dasdoak.bsky.social
Gentleman adventurer, mostly decent bastard, only slightly pessimistic optimist. I ride bikes, tinker, program, and read way too much.
4,758 posts
580 followers
724 following
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Again though, this isn't a code-of-conduct issue; this is a "they like the fact he's breaking the law, so they're refusing to enforce the law" which is something Supreme Court justices can be impeached for, and which has happened in the past!
www.senate.gov/about/powers...
comment in response to
post
We *have* hard laws - the problem is that they're being ignored by the bodies that are supposed to enforce them.
comment in response to
post
...then I don't understand why you keep insisting that these are problems that are solved with civil law systems; the fundamental issue in the US is that a judiciary *AND* its oversight body have been corrupted to ignore lawbreaking by a specific executive, which can happen in *any* legal system.
comment in response to
post
There is also the added problem that, because everyone has *mostly* behaved themselves for a very, very, very long time, Congress is gun-shy about using its oversight powers over the Supreme Court to punish them for failing to enforce the law - though the high vote margin required is also a problem.
comment in response to
post
There are fewer steps of oversight, and the oversight body itself is compromised by its composition, but that's the actual problem, not the fact that it's a common-law system rather than a civil-law system.
comment in response to
post
This isn't the West Wing - this was the explicit assumption of the drafters of the US constitution in 1787. It has not held up well.
comment in response to
post
Again, many things Trump has violated are not caselaw - which you're incorrectly referring to as "soft law" - but actual legislatively and constitutionally drafted "hard" laws. The point is that the judiciary AND the judiciary's oversight body like Trump's actions more than they care about the law.
comment in response to
post
But the broad strokes of "people in positions of power like the president and his illegal actions more than they care about the law" is key; the US system does have checks that could keep this from happening, but they are fewer because it was assumed that each branch would jealously guard its power.
comment in response to
post
The key difference is that, in the US, the roles of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court are combined and carried out by the same body, while the role of the General Council of the Judiciary is carried out by the US Senate.
comment in response to
post
In the face of this, it's possible that the General Council of the Judiciary might decide that this obviously wrong decision warrants investigation and removal for misconduct, but a majority of them *also* like the Prime Minister more than they care about the law, and so they decide to do nothing.
comment in response to
post
Now, in this case, the Constitutional Court may overrule the Supreme Court's decisions, but a majority of them *also* like the Prime Minister more than they care about the law, so they decide not to.
comment in response to
post
However, because a majority of the members of the Supreme Court like the Prime Minister more than they care about the law, they rule in his favor, saying that his actions didn't break the law even though they obviously did.
comment in response to
post
Ok, Spain's a bit of a funny one, but bear with me and please excuse any mistakes.
Say that the Prime Minister decided to break the law and infringe on the people's rights with his actions. He is sued for this lawbreaking, and the case gets appealed to the Supreme Court.
comment in response to
post
There was a clear, narrow legal consensus on what the law allowed. The problem is that the current members of the Supreme Court are ignoring that consensus - and the actual written law of both the Constitution and what had been passed by Congress - in pursuit of achieving right-wing policy goals.
comment in response to
post
...no, this is a problem that can occur in any country that has a judiciary which determines whether or not the actions of an executive are legal and/or constitutional.
Which country are you in? I can explain it in your terms.
comment in response to
post
It's always open to interpretation whether or not someone is breaking the law; this is why even civil law countries have judges to determine whether or not someone has broken the law!
The problem is that the US Supreme Court is looking at law breaking and saying "no, this is totally legal!"
comment in response to
post
We do have hard laws that say the situation is supposed to work this way; the problem is that the Supreme Court is looking at those laws and saying "well, up is actually down" and Congress is refusing to do anything about that.
comment in response to
post
The current problems arise from Congress and the highest level of the judiciary no longer trying to constrain Trump because they're his allies; Congress is refusing to impeach him or reject his nominees, and the Supreme Court is saying "no, what he's doing isn't illegal."
comment in response to
post
The judiciary constrains the president and Congress by making determinations as to whether the president's actions are legal, and whether Congress' laws are constitutional.
comment in response to
post
Congress - which is supposed to be the most powerful branch - constrains the president and judiciary by the laws it passes, the requirement for congressional approval of executive appointees, and, ultimately, the impeachment power to remove misbehaving members or appointees from their positions.
comment in response to
post
The current failures in the US are not the result of soft law failing, but rather capture of the organizations that are to constrain and control the executive by his partisan allies, in such a way that they ignore or excuse the executive's violations of black letter law.
comment in response to
post
And Phoenix.
comment in response to
post
If you have a better way to get rid of Trump before 2028, the class would *love* to hear it.
comment in response to
post
It's worth noting that this calculus would be *very* different if Trump was a "normal" president who wasn't insistent on burning US Democracy to the ground and who just needed to be opposed on normal policy grounds - but this is where we are and what's happening.
