Jump to content

US Politics: Cancelling Democracy


DanteGabriel

Recommended Posts

The collection of fruit loops in the Arizona State Senate, led by Karen Fann, and the Queen of Trumpists, Kelli Ward, are cosplaying lunatics.  The way that the Arizona Republican party apparatus has been divorced from Arizona citizens who happen to be Republican, and instead turned into a clique of Trump supporters is maddening.

But it is also a roadmap for how the AZ Party and the RNC would like to Putin-ize American politics.  Keep the reins of power obscure and out of reach of normal people, and eventually the everyday American will no longer engage in politics.  It is too hard to get involved, and even if you get involved, nothing will change, so don't bother.  Let the Elite Politicians execute the liturgy of government, and All Will Be Well.

The fact that Fann and Ward state that Rusty Bowers isn't a "real Republican" is primary evidence that the people in charge of the party have left the building that is Republicanism.

I honestly wonder when the LDS church leaders down in Mesa will step in and let the Mormons know that Ward and Fann are no longer suitable leaders, given the way they have gone after Bowers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

Because this would be where the Supreme Court steps in and tells Biden that he cannot tap into those powers at all, period.

Declare an emergency, release funds for increased renewable energy production, tout its benefits while lawsuits wind their way through the courts and galvanize public opinion in favor of the declaration. I mean, this is pretty boilerplate political practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Declare an emergency, release funds for increased renewable energy production, tout its benefits while lawsuits wind their way through the courts and galvanize public opinion in favor of the declaration. I mean, this is pretty boilerplate political practice.

An illegitimate SC should be treated like it's illegitimate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Declare an emergency, release funds for increased renewable energy production, tout its benefits while lawsuits wind their way through the courts and galvanize public opinion in favor of the declaration. I mean, this is pretty boilerplate political practice.

I agree he should do this.  The risk, though, is that the SC would use the shadow docket to very quickly stay the implementation of any measures while the lawsuits wend their way through the courts.   After WV v EPA, be in no doubt that the SC will do everything within its power (which is plenary) to frustrate Biden's agenda.  Hence the preference for getting legislation through Congress before Manchin fucked over his president, party, country and the world.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not following this as closely as I should, but I seem to recollect that some of the Supreme Courts more controversial recent decisions were at odds with past precedent, including older, accepted SC decisions.  This has gotten me to thinking:

 

Suppose the Executive branch - Biden - were to tell the SC flat out these more controversial decisions are unacceptable and will not be enforced until the SC justices, individually and collectively, justify to the executive branch's satisfaction, the reasoning behind these decisions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Not following this as closely as I should, but I seem to recollect that some of the Supreme Courts more controversial recent decisions were at odds with past precedent, including older, accepted SC decisions.  This has gotten me to thinking:

 

Suppose the Executive branch - Biden - were to tell the SC flat out these more controversial decisions are unacceptable and will not be enforced until the SC justices, individually and collectively, justify to the executive branch's satisfaction, the reasoning behind these decisions?

I’m trying to remember the simplified rules I learned in Elementary school. The Legislative Branch makes the law. The Judicial Branch interprets the law.  The Executive Branch enforces the law. 
 

So i suppose in your hypothetical the Executive branch would be allowing the law to be broken. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

I’m trying to remember the simplified rules I learned in Elementary school. The Legislative Branch makes the law. The Judicial Branch interprets the law.  The Executive Branch enforces the law. 
 

So i suppose in your hypothetical the Executive branch would be allowing the law to be broken. 

The Judicial branch has put themselves into a position where the soundness of their interpretation could be legitimately questioned. At a minimum, the president could probably demand a coherent, well reasoned explanation for the SC's recent decisions. I'm not sure the conservative justices would be able to present such a case.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

The Judicial branch has put themselves into a position where the soundness of their interpretation could be legitimately questioned. At a minimum, the president could probably demand a coherent, well reasoned explanation for the SC's recent decisions. I'm not sure the conservative justices would be able to present such a case.

 

I don't see why the reasoning matters.  If the reasoning mattered it wouldn't matter if there was an 8-1 vote if the dissenting opinion was "correct".  The president doesn't get to decide if the reasoning is right or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

 

If this poll is to be given credence, there is minimal enthusiasm for either Trump or a repeat Biden presidency. So...who does that leave? Harris? (Biden's numbers might actually be better than hers) DeSantis? Somebody else?

Most Americans in Poll Don’t Want Biden or Trump to Run in 2024 (msn.com)

This is just the latest proof that "you can't always get what you want."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

I don't see why the reasoning matters.  If the reasoning mattered it wouldn't matter if there was an 8-1 vote if the dissenting opinion was "correct".  The president doesn't get to decide if the reasoning is right or not.

For now. It's not crazy anymore to think that Executives, both at the state and federal level, will still respect the courts if they don't actually have to. The deterioration of norms is far from over. 

8 minutes ago, Ormond said:

This is just the latest proof that "you can't always get what you want."

Sing off the end of this thread at the karaoke bar my friend.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ThinkerX said:

 

So...who does that leave? Harris? (Biden's numbers might actually be better than hers) DeSantis? Somebody else?

 

My thoughts today are that DeSantis has a shot at the GOP nomination, Cruz thinks he does but everyone still hates him, so not a good chance.

However, if 45 doesn’t get the nod, the shit show & chaos he would stir up. Yikes!

Or maybe I’m dreaming. Currently there is no-one on the R side who is sane so that’s scary.

 I just don’t see Harris winning the nom for the D’s. Hopefully other qualified women will run. 

Have to wait and see.   :dunno:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...