[Vegenoid]

> The disincentives that have always prevented the executive from blatantly violating the law are still in force and unchanged. They have been functional through 250 years of Presidents testing the limits of their authority.

Can you elaborate on what those disincentives are? I am thinking:

- Impeachment

- Charged with a crime, found guilty, sent to jail. It seems like this one is no longer possible due to Trump v. United States

- Killed by opponents

Without the criminal charges being on the table, those disincentives look a lot weaker to me.

[johnnyanmac]

Similar to Roe v Wade and Chevron, they'd need to overturn Trump v. United States and then charge him with crime (or contempt). So there is a ball in the judicial branch if they get pushed too far. Just extra steps.

The 4th one is us getting a retroactive watergate effect where republicans wake up and approval plummets. There's a non-zero chance Trump steps down if he pisses off everyone.

This only happens with some truly heinous actions that can't be spun. Like, bombing american soil or a ulta-blatant conspiracy with China/Russia. Or you know, him killing Medicare/social security (the most likely actions, given the budget proposal).

[solid_fuel]

>> Similar to Roe v Wade and Chevron, they'd need to overturn Trump v. United States and then charge him with crime (or contempt). So there is a ball in the judicial branch if they get pushed too far. Just extra steps.

_Who_ would charge him with a crime? Prosecution is the responsibility of the Executive branch via the Department of Justice. The only option the court would have is Contempt, and I don't see that being particularly effective.

The only legal avenue this order leaves open is impeachment, and because that requires a 2/3rds majority in the Senate, there's all sorts of ways to prevent it. Even if the republican senators started to oppose him, the DoJ could be used to threaten and investigate senators who step out of line. Or a violent mob could be used to interrupt the impeachment vote.

[johnnyanmac]

>_Who_ would charge him with a crime? Prosecution is the responsibility of the Executive branch via the Department of Justice.

He only needs to piss off two SCOTUS's to start to have the entire book thrown at him. Unlike Congress, Judges tend to be somewhat resiliant to the political atmosphere. That's a lot more viable than congress. Less people to squabble with and people less concerned about losing their job. I woudn't even count out the entire DoJ on this either.They've been denying some of Trump's craziest EO's.

>Or a violent mob could be used to interrupt the impeachment vote.

Good. I'm tired of being blamed for "rebellion" everytime someone stands in front of a building with a sign. Let Jan 6th repeat while all eyes are on the Capitol looking at Trump.

[solid_fuel]

January sixth was an insurrection, that fact is not changed by trump pardoning the traitors who terrorized Congress that day.

[dizzant]

I'm no legal scholar, but sure, I'll elaborate as a layman.

During the Presidency, impeachment and judicial review are the important checks. During the transition of power, state-controlled (as in, not federally controlled) elections and Congressional certification are the important checks.

While many people are disappointed with Congress' hesitation to impeach, impeachment as an institutional protection still works as a protection against blatant disregard of the law. Congress faces the threat of re-election practically constantly, and obvious disregard of the law without impeachment is not in Congress' best interest.

Judicial review is clearly working. I don't need to recap the large number of cases that have be brought against the Trump administration this term. The administration is abiding by stays/injunctions, and the Courts are issuing opinions independently. The Supreme Court, even Trump-appointed Justices, has ruled against Trump before and will likely do it again.

State-level control of Presidential elections and Congressional accountability to the public during certification protect against the spectre of a third Trump term or end of democracy. This scenario is extremely unpopular even among Trump supporters and would be a disaster for those in Congress.

The recent Supreme Court opinion about Presidential immunity in his official capacity explicitly defers and leaves to the lower Courts to determine the precise limits of that official capacity. It is beyond belief that the entire judicial branch would collectively enable dictatorship "bEcAuSe iMmUnItY".