←back to thread

763 points tartoran | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.211s | source
Show context
mikeyouse ◴[] No.45682307[source]
> Tim Rieser, former senior aide to Senator Leahy who wrote the 2011 amendment mandating information gathering, told the BBC the gateway's removal meant the State Department was "clearly ignoring the law".

We're in a really bad place... with a servile congress, it turns out there aren't really any laws constraining the executive branch. When everything relies on "independent IGs" for law enforcement inside executive branch departments, and the President can fire them all without consequence or oversight, then it turns out there is no law.

replies(21): >>45682323 #>>45682445 #>>45682511 #>>45682590 #>>45682838 #>>45682977 #>>45682980 #>>45683124 #>>45683225 #>>45683230 #>>45683339 #>>45683432 #>>45683533 #>>45683596 #>>45683626 #>>45683638 #>>45683774 #>>45683801 #>>45683853 #>>45683854 #>>45683942 #
abirch ◴[] No.45682323[source]
It defeats the purpose of a veto if the executive branch can ignore the law.
replies(1): >>45682356 #
duxup ◴[] No.45682356[source]
[flagged]
replies(1): >>45682569 #
nerdponx ◴[] No.45682569[source]
At least I get to feel vindicated. Many many people, including me, have long asserted that the so-called "conservatives" in the Supreme Court are anything but. Historically their decisions have appealed to a certain kind of conservative political base, but the pretense is really starting to wear thin. Limiting the power of the executive branch in general was never the goal, it was only to limit the power of presidents who were willing to challenge the capitalist oligarchy master plan. They know that their job now, along with their allies and Congress, is to simply step aside and manage public outrage while the next phase of the plan is set in motion. I'm not just talking about in recent years either, go back through the Obama and W Bush administrations. You might notice that the conservatives in the court curiously turned more conservative when "their guy" isn't in office.
replies(5): >>45682845 #>>45682872 #>>45682953 #>>45683783 #>>45684070 #
watwut ◴[] No.45682872[source]
> have long asserted that the so-called "conservatives" in the Supreme Court are anything but

They are conservatives and push for conservative agenda. Conservatives wanted them on the court so that they can make decisions like this.

replies(3): >>45682954 #>>45682964 #>>45682988 #
dagss ◴[] No.45682964[source]
I think you and parent comment are just using the word conservative in two different ways. There is conservative values and there is the conservative party, two different things.
replies(3): >>45683140 #>>45683656 #>>45684572 #
watwut ◴[] No.45684572[source]
I am saying that these are real conservative values. It is not true that these would be just something conservative party does while claiming to believe something else. Instead, if you read what conservative people write and say, in journals, books, talk shows, anywhere ... this is exactly what they believe in.
replies(1): >>45692302 #
dagss ◴[] No.45692302[source]
It may be my European context / political definitions, but at least around here the word "conservative" would include vigorously defending the rule of law and courts (along with property rights and so on).

E.g., letting people who attacked police officers on Jan 6 out of prison is about as anti-conservative as you get.

I was trying to point out that conservative as a political philosophy != whatever Fox news preaches this month, but perhaps the word is used differently in the US..

Anyway point is, I'm sure the post you responded to used the word conservative more in the way I'm used to (European way?), thus your cross-talk.

replies(1): >>45698257 #
1. watwut ◴[] No.45698257[source]
> t least around here the word "conservative" would include vigorously defending the rule of law and courts (along with property rights and so on).

When exactly was that last time? Note that rule of law would include demands that police follows the law too. As far as I can tell, it was never rule of law in the sense of "everyone must follow the law". It was "people we dont like must follow the law and we will max punishments for them".

> letting people who attacked police officers on Jan 6 out of prison is about as anti-conservative as you get.

Only because this time, police was standing against what conservatives wanted. When it was helping them, yes, it was different.