US Presidential Candidates

gcomeau wrote:Oh, and he's also expressing public outrage that a "so-called judge" can block anything he orders and asking what the country is coming to that a judge can stop him from doing anything. Ummm... its coming to a country with a co-equal Judicial branch of its fucking government that's what. But he either just DOESN'T GET THAT or he DOESN'T CARE. If that doesn't scare you you're not paying attention. Its time to stop the "take him seriously not literally" nonsense because the truth is, you're not doing either one if this doesn't bother you.

In your average dictatorship, something like that is usually a prelude to an imminent purge of the judiciary.

The E wrote:

gcomeau wrote:Oh, and he's also expressing public outrage that a "so-called judge" can block anything he orders and asking what the country is coming to that a judge can stop him from doing anything. Ummm... its coming to a country with a co-equal Judicial branch of its fucking government that's what. But he either just DOESN'T GET THAT or he DOESN'T CARE. If that doesn't scare you you're not paying attention. Its time to stop the "take him seriously not literally" nonsense because the truth is, you're not doing either one if this doesn't bother you.

In your average dictatorship, something like that is usually a prelude to an imminent purge of the judiciary.

Except that since this isn't a 3rd world dictatorship he doesn't get to do that neither did FDR. They both were just able to whine and complain a lot. That the big difference. Neither can be a dictator even when they they'd like to be. The constitution was designed by people who planned for Trump. That why they put in the checks and balances.



If he gets bored with that he can nominate candidates for the 100 or so judicial openings. I'm sure the federalist society has a list of candidates for him.

biochem wrote:

The E wrote:In your average dictatorship, something like that is usually a prelude to an imminent purge of the judiciary.

Except that since this isn't a 3rd world dictatorship he doesn't get to do that neither did FDR. They both were just able to whine and complain a lot. That the big difference. Neither can be a dictator even when they they'd like to be. The constitution was designed by people who planned for Trump. That why they put in the checks and balances.

Those checks and balances consist in part of a free and independent press and the Judicial Branch of the government. You know, those things we're talking about Trump actively trying to undermine. He's doing a lot more than "whining" if you pay attention to what he's saying.

You just responded to "Trump is trying to weaken the system of checks and balances" with "oh don't worry, we have checks and balances".


That's like responding to "Hey, those guys are laying explosives at the base of that dam, if it blows it'll cause a flood..." with "Oh no need to worry, we have a dam there to stop flooding. See.... that one right there that those guys are working around the base of. We're good!".

Nobody is saying Trump is going to turn the country into a dictatorship next Thursday afternoon or something. But there are long term serious consequences to the shit he's pulling that make the country vulnerable to sliding in that direction over years and decades.

biochem wrote:Except that since this isn't a 3rd world dictatorship

You could have fooled me. Several times over.
But i guess it´s just more of the country catching up with the common sentiments.

biochem wrote:Neither can be a dictator even when they they'd like to be. The constitution was designed by people who planned for Trump. That why they put in the checks and balances.

Which Trump is busy declaring null and void. In case you missed it.

biochem wrote:he doesn't get to do that neither did FDR.

Riiiight, because the two situations have soo much in common, like, no sorry i can´t lie that much, it would just be way too ridiculously stupid and obvious, the situations have zero in common.

The very fact that you use the two comparatively clearly shows that you have absolutely no idea how distantly different they are.

biochem wrote:Neither can be a dictator even when they they'd like to be.

You keep telling yourself that.

[quote="biochem"
Except that since this isn't a 3rd world dictatorship he doesn't get to do that neither did FDR. They both were just able to whine and complain a lot. That the big difference. Neither can be a dictator even when they they'd like to be. The constitution was designed by people who planned for Trump. That why they put in the checks and balances. [/quote]

No, the Constitution was written by people who believed that whoever was going to succeed them in office would be roughly as committed to play by the rules as they were. A person like Trump, who was elected because the electorate believed his promises of not playing by the rules, is a fundamental problem that the US political system is not equipped to deal with.

Trump's supporters are, in large part, people who want to burn the system down for their own ends (see also: the various deregulation measures currently being executively ordered or telegraphed through appointments, which are definitely not going to benefit the common people that form the bulk of Trump's electorate), and unlike for example the german basic law, the US constitution has no mechanisms to reign a movement like that in (unless, of course, Congress and the Senate start being less of a rubber-stamping shop).

Oh, and let's not forget the consistent stonewalling of Obama's appointments during his last term in office (not just Merrick Garland, but a whole bunch of vacancies).

The Republicans, in their stupidity, have handed Trump a LOT of power. A true soviet-style purge is not in the cards just yet, but a significant shift in the character of the judiciary definitely is.

Harry Turtledove's Joe Steel has as a start what would have happened if Stalin's mother had emigrated to the US while pregnant with him. At a similar point in the book he gets Hoover to arrest the supreme court for treason.
Lots of scary parallels, yet it was written before Trump looked likely.
I do think that Trump isn't that serious and is just playing with the ego trip until he gets tired of it and resigns.

