#from the executive to the judicial and legislative branches

[a-god-in-ruins-rises]

Well maybe now congress will actually do its job and pass laws.

that's a HUGE maybe. congress is dysfunctional and inefficient and unwieldy. it is constantly mired in petty politics, mindless bickering, and perpetual gridlock. Really smart leaving the day-to-day regulations that govern the nation up to them! Then, when they eventually do get around to passing oppressively narrow regulations y'all will complain about how impossible it is to remove said regulations.

[wilwheaton]

The violent attack on Congress on 6 January 2021, and all the ancillary attempts to steal the 2020 election, were a coup attempt led from the executive branch of the federal government with support from Republicans in the legislative branch. 1 July 2024 – this Thursday – was a more successful coup attempt orchestrated by six judges of the judicial branch. “With fear for our democracy, I dissent,” wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor in an opinion joined by justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan, after the US supreme court’s conservative majority ruled that Donald Trump holds “absolute immunity” for “official acts” done while president. Part of what’s shocking about the state of the union right now is that an entire party and the US supreme court’s conservative majority have abandoned almost everything – the truth, the rule of law, their own legitimacy, their place in history and the fate of the nation – to serve one man. They could not have picked a more outrageous man to throw their weight and reputations behind – a psychotic clown who’s also an indicted felon found liable in civil court for sexual assault, barred from doing business in New York, a stealer of state secrets, a would-be thief of an election and the instigator of a violent attack on the legislative branch of government and the constitutionally mandated transition of power after an election. A grifter who in 2016 won a minority victory in a corrupted election – his conviction earlier this year was on charges for one small part of that corruption. A man who has gloated about seizing dictatorial powers and never letting go and a worshiper of tyrants denounced by dozens of his former cabinet members and senior staffers. January 6 was an attack on the constitution and so was 1 July. That no one is above the law has been a pillar of this nation and a cherished value since the 18th century; to knock it down in the 21st destabilizes structures and values that have stood these two centuries and more. A president with total immunity poses obvious threats to the rule of law, the balance of powers and democracy itself, and if that president is the vindictive criminal on the Republican ticket the dangers are immediate and obvious.

The US supreme court just completed Trump’s January 6 coup attempt

[beauty-funny-trippy]

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, along with the other two Democrat-appointed justices, powerfully said in the dissenting opinion: the Supreme Court has made “a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.”

"When [a president] uses his official powers in any way, under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune,... In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law," wrote Justice Sotomayor.

This corrupt, extreme far-right Supreme Court has just opened the gates and paved the road for a fascist America. It means politicians, judges, their families, etc., will be in fear if they speak out against the president, or don't do what he wants, they could be arrested or killed. If you protest, you and your family could be imprisoned or shot.

When the Executive branch of government has the power to threaten members of the Legislative and Judicial branches, all "checks and balances" preventing the abuse of power have been destroyed.

Why isn't anyone losing their minds that Biden could now become a dictator or order assassinations? Because everyone knows he is a decent man who would never do such a thing.

However, if Donald Trump wins this election, there is literally nothing to stop him from fulfilling his heart's desire and becoming America's first dictator. He, and any future president, can now, legally, stage a military coup and hold on to power for life and his vice president would be the next to reign for the rest of their life. No more real elections.

Now, more than ever, Donald Trump is a clear and present danger to America.

In this election, not voting, is a dangerous choice.

[odinsblog]

The Supreme Court fundamentally altered the way that our federal government functions on Friday, transferring an almost unimaginable amount of power from the executive branch to the federal judiciary. By a 6–3 vote, the conservative supermajority overruled Chevron v. NRDC, wiping out four decades of precedent that required unelected judges to defer to the expert judgment of federal agencies. The ruling is extraordinary in every way—a massive aggrandizement of judicial power based solely on the majority’s own irritation with existing limits on its authority. After Friday, virtually every decision an agency makes will be subject to a free-floating veto by federal judges with zero expertise or accountability to the people. All at once, SCOTUS has undermined Congress’ ability to enact effective legislation capable of addressing evolving problems and sabotaged the executive branch’s ability to apply those laws to the facts on the ground. It is one of the most far-reaching and disruptive rulings in the history of the court.

In Chevron, the court unanimously announced an important principle of law that governed the nation until Friday: When a federal statute is ambiguous, courts should defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of it. Why? Congress delegates countless important calls to agencies—directing the EPA, for instance, to limit harmful benzene emissions, rather than providing the precise formula to determine what level of benzene emissions is harmful to humans. Congress writes statutes broadly because it expects these agencies to respond to new facts and adjust their enforcement accordingly.

Crucially, these agencies are staffed with experts who have deep knowledge and experience in the area where Congress seeks to regulate. Such experts can understand and execute regulations more proficiently than federal judges, who are, at best, dilettantes in most fields of regulation. For example, an EPA scientist is unlikely to confuse nitrous oxide (laughing gas) with nitrogen oxide (a smog-causing emission), as Justice Neil Gorsuch did in a Thursday opinion blocking an EPA rule. Moreover, most agencies are staffed with political appointees whom the president can appoint and remove at will. That makes them far more accountable to the citizenry than federal judges, who are guaranteed life tenure no matter how badly they butcher the law.

Since 1984, federal courts have applied Chevron in about 18,000 decisions in every conceivable area of the law: energy policy, education, food and drug safety, labor, the environment, consumer protection, finance, health care, housing, law enforcement—the list is pretty much endless. It has become the background principle against which Congress enacts all legislation.

That all ends now.

(continue reading)

[contemplatingoutlander]

"The gerrymandering alone undermines Wisconsin’s status as a democracy. If a majority of the people cannot, under any realistic circumstances, elect a legislative majority of their choosing, then it’s hard to say whether they actually govern themselves."

--Jamelle Bouie, Opinion Columnist, The New York Times

Jamelle Bouie points out the disturbing way that Republicans in Wisconsin have basically destroyed democratic representative government on all levels by:

Creating an unbreakable gerrymander to ensure a Republican legislative majority, even if more people vote for Democrats.

Weakening the power of a Democratic governor,.

Targeting a liberal Wisconsin supreme court justice for removal or suspension so that the state SC won't have the power to rule against gerrymandered districting maps, and won't be able to prevent a 19th century ban on abortion from becoming law.

