←back to thread

250 points anigbrowl | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.717s | 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 #
tmountain ◴[] No.44613178[source]
They won’t get power again in a meaningful way. The last election was their “last stand”. The U.S. has a rigged court and gerrymandered senate. Kamala was right about one thing, “we’re not going back”. Unfortunately, the context was wrong. In this case, it’s, “we’re not going back to being a functional democracy”.
replies(2): >>44613579 #>>44616747 #
1. yareally ◴[] No.44616747[source]
How is the Senate gerrymandered? They're elected statewide.
replies(2): >>44617362 #>>44617991 #
2. overfeed ◴[] No.44617362[source]
As an example: in Texas, there are laws and processes that discourage voting in high-population-density areas that trend less conservative. Can you think of benign reason for a law that bams providing water for people waiting in line to vote in a state that gets really hot?
3. guelo ◴[] No.44617991[source]
The state borders themselves were gerrymandered in the 19th century to influence the electoral college. That's why for example there's all these very empty northern states like the two Dakotas, Montana and Wyoming that collectively have fewer people than LA but between them they get 8 senators.