Re removing the judicial check and balance

What Trump has actually done so far is whine, complain and call the judge names. And he's had his people appeal the judgement. He hasn't done a thing to get rid of the judge (he'd have to get a supermajority of congress to go along with an impeachment)

What FDR tried to do was to reconfigure the Supreme Court to get rid of judicial override. He did actual actions to remove a check and balance not just call people names. He also didn't get away with it even with an overwhelming majority in congress. So if someone with FDRs level of support can't get away with removing the judicial check Trump won't be able to either no matter how much he whines

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicia ... ll_of_1937

biochem wrote:Re removing the judicial check and balance

What Trump has actually done so far is whine, complain and call the judge names. And he's had his people appeal the judgement. He hasn't done a thing to get rid of the judge (he'd have to get a supermajority of congress to go along with an impeachment)

What FDR tried to do was to reconfigure the Supreme Court to get rid of judicial override. He did actual actions to remove a check and balance not just call people names. He also didn't get away with it even with an overwhelming majority in congress. So if someone with FDRs level of support can't get away with removing the judicial check Trump won't be able to either no matter how much he whines

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicia ... ll_of_1937

And I call bullshit on that. Trump's nominee to the SCOTUS is a Borkian. I remember the Saturday night massacre and was appalled by Borks nomination to the court. This republican congress does not have to change the number of justices on the court, just to appoint one. AND Trump gets to appoint federal district court judges too, hopefully more of the originalists that think that while society may change and technology might change, and the world might change, article VI is meaningless and the only way to change the constitution is by amendment.

With one supreme Court justice and a good few Federal judges scattered across the appeals courts, Trump neutralizes the Federal courts. with absolutely no legislation required. And, yes, it can happen here. We are not immune to anything.

WeirdlyWired wrote:

biochem wrote:Re removing the judicial check and balance

What Trump has actually done so far is whine, complain and call the judge names. And he's had his people appeal the judgement. He hasn't done a thing to get rid of the judge (he'd have to get a supermajority of congress to go along with an impeachment)

What FDR tried to do was to reconfigure the Supreme Court to get rid of judicial override. He did actual actions to remove a check and balance not just call people names. He also didn't get away with it even with an overwhelming majority in congress. So if someone with FDRs level of support can't get away with removing the judicial check Trump won't be able to either no matter how much he whines

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicia ... ll_of_1937

And I call bullshit on that. Trump's nominee to the SCOTUS is a Borkian. I remember the Saturday night massacre and was appalled by Borks nomination to the court. This republican congress does not have to change the number of justices on the court, just to appoint one. AND Trump gets to appoint federal district court judges too, hopefully more of the originalists that think that while society may change and technology might change, and the world might change, article VI is meaningless and the only way to change the constitution is by amendment.

With one supreme Court justice and a good few Federal judges scattered across the appeals courts, Trump neutralizes the Federal courts. with absolutely no legislation required. And, yes, it can happen here. We are not immune to anything.

Trump got his list from the Federalist Society. Any name on that list I would be acceptable to conservatives. Any conservative Repulican president would be choosing from the same list. It is not a Trump specific choice.

In this case it will not change the balance of power on the court since it is Scalia being replaced. If Ginsberg dies that would change the balance however as long as Trump continues to choose Federalist Society candidates and doesn't try to put someone weird like himself in the court, he would be doing the same exact thing as any normal conservative Republican president.

He has yet to try adding extra justices (FDR) or asking the IRS to investigate his opponents (Obama). Or step outside the constitution entirely and order the military to arrest the judge he doesn't like like a 3rd world dictator would (and our military isn't a 3rd world military, they would refuse such an unlawful order if he was stupid enough to try it). All he's ACTUALLY done so far is call the judge names which is protected First Ammendment speech.

biochem wrote:Re removing the judicial check and balance

What Trump has actually done so far is whine, complain and call the judge names. And he's had his people appeal the judgement. He hasn't done a thing to get rid of the judge (he'd have to get a supermajority of congress to go along with an impeachment)

What FDR tried to do was to reconfigure the Supreme Court to get rid of judicial override. He did actual actions to remove a check and balance not just call people names. He also didn't get away with it even with an overwhelming majority in congress. So if someone with FDRs level of support can't get away with removing the judicial check Trump won't be able to either no matter how much he whines

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicia ... ll_of_1937

OR he was trying to get around the stupidity of having a potentially geriatric only supreme court.

I expect his suggested change would have brought by far mostly advantages to USA as a whole.

You currently have two 80+ old, 1 70+, 4 60+ and a single 56 year old as the "young one".
That´s not exactly a healthy representation, both literally and figuratively.
It would also negate how some of the members remain for the sole reason of keeping a current president from appointing their replacement, botching any hint of non-bias anyway.
With FDRs addition, this kind of shenanigans and others would have become much harder to pull for BOTH parties.

But i expect that´s why it really was so unpopular...