US Erection 12 *AND* 16 *AND* 20 *AND* 22 *AND* 24 *AND* Beyond

[5thhorseman]

https://x.com/FarmGirlCarrie/status/201 ... 04980?s=20

That was well articulated.

A good system when it works as designed - sadly, it's going to take a long time to get back to being a functional system.

Can we call it a good system when it has failed this badly? I don't think it will work again without major improvements.

When you consider the chaos that it is actually withstanding, yeah, it’s a good system. Imagine Trump as Prez if it wasn’t in place.

True. I guess it's relative. It was quite good for a few hundred years but now it's not good enough. Even with Trump gone I don't think we're going back to the way things were. Change is needed.

[Cornuck]

Keep in mind that he losing a LOT of court cases, where his policies are shot down. These don't get nearly the press that the initial bluster gets.

[Meds]

Keep in mind that he losing a LOT of court cases, where his policies are shot down. These don't get nearly the press that the initial bluster gets.

That’s a good chunk of what I was referring to.

People aren’t hearing about that up here at all unless they actually go looking for it.

[Meds]

https://x.com/FarmGirlCarrie/status/201 ... 04980?s=20

That was well articulated.

A good system when it works as designed - sadly, it's going to take a long time to get back to being a functional system.

Can we call it a good system when it has failed this badly? I don't think it will work again without major improvements.

When you consider the chaos that it is actually withstanding, yeah, it’s a good system. Imagine Trump as Prez if it wasn’t in place.

True. I guess it's relative. It was quite good for a few hundred years but now it's not good enough. Even with Trump gone I don't think we're going back to the way things were. Change is needed.

I’m what regards (both not going back to and change)?

[5thhorseman]

In what regards (both not going back to and change)?

Referring back to Topper's post, Scalia explained that what made the US so great was not the Bill of Rights, but rather the Constitution, which establishes three branches of government (Legislative, Executive, and Judicial). He contrasted it with European countries which don't have an Executive branch and are thus more prone to centralisation of power (e.g. they can just have a no-confidence vote and replace the Prime Minister any time they want).

I think we've seen that the US is not immune to centralisation of power. It can happen again and most likely will happen again now that the precedent has been set. I'm not sure that a solution can be found in a two-party system.

[Meds]

In what regards (both not going back to and change)?

Referring back to Topper's post, Scalia explained that what made the US so great was not the Bill of Rights, but rather the Constitution, which establishes three branches of government (Legislative, Executive, and Judicial). He contrasted it with European countries which don't have an Executive branch and are thus more prone to centralisation of power (e.g. they can just have a no-confidence vote and replace the Prime Minister any time they want).

I think we've seen that the US is not immune to centralisation of power. It can happen again and most likely will happen again now that the precedent has been set. I'm not sure that a solution can be found in a two-party system.

But I think that’s where the Judiciary branch comes in. As Cornuck reminded us, LOTS of things that Trump (and the House and Senate) are trying to do is getting struck down by the courts.

There’s actually 4 branches in the US…..3 technically but legislative is comprised of 2 parts.

Executive
Senate
House
Judicial

[5thhorseman]

But I think that’s where the Judiciary branch comes in. As Cornuck reminded us, LOTS of things that Trump (and the House and Senate) are trying to do is getting struck down by the courts.

In theory, yes, but the Judiciary is a weak check on power since it's always after the fact, and many times well after the fact. For example, tariffs have been in place for nearly a year now with no decision in sight. Or the legal refugees who were sent to CECOT or Alligator Alcatraz; no judicial decision will make up for what they experienced there. How long will it take for the judiciary to rein in the actions of ICE in Minneapolis (and now Maine)? Things keep ramping up and the judiciary is endlessly playing catch up.

[Topper]

The popular method of ruling the past several years has been to pass what ever populist law you want, then wait for the Courts to over turn it.

Eby has it as his credo, as did Trudeau. Obama, Trump, Biden as well.

The populist thing is to blame the Court, Roe v Wade for example. On this side of the border, our Supreme Court has been stacked with activist Judges making laws instead of interpreting them.

On the US side it is less so with an mix of those who are literalists in interpreting the Constitution, reducing modern issues to base historical analogies and those who try to apply it's principles in modern ways to modern issues.

Then there is Biden's DEI appointment

[Cornuck]

Then there is Biden's DEI appointment

...and trump's DUI appointment

[donlever]

Lol..

Y'all represent a MICROCOSM of American politics....

[5thhorseman]

Then there is Biden's DEI appointment

...and trump's DUI appointment

I assume you mean Kegsbreath. Or is there another one?

[Cornuck]

I assume you mean Kegsbreath. Or is there another one?

Talking about Brett "I like beer" Kavanaugh

[Topper]

Biden's criteria for his Supreme Court appointment was foremost a black woman.

Who didn't like beer when a university student?

[Cornuck]

This is where we're at now - public executions

https://bsky.app/profile/meidastouch.co ... 6llfc34s2q

[Cousin Strawberry]

This is where we're at now - public executions

https://bsky.app/profile/meidastouch.co ... 6llfc34s2q

Shit man.

Maybe you better head back over the northern line til this shiticane blows over