Devil’s Advocate: So now Trump is backed into a corner and suddenly more likely to start declaring emergencies!
I didn’t even have to unblur the spoiler to know who they were. Even Trump’s own appointees, although far-right, seem capable of reasoned thinking when it doesn’t affect their ideology too much, especially Amy Coney Barrett. Those other two are flat-out insane.
How wild is it that so much of what Trump does seems on par with Michael Scott.
It’s like if Michael was elected President, but lacked the sense of humor or compassion. And then got dementia.
Sadly, when Michael screamed “I DECLARE BANKRUPTCY!” he had Oscar to explain that’s not how it works. Nobody around him can tell Donald that what he tries (unlimited power via Executive Orders) isn’t how things work. He threatens to fire people if they don’t do it anyway. And then it ends up at SCOTUS eventually, and you can flip a coin as to whether they agree or disagree.
Which is why I think the day is getting closer and closer to him saying he has fired everyone on SCOTUS except Thomas, Alito and maybe Kavanaugh. It won’t mean anything of course but I still expect him to try.
I almost hope he does – SCOTUS has been the main reason he has been able to get away with so much, and such a move seems likely to cement opposition among those who are sometimes on the fence, especially Roberts.
Of course, it’s always possible it might not work out that way.
I don’t know… it’s still Congress that refuses to hold him accountable. They’re the ones who have the actual power to do something about rogue Presidents.
I mean, if he did claim to have “fired” SCOTUS justices, Congress would be the ones expected to actually do something about it when that particular constitutional crisis comes to roost. I mean, SCOTUS could just collectively say “Yeah, no, that’s not how it works.” and keep on doing their thing, but ultimately Congress is who would have to step in and enforce (or not) that by impeaching him.
Neither SCOTUS nor Congress have any means of resisting the Executive branch, if it refuses to acknowledge their constitutional rights and powers. Ultimately, actual power rests with the military. If the Executive orders them to take actions that are unconstitutional, it is up to them to decide whether to obey their oaths to uphold the constitution, or to obey the usurper.
Various opportunities to test the military in this way may happen soon, or in the next 2+ years. I think there is less likelihood of things going that far as long as Trump’s actual popularity keeps sinking. And if the Democrats manage to take control of both houses, Congress will probably start holding him accountable, which could accelerate a crisis. We live in interesting times.
Depending on his hand-picked military leaders to rebel is no more than a pipe dream.
Agreed. Coups are often done by colonels because the generals and admirals were hand-picked by the strongman.
What Roderick_Femm wrote here is a fact true in every country but only significant in unhappy ones:
That’s news to me. Got an example where a successful coup was led by the “middle-men” of the military?
Re last post, I do not think this is controversial in coup d’état research. Googling, I am finding several articles with the exact title “Why are coups always led by colonels?” The first below is behind a paywall but I mention because it is from a web site I used to read and like before they had a paywall:
These last links focus on Africa, but Juan Perón was a colonel.
One could speculate that because the U.S. military is so large, our brigadiers are the equivalent of colonels elsewhere. With luck, we will have no reason to find out.
Read the second non-payrolled article (instead of just the title of the article), and comparing the way the military is run, and paid for, there as opposed to how the military is run and paid for here is akin to comparing apples and elephants. There is not a single point in that entire article that would cause one to believe that what happened there might possibly happen here.
From your second link: "There’s one other key detail in all this: those paychecks. As happens in many salary structures in West African countries (not just militaries), each person who pays a subordinate takes a cut out of their paycheck as a “fee.” (Read: skimming off the top.) The foot soldiers get their pay skimmed by the lieutenants; the lieutenants get theirs skimmed by their superiors, and on and on it goes. Bad as this is for the low-level guys, it really bites for the mid-level people, whose salaries are picked at by their powerful superiors above. They’re managing, they’re doing serious work … and they’re not getting paid. They have a taste of power but not enough fiscal incentives not to rock the boat.
Lo and behold, you get a coup. A well trained, well connected, underpaid, and generally disgruntled middle man is your suspect — guilty as charged." For the most part, those middle-man coups are motivated by money, not politics, and the majority of U.S. troops side with the president and are decently paid.
A single point? Sure there is. From that article: "Generals are often close to the leadership; their appointments are usually somewhat political . . . "
Hegseth is working hard there. Successfully? We’ll see.
And I thought this was about Roderick_Femm saying that “Ultimately, actual power rests with the military.” It does. If Hegseth says the MAGA ticket won, while NBC, ABC, CNN, AP, and the New York Times (and maybe even CBS) all say the Democratic Ticket won, it will be up to the military to decide who they regard as their commander in chief. I do believe it would be one the major party nominees. Which one?
An irony of Trumpism is that Donald is working hard to make the U.S. like the countries whose nationals he’s trying hardest to deport. If Trump was twenty years younger, he’d have a better shot at doing it. But it still may be a close run thing.
In what possible way, disregarding blind and hopeful assumption, does this even hint that the military middle management will step up and do anything other than what their superiors tell them to do?
Moderating:
@PhillyGuy, @Czarcasm you’re having a fine discussion on the true nature and motivators of military coups, one worthy of it’s own thread. It’s not even 100% off topic, but your back and forth is taking over the thread, so I suggest you start your own if you want to discuss general examples. This thread was originally about using “emergency powers” to control the election, rather than a general discussion of Trump choosing not to comply with the courts, states or Congress.
This is just a guidance, not a warning.
Hint taken.
Deleted after reading note.
Of course, the military doesn’t side with one side or the other, either. “The military” is a collection of a great many people, and some of them will doubtless side with any given side. When you get two or more sides each with a sufficient backing in the military, then what you get is a civil war.