|
|
|
|
|
|
by koolba
498 days ago
|
|
|
> Once the same party controls the Senate, House, Presidency and Supreme Court, the powers are no longer meaningfully separate. Which is now the case. Three out of four of those are the direct will of the voters. And the fourth is the indirect will of the voters as expressed by their President. I think insisting that they always be at odds with each other is unrealistic and goes against the fundamental idea that people have a right to form a government that represents them. It's like insisting that someone who is appointed to run a given department (e.g., Education, Interior, or EPA), is required to promote more spending or expansion of that department. There's no requirement like that and the decision to pare things back and limit the scope of a department again falls in line with the will of the voters. There's no rule that government is only allowed to grow bigger. |
|
|
Sure, but then there's no longer meaningful separation of powers and you've converged on a UK-like system where a majority, no matter how narrow, conveys all the power - but with a politicised court (UK SC is still generally agreed to be nonpolitical).
It's a really serious problem for the US that lots of very important rights like, say, interracial marriage in Loving v Virginia, came about as court cases despite and often against the will of the voters.