i think we should see the Trump v. United States ruling as a group of Republican apparatchiks taking their opportunity to vindicate Nixon and write the unitary executive into the Constitution. www.nytimes.com/2024/07/02/o...
Roberts, Alito and Thomas all cut their teeth in a Reagan administration eager to expand the outer limits of executive power. Kavanaugh did the same under George W. Bush who tried to make the unitary executive a reality.
I think this also proves that in a liberal democracy, the revolution is on-going. There will always be monarchists, right-wing reactionaries and counter-revolutionists constantly pulling the nation back to minority rule.
Or, alternatively, it is not a change to the definition but a change in its application. Perhaps it is not applicable to think of liberal democracy as revolutionary at all, or perhaps it is not applicable to refer to a given context (in this case, the US) as having been a liberal democracy.
She even got her own nickname in Doonesbury cartoons of the early 80s (The Ice Queen), and her son is going to make sure nobody else is sacrificed to make the Earth habitable starting with Chevron.
I don’t think it’s possible for Democrats to win the House, Senate and Presidency, but should they do so they have to expand the Court and bring this back for review. As we now understand precedent is a quaint tradition and courts are not beholden to it. The law is what today’s SCOTUS decides.
From Wiki -- The presidency of Ronald Reagan was marked by numerous scandals, resulting in the investigation, indictment or conviction of over 138 administration officials, the largest number for any president of the United States.
Goes to show why they were so keen on giving Trump the store.
Exactly. When congress wrote specific legislation against engaging conflict in Nicaragua (Boland amendment) the executive saw that as a congressional attack on the Reagan Doctrine.
These justices were ass deep in it then.
Boland amendment was not respected as the will of the people.
And of course, this power is intended solely for GOP Presidents, because they think they can also prevent a Democrat President getting elected again.
I want to see Biden win, then see the GOP attempt a take-backsie on executive power.
Isn't it weird that they keep doing it when it has become harder and harder for someone with their policy preferences to be elected nationwide? Their administrative law positions have changed accordingly, but "the president needs to be the king" hasn't.