comment in response to
post
And, actually, you'd need *even better* numbers than Reagan 1980 because the Republicans only picked up 12 seats that year. There's never been a twenty point senate swing in a single election in US history, short of a political party imploding.
comment in response to
post
...even if Democrats have a *shockingly* good year in 2026, they'd need to pull Reagan 1980 numbers to be able to oust Trump by themselves. If you want Trump gone before 2028, this is how you prepare for it as Senate Democrats.
comment in response to
post
He is actively criticizing Trump's actions; that's the other side of it. Highlight why Trump is bad and dangerous while also offering an open hand to Republicans so that they can join Democrats in stopping Trump. There's no other way out of this before 2028.
comment in response to
post
bsky.app/profile/dasd...
comment in response to
post
Which gets over ridden with a roll-call vote within minutes.
comment in response to
post
The problem is that obstructionism doesn't serve Democratic goals; Republicans want to stop Democrats from passing legislation through legal means, so obstructionism works *great* - Democrats want legislative action to stop Republicans from doing illegal shit, so obstructionism is kinda useless.
comment in response to
post
As for Judicial nominees they're still a simple majority vote - so Democrats can't actually stop them - and there have only been five *nominations* made so far, none of which have even come up for a vote.
comment in response to
post
Again, Republicans are in the majority; the only action Democrats can take to *actually* impede the Republican Agenda is refuse to vote for bills that aren't being passed through reconciliation.
comment in response to
post
The problem is that it pisses off Senate Republicans and makes it seem as though you're unreasonable and unwilling to work with them, while - in practical terms - not doing much.
And, again, the only way you'll get Republican support for an impeachment is to seem open to work together.
comment in response to
post
Pick your cataclysm; we're staring down the barrels of five or six of them right now.
comment in response to
post
They need to get twenty Republican senators - which is a lift - to impeach Trump. I think it's *far* easier to do that than get twenty-one or twenty-two or twenty-three if Senate Democrats decide to start taking actions that get them arrested.
But apparently we disagree on that point.
comment in response to
post
The second impeachment of Trump came *damn* close to succeeding, and likely would have under other conditions where he wasn't about to leave office anyways.
It's idiotic to throw away that potential way out because you want to see Senators get arrested for incitement.
comment in response to
post
Except you get basically the same effect if Trump jails Newsome but without loosing votes in the Senate that you need to convict! Remember, you need two-thirds of Senators to convict, and a bunch of the republicans are nutso Trump loyalists.
comment in response to
post
That's playing *very* loose with words; there's a wide gulf between actually not fighting - which is what the "moderate" faction of the Republican party is doing - and criticizing every action of the Trump administration, which what congressional Dems - INCLUDING SCHUMER - are doing.
comment in response to
post
But Newsome *can take that risk* because, if he gets thrown in jail, it doesn't make impeaching Trump materially harder, which is what would be the case if Schumer were thrown in jail.
comment in response to
post
And Newsome - even as a soulless ghoul who's basically a weathervane for DC media - is actually providing a great example of that! Saying "Well, then arrest me!" is a powerful call of Trump's bluff and - if Trump decides he isn't bluffing, a powerful action, period!
www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/...
comment in response to
post
The key thing, as I keep repeating, is that it isn't sensible to expect congressional Democrats to take dangerous action because they need to pull the impeachment cord the second it becomes available. Risk and Drama *should* be the domain of state-level Democrats right now.
comment in response to
post
That's a simplistic formulation because - even though you criticize him - Schumer *IS* trying to raise alarm and shift public opinion against Trump too.
comment in response to
post
Again, because of the insane appointment of the Senate, that is literally the only option to end this until the midterms. And the midterm Senate map *is not* pretty:
comment in response to
post
That's a stretch.
comment in response to
post
And, yeah, that sucks. It's really unsatisfying. But, because Republicans deciding that it's time to put out the fire is the fastest and easiest way to end this, it's the only sensible option on the table.
comment in response to
post
Again, because of how the Senate works and how the election went, they *CANNOT* reach for the bucket; they need enough Republicans to recognize what's going on and hand them the bucket, and they can't do anything that might potentially offend those Republicans enough that they refuse to do that.
comment in response to
post
Yeah, he deserves criticism for screwing that up, but - again - he didn't stop Booker from pulling the stunt that got tons of news coverage! Which is my point! If anything, your example shows that he should've gotten *EVEN FURTHER OUT OF THE WAY* of someone else taking action and DONE LESS.
comment in response to
post
Again, the circumstances aren't there for them to be doing much more than this! They can't legally stop this, but they need to remain free *to* stop it if part of the Republican caucus decides it's time for it to end.
If you want dramatic action, the Senate is not where to look for it right now.