This is chilling. Below are some excerpts from the column:

For more than a decade, dating back to the Republican triumph in the 2010 midterm elections, Wisconsin Republicans have held their State Legislature in an iron lock, forged by a gerrymander so stark that nothing short of a supermajority of the voting public could break it. [...] In 2018, this gerrymander proved strong enough to allow Wisconsin Republicans to win a supermajority of seats in the Assembly despite losing the vote for every statewide office and the statewide legislative vote by 8 percentage points, 54 to 46. No matter how much Wisconsin voters might want to elect a Democratic Legislature, the Republican gerrymander won’t allow them to. [...] Using their gerrymandered majority, Wisconsin Republicans have done everything in their power to undermine, subvert or even nullify the public’s attempt to chart a course away from the Republican Party. In 2018, for example, Wisconsin voters put Tony Evers, a Democrat, in the governor’s mansion, sweeping the incumbent, Scott Walker, out of office. immediately, Wisconsin Republicans introduced legislation to weaken the state’s executive branch, curbing the authority that Walker had exercised as governor. Earlier this year, Wisconsin voters took another step toward ending a decade of Republican minority rule in the Legislature by electing Janet Protasiewicz, a liberal Milwaukee county judge, to the State Supreme Court, in one of the most high-profile and expensive judicial elections in American history. [...] “Republicans in Wisconsin are coalescing around the prospect of impeaching a newly seated liberal justice on the state’s Supreme Court,” my newsroom colleague Reid J. Epstein reports. “The push, just five weeks after Justice Janet Protasiewicz joined the court and before she has heard a single case, serves as a last-ditch effort to stop the new 4-to-3 liberal majority from throwing out Republican-drawn state legislative maps and legalizing abortion in Wisconsin.” Republicans have more than enough votes in the Wisconsin State Assembly to impeach Justice Protasiewicz and just enough votes in the State Senate — a two-thirds majority — to remove her. But removal would allow Governor Evers to appoint another liberal jurist, which is why Republicans don’t plan to convict and remove Protasiewicz. If, instead, the Republican-led State Senate chooses not to act on impeachment, Justice Protasiewicz is suspended but not removed. The court would then revert to a 3-3 deadlock, very likely preserving the Republican gerrymander and keeping a 19th-century abortion law, which bans the procedure, on the books. If successful, Wisconsin Republicans will have created, in effect, an unbreakable hold on state government. With their gerrymander in place, they have an almost permanent grip on the State Legislature, with supermajorities in both chambers. With these majorities, they can limit the reach and power of any Democrat elected to statewide office and remove — or neutralize — any justice who might rule against the gerrymander. [color/emphasis added[

"It’s that breathtaking contempt for the people of Wisconsin — who have voted, since 2018, for a more liberal State Legislature and a more liberal State Supreme Court and a more liberal governor, with the full powers of his office available to him — that makes the Wisconsin Republican Party the most openly authoritarian in the country."

--Jamelle Bouie, Opinion Columnist, The New York Times

[edited]

[simply-ivanka]

Harris and Schumer Target the Supreme Court

Democrats make clear that if they win, they’ll push measures to destroy the judiciary’s independence.

By 

David B. Rivkin Jr. and Andrew M. Grossman -- Wall Street Journal

Democrats have made clear that if they win the presidency and Congress in November, they will attempt to take over the Supreme Court as well. Shortly after ending his re-election campaign, President Biden put forth a package of high-court “reforms,” including term limits and a “binding” ethics code designed to infringe on judicial authority. Kamala Harris quickly signed on, and Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has made clear that bringing the justices to heel is a top priority.

Democrats proclaim their devotion to democratic institutions, but their plan for the court is an assault on America’s basic constitutional structure. The Framers envisioned a judiciary operating with independence from influences by the political branches. Democratic “reform” proposals are designed to change the composition of the court or, failing that, to influence the justices by turning up the political heat, as President Franklin D. Roosevelt achieved with his failed 1937 court-packing plan.

Now as then, the court stands between a Democratic administration and its ambitions. The reformers’ beef is precisely that the court is doing its job by enforcing constitutional and statutory constraints on the powers of Congress and the executive branch.

Roosevelt sought to shrug off limits on the federal government’s reach. What’s hamstrung the Obama and Biden administrations is the separation of powers among the branches. President Obama saw his signature climate initiative, the Clean Power Plan, stayed by the court, which later ruled that it usurped Congress’s lawmaking power. The Biden administration repeatedly skirted Congress to enact major policies by executive fiat, only for the courts to enjoin and strike them down. That includes the employer vaccine mandate, the eviction moratorium and the student-loan forgiveness plan.

That increasingly muscular exercises of executive power have accompanied the left’s ascendance in the Democratic Party coalition is no coincidence. The legislative process entails compromise and moderation, which typically cuts against radical goals. That was the lesson self-styled progressives took from ObamaCare, which they’ve never stopped faulting for failing to establish a government medical-insurance provider to compete directly with private ones. Similarly, Congress has always tailored student-loan relief to reward public service and account for genuine need.

Then there’s the progressive drive for hands-on administration of the national economy by “expert” agencies empowered to make, enforce and adjudicate the laws. The Supreme Court has stood as a bulwark against the combination of powers that James Madison pronounced “the very definition of tyranny.” Decisions from the 2023-24 term cut back on agencies’ power to make law through aggressive reinterpretation of their statutory authority, to serve as judge in their own cases, and to evade judicial review of regulations alleged to conflict with statute. By enforcing constitutional limits on the concentration of power in agencies, the Roberts court has fortified both democratic accountability and individual liberty.

That explains the Democratic Party’s attacks on the court. The New York Times’s Jamelle Bouie recently praised Mr. Biden for identifying the court as the “major obstacle to the party’s ability” to carry out its agenda and commended the president’s “willingness to challenge the Supreme Court as a political entity.” That explains the ginned-up “ethics” controversies: The aim is to discredit the court, as has become the norm in political warfare.

An even bigger lie is the refrain that the court is “out of control” and “undemocratic.” Consider the most controversial decisions of recent terms. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) returned the regulation of abortion to the democratic process. West Virginia v. EPA(2022) and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) constrained agencies’ power to say what the law is, without denying Congress’s power to pursue any end. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy (2024) elevated the Seventh Amendment right to a jury in fraud cases over the SEC’s preference to bring such cases in its own in-house tribunals. And Trump v. U.S. (2024), the presidential immunity ruling, extended the doctrine of Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982) to cover criminal charges as well as lawsuits, without altering the scope of presidential power one iota.

