if the Supreme Court really wanted to encourage compliance by the Trump Administration, it might in a majority opinion include, Clarence-Thomas-style, an off-hand remark about how perhaps the Court's reasoning in Trump v United States bears a second look in light of more recent jurisprudence.
Text: It would be easy to assign malice to this nonsense, and there is a degree of it. There is also indeed self-interest on behalf of the oligarchs backing Trump, who might still hope they can get their tax cuts while holding onto Trump's populism (though I suspect they realize their losses aren't worth it). However, Trump isn't doing something that every political movement does in one way or another. He's trying to create a narrative and set of common reference points that transform issues associated with complex systems into digestible ones with easy solutions. To give him his credit, that's his greatest talent. The man is a master ideologist in a world where ideologies have fewer stable reference points in "big ideas." However, I suspect that the contradictions and unexpected consequences of trying to take as complex a system as global trade and payment out of homeostasis with blunt tools will create feedback loops that even he can't paper over.
@Phil He is sending people into life imprisonment who have done nothing at all to merit that, with no meaningful process. he is a tyrant. his rank evil is leavened only by his idiocy, buffoonery, narcissism. Perhaps he’s incapable of understanding the horrors for which he is responsible. His supporters, however, have no such excuse.
@Phil independent agencies are entirely answerable to Congress. the one democratic branch of government.
hawkish fed did nothing to gold though.
#finance
@admitsWrongIfProven Drehen Sie die Unendlichkeit und sie wird Null.
(blame Google Translate if that makes no sense. or just blame me!)
@Phil are independent courts repugnant to democracy? can the people never choose a decision-making procedures other than the whim of the people as expressed through the whim a quasi elected quasi king?
under our constitution btw the electoral college is not elected. its weird quasi electedness is an ad hoc ex post state level innovation.
under our constitution democratically elected Congress is supreme. and it is, even with respect to independent agencies.
@arthegall ha!
but then we’ll have to wait 91 years instead of just 11 for the next fun year!
2-squared / 4-squared / 5-squared
@Phil democracy in our constitution is invested in Congress. the President is not elected by the public, and the notion of one man representing the fractious public is absurd. “independence” is conferred by Congress against the influence of that one man, democratically and often appropriately. that this Supreme Court might strip that basic institutional and democratic prerogative from our system is on them. no agency is ever independent of Congress, the heart of our democracy.
Congress has created offices and agencies within the legislative branch, right? The Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, the erstwhile Office of Technology Assessment, etc.
If the Supreme Court overturns Humphrey's Executor, could independent agencies migrate to the legislative branch?
just called my Florida Congressional delegation to express my CECOT outrage. one human picked up (on behalf of Rep Luna), two voicemails (Sens Scott and Moody).
the right time to throw the ring of power into the volcano is when it is you who holds it.
we forgot that, tried to wield it, now look who we’ve become.
