If the next president is a Democrat and has the Senate and House, they still can’t. There’s decades of institutional knowledge that has been terminated - and those people aren’t coming back. Many of them are also Republicans, even after seeing the damage, and they won’t be working to return everything to the way it used to be.
The Trump administration - and don’t fool yourself, he’s a pawn - has months to sabotage the handover of key roles. They’ve spent the last year demonstrating that USA is not a trustworthy partner in trade or defence. Treaties need to be renegotiated and other countries won’t be interested in giving the USA the same consideration that the post-Marshall Plan world would. Democrats in the USA see Trump and his administration; the rest of the world sees that “the majority” of Americans voted for him and his policies, and even now there’s still significant support for him.
It’s unlikely, too, that it will be possible to end DHS for example. There’s too many people in too many high places that have relationships that depend on DHS people for support. PATRIOT act is another example. The dogma that it’s legal for ICE to inspect within the 100(?) mile border zone. These are significant intrusions on basic freedom and privacy but they’re also centralization of power.
Isn’t one of the desenting opinions from the supreme court literally giving the president such sweeping immunities allows them to assassinate political enemies Scott free?
I think what they’re saying is that the dissent says out loud the part that the majority would prefer to keep quiet. It’s a clear consequence of the “clever jackass 7th-grader” mindset that comes from the Originalist school of jurisprudence.
You can’t run a modern nation-state or withstand a bad actor in power if you insist that it must all be done exactly as set out in 4,500 words by a bunch of 18th-century provincial lawyers writing by committee, and that anything not expressly forbidden is allowed because… “oh well.” SCOTUS abdicating its role as a backstop of liberty and good sense to instead be a bunch of pedants is a piss-poor reason to send your country to hell, yet here we are.
If the next president is a Democrat and has the Senate and House, they still can’t. There’s decades of institutional knowledge that has been terminated - and those people aren’t coming back. Many of them are also Republicans, even after seeing the damage, and they won’t be working to return everything to the way it used to be.
The Trump administration - and don’t fool yourself, he’s a pawn - has months to sabotage the handover of key roles. They’ve spent the last year demonstrating that USA is not a trustworthy partner in trade or defence. Treaties need to be renegotiated and other countries won’t be interested in giving the USA the same consideration that the post-Marshall Plan world would. Democrats in the USA see Trump and his administration; the rest of the world sees that “the majority” of Americans voted for him and his policies, and even now there’s still significant support for him.
It’s unlikely, too, that it will be possible to end DHS for example. There’s too many people in too many high places that have relationships that depend on DHS people for support. PATRIOT act is another example. The dogma that it’s legal for ICE to inspect within the 100(?) mile border zone. These are significant intrusions on basic freedom and privacy but they’re also centralization of power.
That, and the Supreme Court is stacked.
Isn’t one of the desenting opinions from the supreme court literally giving the president such sweeping immunities allows them to assassinate political enemies Scott free?
Not a dissenting (against the majority) opinion; the actual majority opinion of the court.
I think what they’re saying is that the dissent says out loud the part that the majority would prefer to keep quiet. It’s a clear consequence of the “clever jackass 7th-grader” mindset that comes from the Originalist school of jurisprudence.
You can’t run a modern nation-state or withstand a bad actor in power if you insist that it must all be done exactly as set out in 4,500 words by a bunch of 18th-century provincial lawyers writing by committee, and that anything not expressly forbidden is allowed because… “oh well.” SCOTUS abdicating its role as a backstop of liberty and good sense to instead be a bunch of pedants is a piss-poor reason to send your country to hell, yet here we are.