Good and helpful discussion. After all, that was the dynamic behind the three branches of government: their jealous preservation of their own power would serve as an effective counterbalance to any of the others usurping too much.
Republican congresspeople don't seem too too committed to "jealous preservation" of anything but their jobs. I am seeing how the Citizen's United Decision (Supreme Court) calling money free speech, and the Musk Money infusion and threat has changed everything. He's holding them hostage with money, and they will remain so until we all participate in massive resistance.
But, as George Conway has been saying: “ what happens when they agree the court has the power to decide— but not the power to enforce.”The arrogance of the MAGA people is infinite, their shame and obedience are minuscule.
What happens when the highest court says no and Trump just says he’s going to do it anyway? Who’s going to enforce what the court says? We’re all assuming he will mind the court rulings. I’m having a tough time envisioning that…
"Vance might learn the hard way that his friends on the court will insist that they, not an autocratic president, have the last say."
How I hope that would be the case. Or ... the richest man in the world buys off justices who have already proven themselves to be open to kickbacks, and they ride off, rich, into the sunset.
I very very much hope SCOTUS will have sleepless nights for the duration of this Administration and those who voted for "immunity in office" should have sleepless nights the rest of their lives.
I’m going to guess this conservative court is begging to let him have his way. They want a Christian Theocracy, full stop. It’s been headed this way since before Trump. Others want an oligarchy, none seem to want the very Constitution that most took an oath to uphold. They are cherry pickers, one and all.
This argument gives me no comfort. It simply transfers absolute power from the executive branch, where one person, elected by an archaic system that bears next to no resemblance to the will of the majority, to the judicial branch, where five to nine unelected persons who are schooled in nothing of any practical use to anyone have zero accountability to any authority. Democracy cannot survive such a system, where so much power resides in so few people.
Even worse, however, is the obvious flaw in an argument which is premised on an executive who shows respect for the court. After all, the executive branch has command over both the military and law enforcement.
The founders wanted - and the constitution demands - three equal branches, with each having a check on the other. Congress makes laws, the President executes and enforces them, and the courts insure the laws remain within constitutional limits. If you take Congress out of the mix, as this argument does, you have an autocracy.
Listen to part of a George Conway interview today and he full expects PINO Trump & POTUS Musk to ignore any court ruling, including SCOTUS they don't like. Then what? This grand experiment will come to an end and we and the rest of the democratic world will be much worse off.
I wish George was wrong but as Amy points out, it doesn't look good.
sadly and all are in his image..... what I do not get is how his wife is still able to be in the same room with him. maybe she and melania are on the same payroll????
As I understand current Supreme Court jurisprudence, Congressional delegations to Democratic Presidents are either unconstitutional or narrowly construed, while Congressional delegations to Republican Presidents are plenary and unreviewable. So I do not predict any confrontation between this Court and President.
Agree completely. The example of Neil Gorsuch and conservatives speaking to limits on the executive branch was to the BIDEN administration, and at least some of the examples of his earlier opinions limiting executive powers were during the Obama administration. Gorsuch, Roberts, and the other Republicans on the court will have no qualms about justifying - even encouraging - the Musk/Trump presidency to do as it pleases.
RE the middle finger to reinstating Congressionally approved funding:
"The judge granted the attorneys generals’ request for a “motion for enforcement” — essentially a nudge. It did not find that the Trump administration was in contempt of court or specify any penalties for failing to comply." [NYT]
Oh, yeah. Because no other judge ever forced compliance on anything, this is the prevailing precedent. Just let him do what he wants! Or we could fine him a nickel! Yeah, that's the ticket!
That is what I also am wondering. All of the court orders are currently being ignored and Musk goons are turning away and threatening employees who showed back up for work. The ransacking of our Federal branches is still occurring.
Any time anyone introduces Chevron, ESPECIALLY in the same breath as Neil Gorsuch, it should be mandatory to remind readers that Chevron was written to let Ann Gorsuch and James Watt interpret environmental laws, not to ensure that laws were enforced as written.
Shillbilly Vance is yet another tumor in our body.
Good and helpful discussion. After all, that was the dynamic behind the three branches of government: their jealous preservation of their own power would serve as an effective counterbalance to any of the others usurping too much.
What three branches? If you look at the Republican Party, do you see a third branch in the House and Senate, the former legislative branch?
Republican congresspeople don't seem too too committed to "jealous preservation" of anything but their jobs. I am seeing how the Citizen's United Decision (Supreme Court) calling money free speech, and the Musk Money infusion and threat has changed everything. He's holding them hostage with money, and they will remain so until we all participate in massive resistance.