Meanwhile, the administrative state has scored wins in some of this year’s cases. In Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association, the justices rejected a challenge to the CFPB’s open-ended funding mechanism. A ruling to the contrary could have spelled the agency’s end. In Moody v. NetChoice, it reversed a far-reaching injunction restricting agencies’ communications with social-media companies seeking to censor content. And in Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, it reversed another injunction, against the FDA over its approval of an abortion pill. The last two decisions were notable as exercises of judicial restraint. In both cases, the court found the challengers lacked standing to sue.

What Mr. Biden, Ms. Harris, Mr. Schumer and their party are attempting to do is wrong and dangerous. They aim to destroy a branch of federal government. For faithfully carrying out its role, the court faces an unprecedented attack on its independence, beyond even Roosevelt’s threats. Unlike then, however, almost every Democratic lawmaker and official marches in lockstep, and the media, which were skeptical of Roosevelt’s plan, march with them.

As Alexander Hamilton observed, the “independence of the judges” is “requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals” from the actions of “designing men” set on “dangerous innovations in the government.” The political branches have forgone their own obligation to follow the Constitution, which makes the check of review by an independent judiciary all the more essential. Ms. Harris and Mr. Schumer would put it under threat.

Mr. Rivkin served at the Justice Department and the White House Counsel’s Office in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. Mr. Grossman is a senior legal fellow at the Buckeye Institute. Both practice appellate and constitutional law in Washington.

[brf-rumortrackinganon]

I would be very interested to learn more about how the elections change the balance of power in the civil service. I am in UK so a run down end to end of US election would be handy if you care to share and not send me to google.

Lame I know, but I watched the Good Wife and was interested to glean from that a little about US politics and donors etc.

So a handful of anons have asked for more info about elections. Since it's a pretty timely event...since, you know...I decided it gets to jump the queue.

This is going to be a verrrrrry long ask so consider yourselves warned. I'll put a cut in.

First some really elementary background about the US government and elections.

The US has 3 branches of government: the judicial branch (interprets the law), the legislative branch (makes the law), and the executive branch (enforces the law). This is both at the federal level and at the state level. 

The legislative branch serves in terms of 2 years (in the House) or 6 years (in the Senate). There are no term limits. The executive branch serves in terms of 3 years. The President is term-limited and can serve no more than 2 4-year terms, except when a President takes office under the 25th Amendment. If a president assumes office under the 25th amendment, then they can serve up to 10 years: two years of their predecessor’s remaining term plus their own full two four-year terms (2+4+4). The judicial branch is a lifetime appointment.

Every 2 years is a major federal election. The easiest way to keep it straight is to use the Olympics. If it’s a Summer Olympics year (2020, 2024, 2028, etc.), then it’s a presidential election - we’re voting on the President, all members in the House of Representatives, and a third of the Senate. If it’s a Winter Olympics year (2022, 2026, 2030, etc.), it’s a midterm election - we’re voting for all members of the House of Representatives and a third of the Senate, and it’s usually seen as a referendum on the President. If the country likes what the President is doing, they’ll usually vote for the President’s party to take power in Congress. If the country doesn’t like what the President is doing, they’ll vote for the opposite party to take power in Congress.

Serious challengers or candidates expecting a competitive primary season will start around 2 years before the election though they may not declare their intent to run at that time. An incumbent seeking reelection typically starts their campaign 1 year before the election because it’s not a competitive primary since the incumbent is the leader of the party so the party machine backs him (as we saw this year with Biden; he announced he was seeking reelection so all the serious challengers backed off and the Democrats got into the mess they did with the debate and nomination).

So that said, here’s how elections work. This is a really broad and high overview. It outlines the process to run for president and it's pretty similar to what members of Congress and state governors have to do (minus national conventions and the Electoral College).

1 - Form an Exploratory Committee (1-2 years before the actual election)

The candidate forms an exploratory committee. It’s usually made up of their closest advisors who do research about the issues, contact potential donors, and conduct internal polling about what kind of support or approval the candidate might have and what concerns the populace might have about the candidate. This is usually 1-2 years before the election.There is usually no financing or actual exchanges of money happening in this phase. 

2 - Set up the money (1-2 years before the election; usually after the Exploratory Committee convenes)

The exploratory committee sets up a PAC and starts accepting donations/financing the candidate. This is critical: you can’t run for president without having the financials set up and someone who’s setting up a financial system, whether it be a PAC or some other kind of tool, is usually going to run. Political reporters pay a lot of attention to this phase and have sometimes scooped an actual campaign announcement by watching the money.

3 - Declare your candidacy

Candidate makes a formal announcement/declaration of running for election and kicks off their campaign. This almost always is a big media press conference. It usually comes with a paperwork filing of some kind.

4 - Primary Campaigning (2 years - 6ish months before Election Day)

The candidate begins campaigning. It’s important to note that they’re not actually running for president just yet; they’re running for their party’s nomination to run for president in the election.The nominations are chosen based on primary elections and caucuses. All states have different filing deadlines to be eligible for primaries and caucuses.

One year before the election, official primary season starts. It kicks off with televised debates in the autumn/early winter. In primary season, candidates are running against other candidates from their own parties. The Republican/conservative party will have their own primary system and debates, which are separate from the Democrat/liberal party primary system and debates. The goal for primary season is to get the most delegates from all the states to win the party's nomination. (To win the Republican party’s nomination for president in 2024, a candidate needed ~1,200 delegates. To win the Democratic party’s nomination, a candidate needed just under 2,000 delegates.) Delegates are awarded based on the results of the state’s primary or caucus.

Actual primary season (aka when everyone votes on who the party's candidate should be) is January - June of the election year. There is an order to when the states have their primaries. By law, Iowa and New Hampshire go first but that seems to be changing (but that’s also why everyone who runs for president will spend a crazy amount of time and money in Iowa because traditionally in a competitive primary, whoever wins Iowa will often be the party’s nomination). Super Tuesday is another big day to pay attention to - it’s usually the first Tuesday of March when a big number of states will hold their primaries. Super Tuesday is usually do-or-die time for campaigns; if the candidate isn’t doing well and doesn’t have a high delegate count, they’ll drop out after Super Tuesday and endorse one of the front runners (which usually means that candidate’s supporters will likely shift to vote for the endorsed candidate, which is also when we see the campaigns start negotiating for platform issues or convention appearances or even VP slots).

