←back to thread

250 points anigbrowl | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.207s | source
Show context
jleyank ◴[] No.44611189[source]
It's really depressing how the US system seems to have existed "on belief". Once somebody set out to damage or destroy it, away it went. Pretty much without a whimper.

As I recall, the system was set up with 3 branches of government in tension. Obviously, that was naive.

replies(20): >>44611243 #>>44611251 #>>44611274 #>>44611292 #>>44611294 #>>44611300 #>>44611372 #>>44611468 #>>44612747 #>>44612970 #>>44613048 #>>44613100 #>>44613128 #>>44613243 #>>44613469 #>>44613869 #>>44615093 #>>44616024 #>>44616939 #>>44617655 #
guelo ◴[] No.44611372[source]
It's not going away with a whimper, the supreme court is killing it on purpose. There are laws that created departments that the president does not have the power to destroy. There is also the impoundment act that forbid a president from redirecting or not spending appropriated money. These laws are being ignored because the supreme court has gone full partisan.

One study estimates that the Supreme Court will be "conservative" [1] for at least the next 100 years. If Dems don't try to do something to represent 50% of the country that is panicking then they're complicit.

[1] tearing down hundreds of years of precedent is not conservative, this is an extremist court.

replies(6): >>44611504 #>>44612616 #>>44612793 #>>44612934 #>>44613508 #>>44615771 #
loeg ◴[] No.44611504[source]
> If Dems don't try to do something about to represent 50% of the country that is panicking then they're complicit.

Uh. What are they supposed to do with a Republican trifecta? Do you mean "win votes in future elections so they can govern?"

replies(1): >>44611745 #
guelo ◴[] No.44611745[source]
When they get power again they need to challenge the court's extremism. I've seen ideas like term limits or packing the court with more than 9 judges.
replies(4): >>44611867 #>>44612225 #>>44613178 #>>44614175 #
loeg ◴[] No.44612225[source]
> When they get power again

Hard to see a path to Dems winning a Senate majority.

replies(1): >>44612796 #
burnt-resistor ◴[] No.44612796[source]
Yep. And the House is functionally irrelevant and basically a passive onlooker.

SCOTUS legislate from the bench as instructed and POTUS decrees from a throne.

replies(1): >>44612882 #
galangalalgol ◴[] No.44612882[source]
A majority isn't impossible, but they would have to remove the filibuster. Ideally I'd want the filibuster removed right this instant, but reinstated for judicial and really any confirmations. Let the party in power make their laws and remove old ones, but keep the judiciary independent.

Edit: When the democrats removed the filibuster for judicial confirmations they started us on this path. Predictably the Republicans responded by including the scotus. That was the end of an independent judiciary. It just took a while for it to be sufficient to kill democracy. And to be clear, no ratings agency in the world still considers the US a democracy. At years end it will be an official downgrade from flawed democracy to electoral autocracy or competitive authoritarian state.

replies(2): >>44612964 #>>44613585 #
1. ◴[] No.44613585[source]