[jleyank]

Yup. There were supposed to be 3 separate, contentious arms of the government: executive, legislative and judicial. The problem, and I honestly can't see a solution to it, is that the same party/group controls all three and nobody's willing to buck the trend. The "guardrails" are there, it merely turns out they're only weakly enforced.

[SlightlyLeftPad]

Nobody wants to say it.

Yes, the original dream of the U.S. is very clearly a failed experiment with both the legislative and judicial branches essentially extensions of the executive branch. The checks and balances that used to exist have almost completely disappeared. Whatever’s left of those branches are essentially extra entry points for lobbyists and billionaires to fully drive the knife deeper.

It wasn’t actually designed that way but it has slowly manipulated and shaped into that way over a hundred years of stacked up law bloat built with the sole intention to make challenging it impossible for anyone who’s not crazy wealthy.

[johnnyanmac]

Well yes. It's easy to manipulate when you freeze the House for 100 years. That's the biggest reason we keep swinging so much. The House became a mini-senate, and the Senate structure is already something under contention (designed from the beginning to compromise with smaller population states). Now we have a Senate that can change every 2 years. 2 years is simply a bad golf swing for billionaires when they "lose". 2 years of suffering feels eternal for the working class

The Legislature has the most power and the House freeze made it easy to co-opt. you make the house compliant or essentially useless, and you can't impeach anything in the executive nor judicial branches. Freeze the house and you can't really start any legislature to have laws catch up with rampant greed. Or make it easier to lobby into more greed.

We desperately need to expand the house again. I remember saying we should have over 1000 reps with current growth. Maybe starting at 700-800 would be a good start.

[specialist]

Yes and:

The US House campaigns have steadily became more nationalized. Your proposal would reverse that.

I believe, but cannot prove, localism would lead to parliamentary style coalitions (caucus).

[whynotminot]

I don’t know what the solution is, because a fourth branch of government also could be problematic. But it’s becoming a very obvious problem that the justice department is not separate from the executive.

[andsoitis]

> But it’s becoming a very obvious problem that the justice department is not separate from the executive.

The alternatives are probably worse. Every alternative trades political accountability for independence or vice versa.

The alternatives are: An Independent Prosecutorial Branch (a “fourth branch”), OR Prosecutors as Part of the Judicial Branch, OR Congress-Controlled Prosecution, OR Fully Decentralized / Elected Federal Prosecutors.

The US uses a hybrid model of executive control with strong counterweights rather than full independence. This model persists because it maintains democratic accountability, preserves adversarial courts, and allows checks without creating an unaccountable power center.

[efitz]

The justice department IS part of the executive branch; it’s a department headed by a cabinet secretary.

[whynotminot]

Yes? That’s what I said.

[tosapple]

How is that all not part of the judicial branch, e.g. the "courts" ?

[adrian_b]

There are many countries where prosecutors belong to the judicial branch, together with judges.

In USA however, they belong to the Department of Justice, which is a part of the government.

[anon291]

Well... That's only part of the problem.

The real problem is that Congress delegated all its responsibility to the executive and judicial branches.

To the executive branch it gave the power to declare war (war power act), and to make new law (administrative law). Then it created a new branch, the federal reserve, to make monetary policy.

To the judiciary it handed the power of checking the president.

Now Congress does nothing as evidenced by how little actual legislation they've passed while Trump has just done everything via executive order.

But this entire system developed while one party held all three branches but also while the branches were held by different parties.

Since the house is up for election every two years, they have every incentive to delegate so they can wash their hands free of any decision.

[f30e3dfed1c9]

"To the executive branch it gave the power to declare war (war power act), and to make new law (administrative law). Then it created a new branch, the federal reserve, to make monetary policy."

The War Powers Resolution of 1973, aka War Powers Act, does not give the executive power to declare war. On the contrary, it was intended to limit the executive's ability to engage in armed conflict. It says so right at the top:

50 U.S. Code § 1541 - Purpose and policy

It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

One could argue that it hasn't worked all that well, but it is, for example, why George W. Bush got Congress to pass the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 before invading Iraq.