The “drop out and endorse” scheme happens all throughout primary season and it’s how the party to gets to a frontrunner - that’s also why the states at the beginning of the primary season have more power and influence over who the nominee will be, hence the push to diversify the order of the state primaries.

Primaries are usually partisan. Some states require you to be a registered member of the party in order to vote in the primary. Other states require you to choose a party ballot in order to vote - my state, Virginia, holds the presidential primaries on the same day and when you check in to get your ballot, you have to declare whether you want a republican ballot or a democratic ballot.

There's a separate process for third-party candidates (like for the Green Party), but I'm not as familiar with that process. I do know that some states only allow third-party candidates to be on the Election Day ballot only and there's a petition/paperwork requirement they have to meet to be eligible for the ballot, but that's the extent of my knowledge there.

5 - Pick your running mate

Announcement of the Vice President running mate. At the same time the candidates are running for primary delegates, they’re also deciding on who their running mate will be. The VP pick announcement will happen anytime between when the candidate becomes the frontrunner/meets the minimum delegate requirement and the convention. The VP pick must be announced before the convention because the convention has to formally nominate the official slate for a vote in order for the ticket to become the party’s nominee. (The VP running mate is chosen at the president’s discretion based on advice by party leadership and advisors. The public or convention delegates do not vote or have a say in who the VP running mate is; it used to be that the second-place finisher in the electoral college became the VP but that was changed after the Election of 1800 and if that sounds familiar…congratulations, you might have a slight Hamilton obsession.)

6 - National Party Nominating Conventions

Each party has their own convention. These take place in July and August (the parties alternate which convention is held first). They are week-long events where the party comes together to learn the candidate’s platform, hear their take on the issues, listen to their plans and policy proposals, and often is the first time that most people will hear from the VP running mate. The conventions are also where the state delegates will submit their formal nominations for president. This is done as part of the convention’s formal daily business. An informal version of this process – called roll call – happens during the convention’s evening schedule for the television broadcast. It’s a chance for all the states to show their support for the candidate. The candidate with the most delegates (or who has surpassed the minimum delegate requirement) gets the nomination and on the last day of the convention during the primetime/evening TV broadcast, they will officially and formally accept the nomination to be the party’s presidential candidate and the campaign for the presidential election officially kicks off.

7 - Official President Campaign (3 months before Election Day to Election Day)

Presidential Campaign Season. Officially, it runs from the formal acceptance speech by the candidate at the second convention through Election Day (the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, and that’s set in law). Unofficially, it runs from the emergence of the first solid front-runner (or the challenger apparent if the incumbent is running for reelection) through Election Day - hence why it’s important to be the first party to have a solid frontrunner that everyone else coalesces around; the sooner you have your act together, the sooner you can start campaigning against the other party and the longer it takes your party to get their act together, the easier the opposition can portray you as divided and unprepared to govern. Voting will start during this time, usually in September by absentee voting (mail-in voting) or early voting but the rules for early voting vary from state to state. Also during this time, the federal government will start preparations for a presidential transition and planning for the inauguration.

8 - Election Day: the first Tuesday following the first Monday of November

Election Day is the last day to vote and when most people will vote. Polls close 7-8pm in each time zone (and it also varies by state) but that’s a little bit of a misnomer. What’s actually happening is the queue to vote closes. As long as you are in line before the queue closes at 7-8pm, you will be allowed to vote (hence why on Election Day, everyone on social media will be yelling into the void “if you are in line, stay in line” and apparently that’s now a meme). If you are voting by mail-in ballot, then as long as your ballot is postmarked no later than Election Day, it will also be counted, even if it’s not delivered for a couple of days. All the American media on Election Day will be about the election, results, and exit polling. They’ll start calling official results when the polls begin closing and election offices start reporting/posting votes. Election results are called when a majority of the precincts are reporting a majority of their tabulated votes and the science behind how they calculate that is actually pretty proprietary to the different television networks/decision desks. 

So when we vote in a presidential election, we’re not actually voting for the president. We’re voting for delegates (aka electors) who will vote for the president. The delegates form the Electoral College and each state is apportioned electors based on their Congressional representation (number of Senate members + number of House members = number of electors; also the total size of Congress). A candidate needs the majority of electors to win the election; there are 535 total electoral votes, so the majority is 270 and how a campaign gets to 270 electoral votes is called Electoral College Math, which is very much a real science and discipline of study in US politics. A candidate can win the popular vote (where everyone’s vote is counted 1:1) but lose the electoral vote - we saw this in 2000 and 2016 - which makes the Electoral College very controversial nowadays.

So let’s talk about Election Day results and votes for a quick minute. Up until the polls close, all results are unofficial and all the results are based on exit polls (pollsters and reporters who stand outside the polling stations and ask people “who’d you vote for” as they leave). And since 2020 (when the pandemic led to many states making early voting more accessible), exit poll data is actually skewed to Republicans/conservatives because more republicans vote in-person on Election Day. More Democrats/liberals vote early or by mail-in ballot and by many states’ laws, early voting and mail-in ballots cannot be tabulated or calculated until after polls close. So the results that are reported during exit polls and immediately after polls close will skew to the right. Then when early votes are calculated and absentee ballots are added, the results can sometimes change dramatically (and that was a huge reason why the 2020 election was so contested; because what pre-election polls and exit polls were saying were completely different than what the actual results were showing).

Excluding the 2020 election, Americans usually wake up on Wednesday morning knowing who the next president is and what kind of Congress they will have even though the official results and official tallies may still be ongoing. (In many states, if the difference between candidates is within a certain percentage, it triggers an automatic recount and if the difference doesn’t yield an automatic recount, then the parties will send all their lawyers in to file lawsuits and make arguments for a recount - this is all perfectly normal.)

There’s more to Election Day than this, but this is Election Day in a very broad overview.

