[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.