https://www.cbsnews.com/news/epa-employees-warned-of-immedia...
Congress rarely makes spending money it's goal, rather it appropriates money to accomplish some goal. Which is to say that if Congress wants a bridge across a river and appropriate 10 billion to build it, the President is not obligated to spend $10 billion if 7 or 8 or 9 will do. In some cases, Congress does appropriate money toward causes and intends all the money to be spent in furtherance of some guiding principle and in these cases all the money must be spent.
Justice delayed is justice denied.
But I suppose 4 years with Biden/Kamala made it easier to forgive him, for many. Not just the MAGA base, but even swing voters.
Honestly, I think Democrats were contributing to this by the outrage over the January 6 riots. Half the country would consider the BLM riots as equally bad.
If instead, Democrats had focused on Trump's betrayal of Pence and general disregard for the institutions and traditions of the country, a lot more moderates would remain with the Democrats.
But as a foreigner, it seems to me that the prosecution of the Jan 6 rioters, not to mention Trump himself was excessive and overtly politically motivated. And it definitely took attention away from the less spectacular, but far more obviously immoral behavior he definitely, provably WAS guilty of leading up to January 6.
If the anti-Brexit brigade had descended on Downing Street with violence, with nooses swinging, after Boris Johnson in 2019 I personally would consider that far worse than say the riots in London in 2011 or the recent Southport originated ones.
(You hear about it on the Internet as a way to Fight The Man on eg arrests stemming from protests or minor drug charges, but historically it was more often used to absolve white supremacists of murder.)
It seems that most legal systems from the start was intended to codify what was considered "just and fair" in the eyes of "the people".
Juries seem to have been put in place specifically to ensure that the legal system operates within this mandate, and to preven overreach or abuse.
Jury nullification is a weird rule that goes against the constitutional framework, but is so rarely used, at least for any important matter, that it has never really received too much scrutiny.
Rather, juries are generally a mechanism to prevent overreach by the executive (primarily) but also other branches of government (including the legislative branch). Not necessarily by going directly against laws (though that could also happen), but for instance by identifying laws that contradict the principles of the constitution. (Or other "deeper" laws, for that matter.)
Jefferson wrote : "Another apprehension is that a majority cannot be induced to adopt the trial by jury; and I consider that as the only anchor, ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of it’s constitution." [1]
Now, a liberal interpretation of this is that a jury has an independent power, possibly even a duty, to disregard laws they consider to be against the legal basis (constitution, legal traditions, etc) of a country, basically overruling the legislative in such cases.
In fact, this type of thinking is probably a big part of the reason why the SCOTUS will not and can not override many aspects of jury verdicts. Specifically, even the SCOTUS cannot overturn an aquittal.
In other cases (such as when the SCOTUS thinks the jury has violated the constitution, due process hasn't been followed, etc) it will instead invalidate a decision. (Which can lead to the case being dismissed or to a retrial, depending on the details)
[1]: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-15-02-0...
But if you you think there is no risk that the justice system can be misused for such political ends, then I suppose you have the same problems with Biden pardoning Hunter and half his family to protect them from politically motivated prosecution?
Or is it only wrong when Republicans do it?
At minimum I would say that the general public in a general election should have the same power to effetively pardon someone as the President has. After all, the electorate is the basis from which the President draws his power and legitimacy.
And not only for the President, by the way. The legitimacy of the entire system, including both Congress and the Legal System draws its legitimacy from the same source (even if the Constitution is designed to provide protection against short term simple majorities).
If the outcome of the vote cannot be accepted, then that basically means the country cannot remain a democracy.
Personally, I don't think I could have voted for Trump after how he behaved in January 2021 (if I were a citizen). Primarily because of how he betrayed Pence.
But Biden and Kamala sure made it a lot easier for him in 2024 than it would have been if the country had been led by someone like Obama.
Well, Trump made his intentions of prosecuting Fauci, Hunter Biden and many many others more than abundantly clear. He can't whine about Biden protecting people from the threat he himself had announced. (Well, he obviously can and does, and half the population falls for it)
NOFX - "The Idiots Are Taking Over"
Trump's case was a completely constitutional overreach. Thankfully they shot it down fast in court.
Of course, he can't get away with too much alone, but with the right appointees, judges, etc, who knows.
https://newrepublic.com/post/190983/top-treasury-official-qu...
EDIT: apparently Musk succeeded: https://bsky.app/profile/wyden.senate.gov/post/3lh5ejpwncc23
I'm not a legal scholar, but I'm going to guess that saying "congress appropriates money, but the President can decide if they actually get it" is a pretty fringe idea.
I don't even know what more to say. Paradox of tolerance so I'm no even going to pretend to empathize with ideas like"deport the illegals in chains " and ćmy body your choice".
Train v. City of New York isn't a constitutional case. So if Congress controls spending, it's a power they gave to themselves. Any other portion of government could likewise determine they control spending. So maybe it goes back to the SCOTUS because they agree to hear another case about it. Maybe they like the idea that the executive branch controls spending? Or maybe they don't after all. The tell the President to stop doing that. But the president does not. Does Congress pass another law reaffirming they control the power for spending?
If the executive branch is in charge of running the government and they listen to the President & the President decide's they aren't spending any money, who exactly is going to change that? Would Congress fund another department to change this? Would it also just report to the President?
From what I understand it's actually pretty common for the executive branch not to actually be able to spend appropriated money. The simplest case would be if you put out a contract and get no bids on it. There are other cases, like Congress agreeing to fund military submarines for Taiwan. But no one is going to build them internationally and we don't build diesel-electric combat submarines in the US as a matter of policy.
Why are you ok with the president being above the law? That idea was not considered normal even a couple years ago
Now if a president is not doing their job, not improving the lives of the citizens, and doing things for personal gain, that's another matter. That was more of a description of the previous administration, but I know I will probably get some downvotes here for saying so.
Removing data about provably unfair things like DEI is only going to upset people who still are hanging on to any hope that it will return. BTW, I check several of the boxes for DEI, and I'd rather it be gone as well. That ship has sailed and the president decided it is time to move past that phase for the greater good. I wouldn't call that an abuse of power. And even if it was, the same people saying so cried wolf so many times before, that it undermined trust in the system of checks and balances. So here we are.