9 - Ascertainment (the first 5 days after Election Day)

This really only affects the federal government and doesn’t have much bearing on the overall election. It’s different this year due to changes in the law for presidential transition as a result of the 2020 election but in a nutshell, ascertainment is when the General Services Administration is evaluating election results against a set of Congressional benchmarks to determine who is eligible to receive transition support and services. The main change is that no longer can only one person receive transition support; all candidates who meet those Congressional benchmarks are eligible to receive transition support and in that case, ascertainment will last until there is one victor - either when the electoral college vote is certified or someone concedes. From Ascertainment until Inauguration Day, the federal government is in a phase called “presidential transition” and a lot of different things are happening here (political appointees are resigning and being replaced by career employees in an acting capacity; there’s a senior executive (SES) hiring freeze in place since the assumption is that new political appointees will want to have input on the hiring process; and there’s a rulemaking freeze, in which all agencies suspend their processes to make, implement, propose new regulations and rules) and when these resignations/freezes begin varies from election to election.

10 - Electoral College Part 1 (mid-December after Election Day)

State’s electors meet in their capitals to formally vote for the president.

11 - New Congress term starts (January 3 following the election)

It's always on January 3, required by law. The first day of the new session of Congress in which all members of the House and the ⅓ of the Senate that was elected on Election Day. Everyone is sworn in by the Vice President.

12 - Electoral College Part 2 (January 6 following the election)

Always on January 6, required by law. A joint session of Congress (where the House and the Senate meet) is held to certify the results of the Electoral College. This is the final step to “winning” the presidential election. The Vice President presides over the joint session. They count the electoral ballots state by state in alphabetical order and the Congresspeople may contest the electoral vote. If there’s a contest, the joint session will end, both bodies will adjourn to their own chambers and discuss the issues raised. They vote whether to accept the state’s electoral ballots. If the vote is in favor of the electoral ballot, they go back to joint session and the state’s electoral ballot is presented again for certification.

13 - Inauguration Day (January 20 following the election)

The new president and vice president is sworn in and take office. If January 20 falls on Sunday, the official observation (the big formal ceremony at the Capitol and the parade and the balls) is postponed to Monday, January 21 but the president and the vice president will usually have a small swearing-in on January 20 for the official changeover. If there’s a screw up in the oath (like what happened with Obama in - I believe it was - 2013), then the oath will be taken again privately immediately after the official ceremonies conclude just to be sure. The president is able to start governing immediately from 12.01pm on January 20th and he (or she, as the case may soon be) usually does that by issuing executive orders that begin laying out their policy plan and vision. Most of the first executive orders will roll back certain policies from the previous administrations that don’t align with their policy plan and these usually only affect the federal government. Another impact to the federal government is that most new presidents will also institute a hiring freeze on the general civil service beginning mid-January (which is separate from the partial-SES hiring freeze. This isn’t nefarious; it’s usually meant to give the new administration a chance to put their political appointees in place so they can advise and have input on future hiring decisions at the agency. Beginning 12.01pm on January 20, the outgoing president and vice president transition into post-presidency support.

14 - March following the election: Presidential transition ends. This is also an internal milestone for the new administration - they like to have their Cabinet members in office by this date.

15 - July following the election: Immediate post-presidency support to the outgoing president and vice president ends. The former president will enter what is unofficially called “The Presidents Club,” which is all former presidents. By virtue of being a former president, they are eligible to receive some federal budget to stand up their own office and a library in the National Archives for their official records; they get this support for life. Former vice presidents do not get federal support after this July date. (A quirk this year: if Trump wins reelection, he will move from post-president support to presidential transition after the ascertainment.)

Whew. So, next.How does the federal government/civil service change with a new presidential administration?

In the Executive Branch:

Well, there will be hiring freezes. Meaning agencies won’t be allowed to backfill vacant positions or hire new employees. This stops government-wide. If you’re in the middle of being hired or transferring agencies when a hiring freeze is announced, you’re stuck. We can’t do anything or resume any hiring processes until the freeze lifted and we never know how long the freeze is going to last.

Civil servants do leave the government or transfer agencies based on the incoming administration. If a republican wins the White House, liberal or left-leaning people will leave because the policies aren’t aligned with their values and they don’t want to enforce conservative policies, and vice versa if a democrat wins the White House.

Now the departments and agencies will also change. Usually when a Republican is in the White House, the national security budget will increase so the national security sector will be seen as a stable and safe (in terms of budget cuts and finances) place to work so there will be a shift in civil servants transferring to the Department of Defense, Homeland Security, the Intelligence agencies, and law enforcement agencies like FBI and DEA. When a Democrat is in the White House, portions of the welfare sector will be seen as stable and safe, so civil servants will shift to places like State, Education, HHS, Interior. These shifts and transfers are small when compared to the overall numbers of the federal government, but there’s enough happening that it’s noticeable.

And a new issue specific to MAGA Republicans - there’s a big interest to move federal agencies and agency headquarters out of the DC region to other parts of the country, and that’s obviously an enormous issue for a lot of people. Should something like that come up in a future administration, there will be an exodus of civil servants in that agency - either they’re transferring to other agencies to stay in their local area or they’re leaving government altogether.

In the Judicial Branch:

The type of judge the President nominates will change - the President will typically nominate judges whose values align closer to theirs. Sometimes the effect is immediate, in other instances it can take a really long time to see change.

The biggest influence the President has on the judicial branch is with the Supreme Court. There are only 9 justices and they serve lifetime appointments. The chance to put a justice on the SCOTUS is one of the most powerful things a president can do because that individual can potentially be sitting on the bench for 20, 30 years. I don't want to go any further here because it'll get political, but to see the longlasting impact of justices to SCOTUS, just look up Roe v. Wade.

In the Legislative Branch:

If the President’s party has the majority in both the House and the Senate, then they have a much better chance to do a lot of signature policies and make new laws because there’s less risk of opposition. 

If Congress is split - if the majority of one or both houses in Congress are opposite the President’s party (eg if it’s a Democratic White House and the Democrats also hold majority in the Senate but the Republicans hold majority in the House - which is the current status now), then it’s a divided government and usually Congress isn’t as productive otherwise. Three things usually happen when there’s a divided government:

The risk of a government shutdown due to lapse in appropriation is higher because the parties have different budget and spending priorities.

The president will govern more by Executive Order, since he doesn’t need Congress’s consent. Executive Orders largely impact mostly just the executive branch and usually involve agencies creating new rules and regulations rather than by law.

Congress will have more oversight and investigative priorities than legislative priorities.

And lastly: What other TV shows can I watch instead of reading about all this?

Glad you asked!

The West Wing - on HBO Max, good for overall foundation of how government and the Executive Office of the President works.