Also, "[t]hen it created a new branch, the federal reserve" is a sort of unusual way to describe something that happened 60 years earlier.

[anon291]

Distinction without a difference on the war powers act

[f30e3dfed1c9]

Maybe, but my point is more that your conception and understanding of these things is terribly confused, incoherent, and just flat wrong.

For your own sake at least, it would be constructive for you to correct that.

[johnnyanmac]

well, it might be bucked. The problem is you can tear down a lot more in 2 years of reckless, lawless land than you can build in 20 years of gridlock. Even 5 years of unanimous cooperation may not be enough at this point to rebuild what's happened, and we're halfway to midterms.

Legistlative will bend and sway as it's been doing for 30 years now. the judicial is the much more concerning branch. EVen if Trump was ousted tomorrow, we're still stuck with a conservative majority for a good 20 years or so without major intervention. The long shot is that Thomas and Alito get convicted. But we'd need huge momentum for that to gain ground, and even then Breyer may pass sooner or later.

Adding to the courts would help, but not solve the underlying issue.

[sheikhnbake]

The trend has been bucked by the fascists currently in power.

[efitz]

What do you mean no one is willing to buck the trend? It’s almost a certainty that Republicans will lose the house this year and maybe the senate.

On the other hand we have federal district court judges in podunk deciding that they have the unilateral ability to stop the president from exercising executive authority. It wouldn’t be so comical if they didn’t ultimately lose in most cases; our judges are the real Constitutional crisis right now.

I have not seen the Trump administration fail to obey a single court order; I just don’t see Trump as a crisis. His policies, you could make a good case. His rhetoric, yes. His official acts, not so much.

[analognoise]

> On the other hand we have federal district court judges in podunk deciding that they have the unilateral ability to stop the president from exercising executive authority

He doesn’t have unlimited executive authority; it makes sense for a judge to be able to determine where that line is. It’s literally their job?

[jleyank]

Depends on where the 11 Airborne goes. Most places outside of existing training sites break treaties or cause civil unrest/volate posse comitatus.

[jamroom]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...

[johnnyanmac]

Very true. The trials against these people better be brutal (assuming they don't all run to Argentina).

It's frustrating now, but having all these cases and cases over ignoring orders is a very important paper trail if we want to civilly resolve all of this. The new DoJ can certainly go after the old one and they have a disgusting amount of cases to comb through to make their case. And a frankly incompetent opposition (it's okay, about 2/3rds of the DOJ quit as of now, I imagine many of the sensible/talented ones realized the incompetence).

[amanaplanacanal]

A new DOJ might be able to go after the old one, except for one problem: the presidential pardon power is absolute, should he choose to use it.

[Supermancho]

> I have not seen the Trump administration fail to obey a single court order

If we can avoid playing word games, the Trump administration has been accused of defying or frustrating court orders at an unprecedented rate, with analyses indicating it failed to comply with approximately one in three judicial rulings against its actions.

Notably in regard to deportations. The administration either acts in defiance of, or appeals until the case is elevated to a sympathetic judge or eventually complies. This is the trend and has been a successful set of tactics so far.

[efitz]

No word games at all.

Every American, even the president, even (gasp) Donald Trump, has the right of appeal of judicial orders and rulings. I could just as well say that people and organizations who oppose Trump's immigration policies go "judge shopping" or "jurisdiction shopping" to find sympathetic judges, which happens all the time (For example, there is absolutely no justification for Judge Boasberg in the DC Circuit to have adjudicated the issue of the deportations from Texas; it should have been a local judge in TX).

Inferior court judges (i.e. judicial branch judges that are not Supreme Court justices), only have judicial authority as granted by Congress, and it's not clear whether they do or should have jurisdiction outside their circuit- the Supreme Court is currently deciding that one. Congress explicitly has denied judicial branch judges from jurisdiction over immigration issues, in favor of immigration judges. I believe that most of the judicial actions against the administration wrt immigration are largely lawless (illegal) actions by judges, but I am very much not worried about Trump because his administration is NOT ignoring court orders.

