Hacker News Reader

Comment by mc32 | Hacker News Reader

The previous admin also ruled via executive order. It said it would find ways to do things even if struck down by the SCOTUS such as the school loan forgiveness, firearms controls, speech suppression via “embeds” etc.

View on HN

The myth of the Supreme Court having any check on executive power was disproven by the "switch in time to save 9", where Owen Roberts agreed to stop obstructing The New Deal so FDR wouldn't implement court-packing and term limits. That was almost 90 years ago.

If only the conversation could be rooted with this understanding, rather than it being a leaf.

Why is this a bad thing? The New Deal literally created a society that allowed the country to flourish for a solid 50 years before neoliberal economics took hold.

I like the New Deal! My point is that the realpolitik of the court being subservient to the other two "coequal" branches goes back almost 100 years.

Marbury v Madison established judicial review in 1803 but there is no enforcement mechanism. The switch in time shows that practically the Court is subject to the political pressure of Congress and the President.

The Clinton impeachment and the lack of Trump impeachment show (imo) that there is effectively no rule of law in the United States anymore.

Congressional representation is subject to gerrymandering for partisan and racial reasons, and majority control of Congress gives you broad power to pass laws and punish political enemies. Controlling both Congress and the Presidency gives a single party the ability to completely ignore any constitutional boundaries.

America's experiment in multi-racial democracy has failed and their international influence will continue to wane as it has since the 80s. It seems like something that happens "slowly, and then all at once", like bankruptcy.

That’s like saying we shouldn’t hold a drunk driver accountable for his driving because we all had a beer sometimes.

At the same scope and scale?

Can you see a problem here, a failure of the intended system of checks and balances?

Nobody cares if an admin "rules via executive order". What we care about is whether they rule according to the law. That is, for example: the administration is free to fire whoever it wants from the civil service as long as it follows the laws about how and when this is done. This administration, however, has repeatedly fired federal employees without following the law.

In more than 85% of cases brought against the administration, lower courts have ruled that the administration has broken the law.

So, you can decide if you think SCOTUS overruling those decisions is an indication of a problem, or justice winning out.

I also don't care when an administration says "We will find a way to ...." - I care about whether they do so, and do so in accordance with the law. The Biden administration followed SCOTUS rulings on its orders, and AFAIK, did not find workarounds for any of the things you mention.

Biden signed about 150 executive orders across his term.

Guess how many trump has done since just last year...

And Obama did this. See his famous pen and phone quote:

"We are not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we're providing Americans the kind of help that they need. I've got a pen, and I've got a phone. And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward.."

What Obama didn't say: I don't care about what the courts say, the courts are bad people, the only law that matters is me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com