Veep - on HBO Max. Also good for the Executive Office of the President.

The Diplomat - Netflix. Good foundation for how the Department of State function. (I've heard Madam Secretary, on CBS, is also good for this but I've never watched it so I can't vouch.)

Homeland (Showtime) and Zero Dark Thirty - good foundation for the intelligence agencies

The Newsroom - HBO Max. Specifically Season 2 and specifically episodes 8 and 9. Good for a foundation for how the media covers a presidential election and reports on results.

Actual people working in the White House have said that The West Wing and Veep are pretty accurate for what it's like.

[freetheshit-outofyou]

Man that is going to sting. "Harris, as vice president, holds the title of “president of the Senate,” a largely ceremonial role that is best known for breaking ties on legislation and executive branch or judicial nominees. But the position also empowers her to lead the counting of Electoral College votes during a constitutionally mandated joint session of Congress that is required to occur on Jan. 6 following the presidential election. Barring any unexpected developments — such as a decision to recuse from the process, kicking it to the Senate president pro tem — Harris is slated to fulfill that duty."

[ngdrb]

"Limits of Power: How the U.S. Constitution Restrains Presidential Authority"

The U.S. Constitution does not actually grant the president unlimited power to do anything—even if it might harm the country. Instead, the Constitution establishes a framework of limited powers for the president, balanced by checks and balances from the other branches of government: Congress (legislative) and the judiciary. The founders of the United States, having experienced the dangers of monarchical power under British rule, were careful to avoid creating a single leader with unchecked authority. Let’s break down how this balance operates and examine the specific limitations placed on presidential powers.

1. Defined Powers in the Constitution

The Constitution specifies the powers of the president in Article II, which includes responsibilities like executing laws, commanding the armed forces, making treaties (with Senate approval), and appointing certain federal officials. These powers are broad in some respects, but they come with notable restrictions. For example, while the president is the "Commander in Chief" of the military, only Congress has the power to declare war and control military funding. This means the president cannot unilaterally engage the nation in prolonged warfare without congressional involvement.

2. Checks and Balances from Congress

Congress holds significant power to counterbalance presidential authority. It creates and passes laws, controls federal spending, and has the authority to impeach and remove a president. Impeachment serves as a critical check on the executive branch, allowing Congress to remove a president who is deemed to have committed “high crimes and misdemeanors,” such as abuses of power that could harm the country. Additionally, for treaties and key appointments (such as Supreme Court justices and cabinet members), the president needs Senate approval, preventing unilateral decision-making.

3. Judicial Review

The judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, has the authority to review the constitutionality of presidential actions through a process called judicial review. Although judicial review is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, it has been a key feature of U.S. governance since the landmark case Marbury v. Madison (1803). This means that if the president enacts policies or takes actions that exceed constitutional limits or infringe on individual rights, the courts can invalidate those actions. This function limits presidential power and helps protect the nation from potential executive overreach.

4. Separation of Powers and Federalism

The principle of separation of powers means that the U.S. government’s authority is distributed among three branches, each with unique functions. The president may act decisively within the executive branch but cannot encroach upon the legislative or judicial branches' functions without facing potential legal or political repercussions. Federalism further diffuses power by dividing authority between the national and state governments, which means states can resist or challenge federal actions they view as unconstitutional or damaging to their interests.

5. Limitations Through Public and Political Accountability

Although not a constitutional mechanism, political accountability plays a crucial role. The president is elected by the people and thus must maintain public support to be re-elected or to maintain political legitimacy. A president acting in ways that clearly harm the country can face intense opposition from both the public and Congress. Public opinion, elections, and media scrutiny act as informal checks on presidential power, deterring actions that could lead to significant national harm.

Conclusion

In sum, the Constitution does not give the president unlimited power to act, particularly in ways that could harm the country. Instead, it establishes a system of limited, defined powers for the executive, checked by both Congress and the judiciary. The intent behind these checks and balances is to prevent any single branch or individual from wielding unchecked authority, thereby protecting the nation’s democratic integrity and the public's interests. The system is not foolproof, and debates over executive power continue, but the Constitution’s structure provides a framework aimed at minimizing the potential for presidential actions that could damage the country.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Supreme Court poised to appoint federal judges to run the US economy.

January 18, 2024

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

JAN 17, 2024

The Supreme Court heard oral argument on two cases that provide the Court with the opportunity to overturn the “Chevron deference doctrine.” Based on comments from the Justices, it seems likely that the justices will overturn judicial precedent that has been settled for forty years. If they do, their decision will reshape the balance of power between the three branches of government by appointing federal judges as regulators of the world’s largest economy, supplanting the expertise of federal agencies (a.k.a. the “administrative state”).

Although the Chevron doctrine seems like an arcane area of the law, it strikes at the heart of the US economy. If the Court were to invalidate the doctrine, it would do so in service of the conservative billionaires who have bought and paid for four of the justices on the Court. The losers would be the American people, who rely on the expertise of federal regulators to protect their water, food, working conditions, financial systems, public markets, transportation, product safety, health care services, and more.

The potential overruling of the Chevron doctrine is a proxy for a broader effort by the reactionary majority to pare the power of the executive branch and Congress while empowering the courts. Let’s take a moment to examine the context of that effort.

But I will not bury the lead (or the lede): The reactionary majority on the Court is out of control. In disregarding precedent that conflicts with the conservative legal agenda of its Federalist Society overlords, the Court is acting in a lawless manner. It is squandering hard-earned legitimacy. It is time to expand the Court—the only solution that requires a simple majority in two chambers of Congress and the signature of the president.

The “administrative state” sounds bad. Is it?

No. The administrative state is good. It refers to the collective body of federal employees, regulators, and experts who help maintain an orderly US economy. Conservatives use the term “administrative state” to denigrate federal regulation and expertise. They want corporations to operate free of all federal restraint—free to pollute, free to defraud, free to impose dangerous and unfair working conditions, free to release dangerous products into the marketplace, and free to engage in deceptive practices in public markets.