But, as George Conway has been saying: “ what happens when they agree the court has the power to decide— but not the power to enforce.”The arrogance of the MAGA people is infinite, their shame and obedience are minuscule.
What happens when the highest court says no and Trump just says he’s going to do it anyway? Who’s going to enforce what the court says? We’re all assuming he will mind the court rulings. I’m having a tough time envisioning that…
Apparently, Vance is still giving Yale Law a bad name…
Yale law doesn't have a bad name already?
Yes. Yes, it does. Same goes for Harvard.
"Vance might learn the hard way that his friends on the court will insist that they, not an autocratic president, have the last say."
How I hope that would be the case. Or ... the richest man in the world buys off justices who have already proven themselves to be open to kickbacks, and they ride off, rich, into the sunset.
Since I have no confidence in our 6/9th corrupt "supreme" court, I fully agree with you.
I very very much hope SCOTUS will have sleepless nights for the duration of this Administration and those who voted for "immunity in office" should have sleepless nights the rest of their lives.
I’m going to guess this conservative court is begging to let him have his way. They want a Christian Theocracy, full stop. It’s been headed this way since before Trump. Others want an oligarchy, none seem to want the very Constitution that most took an oath to uphold. They are cherry pickers, one and all.
This argument gives me no comfort. It simply transfers absolute power from the executive branch, where one person, elected by an archaic system that bears next to no resemblance to the will of the majority, to the judicial branch, where five to nine unelected persons who are schooled in nothing of any practical use to anyone have zero accountability to any authority. Democracy cannot survive such a system, where so much power resides in so few people.
Even worse, however, is the obvious flaw in an argument which is premised on an executive who shows respect for the court. After all, the executive branch has command over both the military and law enforcement.
The founders wanted - and the constitution demands - three equal branches, with each having a check on the other. Congress makes laws, the President executes and enforces them, and the courts insure the laws remain within constitutional limits. If you take Congress out of the mix, as this argument does, you have an autocracy.
Listen to part of a George Conway interview today and he full expects PINO Trump & POTUS Musk to ignore any court ruling, including SCOTUS they don't like. Then what? This grand experiment will come to an end and we and the rest of the democratic world will be much worse off.
I wish George was wrong but as Amy points out, it doesn't look good.
Beautifully written Amy
If the courts are unable or unwilling to enforce their rulings, then there is only one course of action remaining. Enforcement by other means.
like???
I purposely left it vague to allow others to be creative (and to protect the innocent). When the time comes, the means will become apparent.
J D has friends?
sadly and all are in his image..... what I do not get is how his wife is still able to be in the same room with him. maybe she and melania are on the same payroll????
My sense is JD is gay & she stays with him as a cover. Her heritage may account for her subservience...
As I understand current Supreme Court jurisprudence, Congressional delegations to Democratic Presidents are either unconstitutional or narrowly construed, while Congressional delegations to Republican Presidents are plenary and unreviewable. So I do not predict any confrontation between this Court and President.
Agree completely. The example of Neil Gorsuch and conservatives speaking to limits on the executive branch was to the BIDEN administration, and at least some of the examples of his earlier opinions limiting executive powers were during the Obama administration. Gorsuch, Roberts, and the other Republicans on the court will have no qualms about justifying - even encouraging - the Musk/Trump presidency to do as it pleases.
RE the middle finger to reinstating Congressionally approved funding:
"The judge granted the attorneys generals’ request for a “motion for enforcement” — essentially a nudge. It did not find that the Trump administration was in contempt of court or specify any penalties for failing to comply." [NYT]
Oh, yeah. Because no other judge ever forced compliance on anything, this is the prevailing precedent. Just let him do what he wants! Or we could fine him a nickel! Yeah, that's the ticket!
I’m wondering what it might look like if a judge moved to enforce the court’s ruling that the POSOTUS decides to ignore and carry on.
That is what I also am wondering. All of the court orders are currently being ignored and Musk goons are turning away and threatening employees who showed back up for work. The ransacking of our Federal branches is still occurring.
Either the US Marshalls enforce it or the military (…to support and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic…)
🇺🇸I hope they do their duty. Seems like we may find out soon.
Any time anyone introduces Chevron, ESPECIALLY in the same breath as Neil Gorsuch, it should be mandatory to remind readers that Chevron was written to let Ann Gorsuch and James Watt interpret environmental laws, not to ensure that laws were enforced as written.
“ Vance might learn the hard way that his friends on the court will insist that they, not an autocratic president, have the last say.”
We can only hope! 🙏🙏🙏