[russellbeattie]

> "...would drastically shift power."

What exactly do you think will change? The administration is already ignoring the law with impunity. Unless there's a big enough swing so that impeachment and conviction is a reality, Congress will have essentially zero impact.

Around 40% of the country still supports the president unconditionally. They are truly ecstatic with what's happened so far. The other 60% are being gerrymandered so their majority status is inconsequential. If Republicans do lose the House, it'll most likely be by a small margin, and the current Congress will rush through a bunch of laws to be signed that will make the next one as useless as possible.

And even if there was in fact a huge swing allowing Congress to try and stop the White House's wrecking ball, the amount of damage between now and January 2027 will be monumental and irreversible.

[ethbr1]

I know it's vogue to construct a view in which depression and inaction are the only logical conclusions, but that ain't our reality.

> The administration is already ignoring the law with impunity

Can you provide an example where they've ignored a Supreme Court ruling?

And the histrionics around this are uniquely relative to modern norms. Look up the shenanigans around Marbury v Madison https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison#Backgroun...

Joisting for power between federal branches (and with states, historically) has been a constant in American democracy more often (most of its history) than not (1970s+).

> Around 40% of the country still supports the president unconditionally

Yes, such is the danger of personality cults in democracies.

> The other 60% are being gerrymandered so their majority status is inconsequential.

Gerrymandering has always been a finger on the scales of elections, and will continue to be, until such time as Congress puts a stop to it (though debatable they have the power). https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/

> the amount of damage between now and January 2027 will be monumental and irreversible.

I imagine FDR's ghost is spinning in his grave, with things to say about Hoover.

[hn_acker]

> Can you provide an example where they've ignored a Supreme Court ruling?

How about the case where the Supreme Court told the administration to obey a lower court's order and facilitate Kilmar Abrego Garcia's return to the US [1]? The Trump administration openly defied the Supreme Court's order for nearly 2 months (April 11 to June 6) [2][3]. Setting aside whether the "temporary" violation of a Supreme Court order has been legally resolved, the administration brought Garcia back to press (hypocritical and doubtful) human smuggling charges to justify deporting Garcia again, and a judge let Garcia stay in jail for longer otherwise necessary because the judge thought the administration would deport Garcia before he could have his trial [4].

[1] https://www.techdirt.com/2025/04/11/even-the-supreme-court-s...

[2] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_Kilmar_Abrego_G...

[4] https://apnews.com/article/abrego-garcia-deportation-immigra...

[ethbr1]

"Facilitate" was a weasel word that the Supreme Court knew would allow the administration to play as it wished, hence why it was affirmed by this Court.

If the Supreme Court had wanted to order him back immediately, it would have done so.

The facts are that this administration has skated on and just over the line with regards to lower courts, especially in matters of immigration, but has yet to ignore a directive from the Supreme Court.

If you're aware of an actual example, feel free to provide it.

[russellbeattie]

I could respond in detail to each pedantic item, but you seem knowledgeable enough to know them already, so here's a summary: There's plenty of non-SCOTUS laws that have been ignored. The gerrymandering is being nationally coordinated. Comparing Trump to Hoover is farcical and you know it.

The word "histrionic" is what really got me though. We're well past the stage where anyone deeply cynical about the state of things and the foreseeable future can be accused of histrionics. And we're way beyond any previous historical analogies.

My whole point is that the damage to the country is permanent. Whether it'll eventually destroy the Union has yet to be determined.

[ethbr1]

Histrionic: deliberately affected, overly dramatic or emotional

I.e. anyone who believes that adjectives suffice where facts fail

There are things that are not happening and things that are happening. Trying to phrase the former into the latter doesn't do anything but hasten a post-truth era.