It’s a fundamental paradox of democracy: Democracy is meant to give people what they want, so what if what they want isn’t democracy?
The house of Representatives can be changed every 2 years, and the house is empowered to take pretty substantial steps to impede a scoundrel or fool. I’d like to see a democratic speaker of the house lead a rash of public hearings during the last 2 years of Trump’s term.
Most House seats are safe Republican or safe Democratic seats, especially with extreme gerrymandering.
It got worse from there, if the recent obsession with men thinking about the Roman Empire is any sign. How soon we forget that the founders of this nation wanted to emulate the Roman Republic, and they abhorred emperors. It makes me want to cry if Americans don’t even know what their country is all about in the first place.
Your observation is accurate: if they wanted to be another Roman Republic, they should have thought it through a little better. That whole primus inter pares (first among equals) scam was a sleight-of-Latin trick to overturn the balance of power. In the 250 years since, we’ve seen more than enough examples of tricks used by tyrants to scam their way into power and to hold power. Enough for Thomas Mann to write of Fascism allegorically as a trick used by an illusionist (who successfully scammed the bourgeois, but was defeated by Mario from the working class) in his 1929 novella Mario and the Magician. The founders of the United States didn’t have as many examples of tyrants rising through cheap tricks; one of the few examples available to them, Cola di Rienzo, was a goofball who brought about his own downfall twice in a short time. Mussolini studied the rise and fall of Cola di Rienzo and determined to avoid the latter’s mistakes: “You see, I wear no rings” (Cola was murdered by a mob while trying to escape his burning palace in disguise when they saw his rings). That worked for him, until it didn’t, and he wound up the same way.
No, our current problem is that any legislator who does not bow down will cease to be a legislator because the American people has lost its collective mind.
IMHO, the real problem is the primary system in which few people vote and those the most extreme. I would replace by some form of ranked choice with only one round of voting.
I wonder of McTurtle now wishes he had coerced a dozen or so Repugnant senators to vote conviction on the second impeachment.
Which is why I declared Republican.
And, so? Did they commit a felony? Generally a serious felony?
also-
. Protection of the Federal Reserve (The Lisa Cook Case), Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, *Department of Education v. California, National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association, A.A.R.P. v. Trump, Trump v. Illinois, and more.
and how did it “help get him elected”? In 2020 SCOTUS turned down trumps suit that the election was rigged.
Caesar crossing the Rubicon?
Since both the House and the Senate is almost evenly divided between the parties, this seems an extreme position to take.
Tell that to the Supreme Court today. Yes, he had to take his name off a building, and has suffered a few other setbacks, but today the Supreme Court threw out decades of legislation and precedent to give the president a huge increase in power in running federal agencies according to the whim du jour. What the Supreme Court thinks that the President should be able to do is precisely what I was taught in school the President should not be able to do – pack the government agencies with cronies and supporters. That’s what the Civil Service legislation was meant to prevent. But what the hell, we have a lunatic in office, why not give him unlimited power. Trump Smash!
I may be losing my perspective, but I think this development is a good candidate for Worst Thing Yet.
Overall, I think SCOTUS hasnt been that bad. I mean, you posted right after my post.
And the President has always been able to appoint his cronies and supporters- in any position that is NOT Civil Service. I.e. those positions the President gets to appoint.
Nice little truism you got there. The president has always been able to appoint people to those positions the president gets to appoint. Here, read this:
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday overturned a 91-year-old precedent that has prevented presidents from removing members of independent agencies at will. The decision represents a significant win for the Trump administration and a major expansion of the president’s control over parts of the government once seen as a check on his powers.
If you want to call that “not that bad,” I want to see what you’re comparing it to.
Forced out of office because of unpopular policies especialy Poll Tax
Yes. In reply to
My understanding is that there are about 5,000 political appointments that any president can make. Most of the federal government is civil servants. What this administration has been trying to do is to convert many of the non political employees to political loyalists. He complains about the deep state but that is exactly what he wants to build.
A bad reply, the difference being between top level administrators (which the president could always appoint) and a whole bunch of lower-level now-former civil servants, who will now serve at the pleasure of the president. If you are trying to say there is little or no difference between these two, you are way, way off. If you are trying to say that “pack the government agencies with cronies and supporters” means the same as appoint top-level administrators, you are way way off.
Are there such? Got a cite? It is kinda hard to convert a Civil Service position to an appointed one.
…Are you seriously asking if there are any low-level civil servants?
No, what I asked was whether and how trump somehow converted Civil Service jobs to appointees.
By the Supreme Court decision that says that he’s allowed to fire them arbirtrarily.
The Supreme Court on Monday gave President Donald Trump sweeping new authority over approximately two dozen multi-member agencies that Congress intended to be independent. By a vote of 6-3, the justices struck down a federal law that bars the president from firing members of the Federal Trade Commission except in cases of “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” That law, a majority of the justices ruled, violates the constitutional separation of powers between the three branches of government. And in reaching that decision, the court overruled its 91-year-old decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had upheld the law at the center of the dispute.
The present case was about the firing of Rebecca Slaughter who served as a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission - that position is NOT, not has it ever been a Civil Service position. That position is indeed- nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Same with the other positions, afaik.
Right, this decision is NOT about career Civil Service posts. It is about a category of presidential-appointment posts that had been statutorily designated as being for fixed terms and removable only “for cause”, and it takes down this provision.