There is a lot of FUD in the news that you have to do a bit of reading to understand (for example, why district court judges may not lawfully order a halt to a deportation that has been properly adjudicated by an immigration court).

My bottom line is that I don't see a Constitutional crisis in Trump's actions, although I very much see many reasons why many people would be upset; he has a very polarizing personality and demeanor.

[johnnyanmac]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...

This really isn't up for debate. the admin has most certainly ignored court orders.

>Every American, even the president, even (gasp) Donald Trump, has the right of appeal of judicial orders and rulings.

If I even talked the way Blanche and Bondi did in these hearings, I'd instantly be held in contempt and be thrown in jail. let alone the overreach of order applied. Let's not pretend that we are on an equal playing ground here.

>Inferior court judges

I think this phrasing alone says a lot more about you than anything you typed. I bet over Biden you were ranting about how the Supreme Court is corrupt. Just shifting in the sands based on what "your team" is doing, laws be damned.

[Supermancho]

Note:

> No word games at all.

proceeds to play word games

[jamessb]

> I think this phrasing alone says a lot more about you than anything you typed.

I'm not sure it says anything about them: "inferior court" is the term of art for any court whose decisions can be appealed to a higher court [1]. It's not a derogatory term; 'inferior' is just the Latin for 'lower'.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_court

[ipython]

> It’s almost a certainty that Republicans will lose the house this year and maybe the senate.

Unfortunately the state party operatives have started gerrymandering efforts to make this even more difficult.

Trump has absolutely failed to comply with several court orders. The ones I’m aware of relate to Kilmar Garcia’s removal to CECOT.

[efitz]

Where is Garcia now? In the US.

Who brought him back? Trump

[ipython]

https://www.reddit.com/r/minnesota/comments/1qjau6v/bovino_t...

In direct violation of a court order not to use chemical weapons. https://turnto10.com/news/nation-world/judge-rules-against-i...

Not that you care but might as well share.

[ipython]

So it’s ok he was sent to CECOT in violation of an order not to in the first place? The original question was whether Trump ignored court orders. Id say that removing someone against a court order to a third country is a pretty big issue. Even if a year later after a huge public pressure campaign he is temporarily back in the states.

See https://marylandmatters.org/2026/01/16/whats-next-for-maryla...

[mothballed]

He wasn't removed to a third country. He was removed to his home country, illegally, as he had a court order for deportation but per his own request he left open only deportation to a third country because he was granted his petition to bar deportation to El Salvador after his asylum claim failed.

Had he had been shoved out of a C-130 and parachuted into South Sudan, we'd never even be hearing of the guy because that would have been allowed and been in compliance with the deportation order as well as the order blocking deportation to the one country they deported him to.

[ipython]

Sounds like you’ve made my point. Thank you for correcting my mistake on the particulars.

The judge in his case literally said the words “you haven’t complied” to the government attorneys in the case. Not sure how much more I can say.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/16/judge-scolds-trump-...

During the ordeal the government attorneys repeatedly claimed that they had no way to bring him back (although clearly that was a lie as he was returned…)

We have crossed the rubicon so far, the fact we even have to nitpick this is absurd.

[gmd63]

Do you know how ridiculous you sound defending Trump for bringing back a person from a foreign prison that he sent there without due process? Only because he got caught?

The guy operates in bad faith constantly. It's why a huge chunk of his prior administration recommended against voting for him. It's his only edge in life aside from his ability to hypnotize idiots, and it's only an edge because weak willed or complicit people let him get away with it.

[johnnyanmac]

>Where is Garcia now

In the US, for the next month.

Who STILL wants to deport him after this embarrasing fumble of administrative incompetence? Trump

https://marylandmatters.org/2026/01/16/whats-next-for-maryla...

They couldn't bring a single man back and sweep all this under the rug. Trump has to get the last word in. Remember beforehand that they were trying to bribe him to self-deport to a country he wasn't even born in.