay and other black sites, the prohibition of torture as an interrogation method including updates to Army Field Manual and mandatory access of Red Cross to any POW, all represented a significant reduction in executive power in how we treat detainees. * following the Snowden leaks there were several actions taken to curtail executive power in applying surveillance programs to both US citizens and non-US persons. these also rolled back several components of the PATRIOT act (passed under his predecessor we all know and love, Dubya) * the signing statements reform meant the executive no longer had an effective line-item veto * the AG under Obama implemented a new DoJ policy limiting the use of "state secret" privilege during litigations.
  - api 9mo ago
    I agree with those things but they were not rollbacks of executive power. That was Obama using executive power to reel in bad policy, not ceding the power entirely. Of course perhaps he couldn’t. Congress needs to do that, and the courts, and neither seem interested in doing their job. Lower courts sometimes step up but the Supreme Court seems to be on the side of a dictatorial executive for some time now. What does Congress even do these days? Seems like half crackpot debate club and half hospice care facility.
  - nickff 9mo ago
    The Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility is still open, and hosting detainees: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp Obama rejected signing statements on the campaign trail, but his actions in office were more nuanced: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement#Obama_administration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement#Obama_admini... Eric Holder, notable AG under the Obama administration had a very mixed record, and did not support limitations of his power, or oversight of his actions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Holder#Tenure_as_Attorney_General_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Holder#Tenure_as_Attorney...
    - postflopclarity 9mo ago
      > The Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility is still open, and hosting detainees remind me, who reopened it?
      - stackskipton 9mo ago
        It never closed. Congress with support of many Democrats prevented its closure and Obama just kind of gave up. Trump obviously wants it open and Biden kind of just ignored it so it remains.
mothballed 9mo ago
Democrat FDR was responsible for a lot of the expansionism of the federal powers of the modern era through threatening to pack the courts and 'the switch in time that saved 9'. Under his oversight the feds defended the state in Wickard v Filburn which opened the barn door to the massive expansion of the federal apparatus and everything being interstate commerce.
- postflopclarity 9mo ago
  > Democrat FDR literally a century ago
  - mothballed 9mo ago
    >>>" long term plot " >> mentions long term history impacting modern federal powers >... not like that!
    - postflopclarity 9mo ago
      ... I mean yeah. because FDR is not relevant. I am speaking about "long term" as in "within the lifetime of individual actors I can name and are political relevant today and are effecting plans making the US dramatically more authoritarian than I remember it to be just a few years ago." George Washington also increased the power of POTUS substantially, from 0 to 1, but I don't think he's relevant to this discussion either.
    - johnnyanmac 9mo ago
      FDR was taking drastic actions in response to a depression within the United States. In addition to many other issues like having old blue collars rotting on the street, expanding benefits for soldiers to boost morale (just in time for the 2nd world war), and setting some basic standards in the job market that we still enjoy today. Yes, if we're going to push the envelope, it should be in times of crisis and for the people. Trying to compare that to what happened in 2025 just feels dishonest. But yes, if I had to sacrifice fast response to crises to not allow a felon executive to destroy the country in the course of 12 months, I vote to limit all the powers.
gedy 9mo ago
You sound as if you might be one who would then say: "In order to reverse this long term plot, a Democrat president should definitely use executive orders to accomplish this", etc. (Which is my point.)
- johnnyanmac 9mo ago
  No, no I wouldn't. That's how you get more EO's negated by the inevitable next shift, or court rulings that much more slowly get co-opted because we never codified them into federal law. I'd much rather end congress gridlock and get laws in that can't simply be thrown away by 1-6 people later on.
  - gedy 9mo ago
    I agree with you
- postflopclarity 9mo ago
  no. that's a whole different sentence. https://x.com/AustingrahamZ1/status/1029385497213366279 https://x.com/AustingrahamZ1/status/1029385497213366279
terminalshort 9mo ago
There are very few things that have been more bipartisan than the concentration of power in the executive branch over the last 100 years.

johnnyanmac 9mo ago

I don't think the executive overreach happening last year alone can be compared to anything from the D side until you go all the way back to FDR. And that was to establish stuff that actually benefitted us for the next 90 years. Meanwhile we're in "weekly Watergate" mode right now. If there's nay overreaches from the Biden/Obama era, I'd happily close those loopholes to never have 2025 happen again.