The US economy is the largest, most robust economy in the world because federal regulators impose standards for safety, honesty, transparency, and accountability. Not only is the US economy the largest in the world (as measured by nominal GDP), but its GDP per capita ($76,398) overshadows that of the second largest economy, China ($12,270). The US dollar is the reserve currency for the world and its markets are a haven for foreign investment and capital formation. See The Top 25 Economies in the World (investopedia.com)

US consumers, banks, investment firms, and foreign investors are attracted to the US economy because it is regulated. US corporations want all the benefits of regulations—until regulations get in the way of making more money. It is at that point that the “administrative state” is seen as “the enemy” by conservatives who value profit maximization above human health, safety, and solvency.

It is difficult to comprehend how big the US economy is. To paraphrase Douglas Adams’s quote about space, “It’s big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is.” Suffice to say, the US economy is so big it cannot be regulated by several hundred federal judges with dockets filled with criminal cases and major business disputes.

Nor can Congress pass enough legislation to keep pace with ever changing technological and financial developments. Congress can’t pass a budget on time; the notion that it would be able to keep up with regulations necessary to regulate Bitcoin trading in public markets is risible.

What is the Chevron deference doctrine?

Managing the US economy requires hundreds of thousands of subject matter experts—a.k.a. “regulators”—who bring order, transparency, and honesty to the US economy. Those experts must make millions of judgments each year in creating, implementing and applying federal regulations.

And this is where the “Chevron deference doctrine” comes in. When federal experts and regulators interpret federal regulations in esoteric areas such as maintaining healthy fisheries, their decisions should be entitled to a certain amount of deference. And they have received such deference since 1984, when the US Supreme Court created a rule of judicial deference to decisions by federal regulators in the case of Chevron v. NRDC.

What happened at oral argument?

In a pair of cases, the US Supreme Court heard argument on Tuesday as to whether the Chevron deference doctrine should continue—or whether the Court should overturn the doctrine and effectively throw out 17,000 federal court decisions applying the doctrine. According to Court observers, including Mark Joseph Stern of Slate, the answer is “Yes, the Court is poised to appoint federal judges as regulators of the US economy.” See Mark Joseph Stern in Slate, The Supreme Court is seizing more power from Democratic presidents. (slate.com)

I recommend Stern’s article for a description of the grim atmosphere at the oral argument—kind of “pre-demise” wake for the Chevron deference doctrine. Stern does a superb job of explaining the effects of overruling Chevron:

Here’s the bottom line: Without Chevron deference, it’ll be open season on each and every regulation, with underinformed courts playing pretend scientist, economist, and policymaker all at once. Securities fraud, banking secrecy, mercury pollution, asylum applications, health care funding, plus all manner of civil rights laws: They are ultravulnerable to judicial attack in Chevron’s absence. That’s why the medical establishment has lined up in support of Chevron, explaining that its demise would mark a “tremendous disruption” for patients and providers; just rinse and repeat for every other area of law to see the convulsive disruptions on the horizon.

The Kochs and the Federalist Society have bought and paid for this sad outcome. The chaos that will follow will hurt consumers, travelers, investors, patients and—ultimately—American businesses, who will no longer be able to rely on federal regulators for guidance as to the meaning of federal regulations. Instead, businesses will get an answer to their questions after lengthy, expensive litigation before overworked and ill-prepared judges implement a political agenda.

Expand the Court. Disband the reactionary majority by relegating it to an irrelevant minority. If we win control of both chambers of Congress in 2024 and reelect Joe Biden, expanding the Court should be the first order of business.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[azspot]

The Supreme Court fundamentally altered the way that our federal government functions on Friday, transferring an almost unimaginable amount of power from the executive branch to the federal judiciary. By a 6–3 vote, the conservative supermajority overruled Chevron v. NRDC, wiping out four decades of precedent that required unelected judges to defer to the expert judgment of federal agencies. The ruling is extraordinary in every way—a massive aggrandizement of judicial power based solely on the majority’s own irritation with existing limits on its authority. After Friday, virtually every decision an agency makes will be subject to a free-floating veto by federal judges with zero expertise or accountability to the people. All at once, SCOTUS has undermined Congress’ ability to enact effective legislation capable of addressing evolving problems and sabotaged the executive branch’s ability to apply those laws to the facts on the ground. It is one of the most far-reaching and disruptive rulings in the history of the court.

Elena Kagan is horrified by what the Supreme Court just did. You should be too.

[collapsedsquid]

Equally clear are Trump’s preferred means of getting what he wants in world politics. The former and future president is a strong believer in using coercion, such as economic sanctions, to pressure other actors. He also subscribes to the “madman theory,” in which he will threaten massive tariff increases or “fire and fury” against other countries in the firm belief that such threats will compel them into offering greater concessions than they otherwise would. At the same time, however, Trump also practices a transactional view of foreign policy, demonstrating a willingness during his first term to link disparate issues to secure economic concessions. On China, for example, Trump displayed a recurring willingness to give ground on other issues—the crackdown in Hong Kong, the repression in Xinjiang, the arrest of a senior executive of the Chinese tech company Huawei—in return for a better bilateral trade deal. Trump’s foreign policy track record during his first term was decidedly mixed. If one looks at the renegotiated deals for the South Korea Free Trade Agreement or the North American Free Trade Agreement (rebranded as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA), his attempts at coercion produced meager results. The same is true with his summitry with Kim Jong Un. But one can argue that this might have been because of the rather chaotic nature of the Trump White House. There were plenty of times when Trump seemed at war with his own administration, often leading to the characterization of his more mainstream foreign policy advisers (such as Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis and National Security Adviser H. R. McMaster) as the “adults in the room.” The result was a lot of personnel churn and inconstancy in foreign policy positioning, which degraded Trump’s ability to achieve his aims. That should not be an issue for Trump’s second term. Over the past eight years, he has collected enough acolytes to staff his foreign policy and national security team with like-minded officials. He is far less likely to meet resistance from his own political appointees. Other checks on Trump’s policy will also be far weaker. The legislative and judicial branches of government are now more MAGA-friendly than they were in 2017. Trump has indicated numerous times that he intends to purge the military and bureaucracy of professionals who oppose his policies, and he will likely use Schedule F—a measure to reclassify civil service positions as political slots—to force them out. For the next few years, the United States will speak with one voice on foreign policy, and that voice will be Trump’s.

