[darth_avocado]

DOGE is not illegal. However the legality of some of the things they do is under question. The current government, including DOGE is being operated like “Just do as many things as possible, so that the lawsuits can’t keep up”. While lawyers are busy trying to stop big things, many small but important items will slip through the cracks and will take decades to undo.

Edit: BTW this strategy has always been available, it’s just that career politicians aren’t incentivized to do this for “good” because they want long political careers.

[randallsquared]

> it’s just that career politicians aren’t incentivized to do this for “good” because they want long political careers.

That's not why: Reagan, Clinton, W, and Obama all had the opportunity for sweeping changes of this magnitude without regard to further political careers, but none of them wanted to make radical changes. Their view of the US government (even Reagan's!) was "basically doing a good job, but maybe needs a tweak". The current administration does not appear to share this view, though we'll see how that goes.

[nitwit005]

The presidents aren't kings. They need congressional support to get anything major done. They rarely support sweeping changes.

And more recently, congress essentially won't do anything, period. Either because the president is not of their party, or more recently, chaos within the Republican party itself.

Which is why you see presidents trying to do things with executive orders, but typically the courts (correctly) block overreach there. Trump is busy accumulating court rulings against his administration.

[ty6853]

A simplified view: since FDR the main difference in presidential action is whether to crank progress at 1 or 11 in the ever expanding book of regulations, favored tax nook and crannies, and various benefits plans for pay-to-play voters like SS recipients.

Trump is threatening to turn that knob to -1 or lower, for good or ill.

[shafyy]

> BTW this strategy has always been available, it’s just that career politicians aren’t incentivized to do this for “good” because they want long political careers.

Or, you know, maybe it's also because politicians who are not total psychos don't want to fuck over an entire country for their own gains.

[gitaarik]

Yes, or the psychos that were in control before were very happy with how the money machine was running for them, so they didn't need to change anything.

Now that some other psychos are taking over, the people that got used to the previous psychos are uneasy because change it not easy, especially rigorous change.

But maybe this will make people actually realize that the system was always flawed. The current administration just exposes that.

[shafyy]

How can you even compare the level of psycho-ness of the Biden administration to the Trump administration?

[jklinger410]

> While lawyers are busy trying to stop big things, many small but important items will slip through the cracks and will take decades to undo.

So the government is designed in such a way that someone can do illegal things without those currently running the systems simply saying "no?"

They have the power to do the things, and then we have to wait for it to be litigated. Watching the cases against Trump drop like flies after he got elected, knowing the Supreme Court is packed full of members of one party. This doesn't seem like a reliable solution.

[darth_avocado]

Yes. That’s how branches of government are set up. Judicial and legislative branches are supposed to keep the executive branch in check. Judicial branch is right now working to keep things in check but it will take time, resources and money to address every small thing. Opening the floodgates is a good strategy to overwhelm this branch. Which is where the legislative branch comes in. If they see the executive branch over reaching, you act to stop it. But our legislative branch is not acting (on both sides of the aisle). Btw this is the same problem a lot of modern democracies are facing and is not unique to the US.

[jfengel]

One side of the aisle is powerless. They can make speeches, but all legislative progress requires the approval of the Speaker of the House. Who will refer any legislation to a committee, which is also controlled by a committee chair of the same party.

[darth_avocado]

I don’t buy that argument because that side of the aisle has been voting with the other side on pretty much everything in the new term. I also don’t buy this argument because like I said in my original comment, the tactic of using presidential powers in this way was always available, including when this side of the aisle had the majority.

[ty6853]

Judicial branch has basically no enforcement. They can judge all they like, if the other branches or even states tell them to shove it up their ass, what can they do?

Not long ago Hawaii told the Supreme Court 'spirit of aloha' and the broken paddle trumps _Bruen_. And nothing stops them, the Supreme court has a few armed marshalls and little else.

[darth_avocado]

Yes that does happen and ideally the executive branch is responsible for enforcement, which creates an opportunity for the President to say no. But that undermines the courts and affects the faith people have in the Judicial system. The ramifications of that trust eroding are far and wide, and the economy would take a massive hit. People will then vote differently in 2 years and hope the legislative branch does its job.

One thing to also consider is that sometimes, the execution of the court orders will rely on local governments and locally elected officials in local enforcement bodies (like the Sheriff’s Office or the local PD). In that case, enforcement will vary across the country.

[intended]

The government isn't designed for one party to decide to play winner take all politics. It was assumed that people would find a way to work together, not that one party could punish bipartisanship within its own ranks, and then be rewarded for it.

Furthermore America has been moving towards this for decades. There has been openly shared plans on how this was to be achieved, for multiple different stages. From stacking the courts, to gerry mandering, to creating Fox, to strategies to stack the SC, to more recently project 2025.

---

I am feeling dumb for having to mention this, after re-reading your message. Am i right in suspecting you are aware of these strategies and are driving to a specific point?

[timeon]

> It was assumed that people would find a way to work together

This is not in line with first-past-the-post voting system. If you want to have "people work together" you need coalitions.

[mrguyorama]

The late 1700s predate most mathematical analysis of voting systems.

[intended]

Congress deadlock is part of that idea, that people have to find common cause to work together.

[gkoberger]

Yes.

If Elon says one thing and someone else thinks the opposite, it comes down to a battle of wills... and Elon doesn't back down. Sure, it can go to the courts, but the courts only matter if they're listened to or enforced. Neither of which will happen here.

[jfengel]

Yes. Precisely.

It's not reliable. It worked because Presidents had always been decent about it. The alternative would be to tie the system even further into knots, just to avoid a problem that would require cartoonish villainy.

Until now.

[timeon]

What would you expect from system that did not change much since 18th century? As example France had like 5 iterations in between.

[dangus]

lol, DOGE is obviously illegal. Trump created a fake department of the government without congressional appropriation of funds.

[darth_avocado]

Not everything in the government needs congressional appropriation of funds.

[dangus]

How do DOGE employees get paid?

If the answer is “they don’t” then they aren’t government employees or contractors and shouldn’t be inside private areas of government buildings and systems.

If the answer is anything else then it’s either a misappropriation of funds or an illegal private pay scheme.