I feel that this piece by Drezner is contradicting itself, Trump administration did not and will not speak with one voice, having more people like him is not what he does, he appoints people to rattle the cage and then tries to swoop in personally in a sort of good cop/bad cop thing. Or maybe he just doesn't really care if they speak with one voice.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Michael Sainato at The Guardian:

Chuck Schumer will introduce a bill in the Senate today to declare explicitly that presidents do not have immunity from criminal conduct, overriding last month’s supreme court ruling that Donald Trump has some immunity for his actions as president. The No Kings Act, which would apply to presidents and vice-presidents, has more than two dozen Democratic co-sponsors. “Given the dangerous and consequential implications of the court’s ruling, legislation would be the fastest and most efficient method to correcting the grave precedent the Trump ruling presented,” the Senate majority leader said in a statement.

“With this glaring and partisan overreach, Congress has an obligation – and a constitutional authority – to act as a check and balance to the judicial branch.” The bill would stipulate that Congress, rather than the supreme court, has the authority to determine to whom federal criminal laws are applied. Last month the supreme court’s conservative majority ruled Trump has broad immunity from criminal prosecution for his actions while in office, drawing sharp criticism over the impact it could have on the justice department’s case against Trump over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Joe Biden responded to the ruling earlier this week by calling for an overhaul of the supreme court and for a constitutional amendment that would limit the power of the executive branch, including a stipulation that presidents do not have immunity from federal criminal acts.

Senate Democrats propose an excellent bill called No Kings Act that would reaffirm that Presidents and Vice-Presidents are not immune from criminal conduct to counter the unjust Trump v. United States immunity decision by SCOTUS.

[incorrect-skylanders-quotes]

Wolfgang: I’m sorry kid, you want me to what?

High Five: Well, Wolfy- Wait, am I allowed to call you ‘Wolfy’?

Wolfgang: 'Wolfgang' is fine, kid.

High Five: Right, I guess that would be kinda weird what with the whole ‘exile’ thing…

Wolfgang: Look, kid, I’m getting arrested here. You mind getting to the point?

High Five: Oh, right, yes, I guess you would be in kind of a rush considering your circumstances. Uh, look, I just have this music studies 101 paper that’s due like, eugh, tomorrow and, as you can imagine, music’s not really my forte, I’m more into aeronautics and that’s beside the point- Look, your dossier on the cultural impact of rock is revolutionary and, honestly, if it wasn’t for the fact that you’re a wanted terrorist, you’d be one of the biggest faces in the field, so I was wondering if I could leverage you for some…. uncredited help?

Wolfgang: ….

High Five: …Please?

Wolfgang: (tearing up) ...You think my work is revolutionary?

High Five: Is that a yes? Cause I can see the Trap Masters coming with the paddy wagon.

Wolfgang: (openly crying) Y-Yeah, sure kid, whatever…

----

Blades: (punches Golden Queen in the face)

Golden Queen: Gah!! Damn it!!

Blades: Answer the question, Goldie!

Golden Queen: You little brat, you’ll pay for this!

Blades: (starts choking Golden Queen out) If you know what is good for your health you will not make me ask again, now answer the question!

Golden Queen: Alright, alright!! …The three branches of government are legislative, executive, and judicial.

Blades: (letting go) Damn it! I knew I got that question wrong…

Golden Queen: (struggling to breathe) Wait a minute, you already took the test?!

Blades: Man, shut up! The fuck are you still doing conscious?! (punches Golden Queen’s lights out)

----

Dr. Krankcase: (mixing an alchemical brew) Hmm, yes, an interesting reaction.

Echo: …Bro, did you just mix oil and water and call it an ‘interesting reaction’?

Dr. Krankcase: You?! How did you get here?! How did you find my lair?!

Echo: I’m smart, and you’re basic.

Dr. Krankcase: I am not bas- What do you want?!

Echo: Well, I got a chemistry paper due tomorrow and Mags told me you’re apparently a great alchemist but, from what I’ve seen, I already know more than you. I’m out of here.

Dr. Krankcase: I’m a great alchemist! I know things! Where are you going?!

Echo: To go talk to- Get off me, man- To go talk to Pop Fizz or Bad Juju or any of the other ten million potion experts in Skylands.

Dr. Krankcase: But I know thi-!! Okay, I guess, just… forget I was here. Don’t tell Eon about us!

[deadpresidents]

What do you think is the best job to prepare someone for being president?

From everything I've read that former Presidents or people who worked in senior positions in various Administrations have written about the actual job of the Presidency, I don't think there really is anything to prepare someone for being President. If seems that many modern Presidents who took the job seriously and tried to govern in a normal, responsible manner were stunned by how big the job truly was once they got into it.

I think Governors tend to have a bit of an advantage compared to legislators because they were chief executives of their respective states and have a better sense of the structure of the job (on a much smaller scale), with their roles as administrator, commander-in-chief of military forces (Governors are commanders-in-chief of their state National Guard forces), with numerous executive departments reporting to them, etc. But it's still so much more intense than even the most populous states, and every President wants to hit the ground running on Inauguration Day, but they quickly discover that the world doesn't stop spinning just so they can get started. The problems that reach the President's desk usually tend to be those that everyone else has already tried to tackle without success and now the President is often the only person in the country -- and sometimes even the world -- who is left to make a decision about solving them. And those are the things that start popping up as soon as the President takes the oath of office, and they don't stop until the next person takes over.

I imagine that the best preparation for the modern Presidency is having a diverse collection of career -- and real-life -- experiences rather than a certain job. I know he was only a one-term President, but someone like George H.W. Bush probably had a much easier time settling into the job because he was a combat veteran as a fighter pilot in World War II, a businessman, Congressman, a diplomat, a CIA Director, and a two-term Vice President, than his son, George W. Bush or his successor, Bill Clinton, who were both Governors but relatively inexperienced outside of their careers in state politics.

In A Promised Land (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO), Barack Obama writes that one of the challenges about the Presidency is that "It wasn't simply that each decision I made was essentially a high-stakes wager; it was the fact that unlike in poker, where a player expects and can afford to lose a few big hands even on the way to a winning night, a single mishap could cost a life, and overwhelm -- both in the political press and in my own heart -- whatever broader objective I might have achieved."

It takes Presidents a while to understand that -- and some don't ever recognize it in time to get re-elected. They all have their own political ideologies and agendas and hopes and dreams, and when they are elected, they immediately start thinking about all of those things that they plan to do once they are inaugurated. But they also have to practically build and staff an entire branch of the federal government from the ground up-- particularly if they are succeeding an Administration from the opposing party -- in two months that can be ready to run the country from Day One. And then there is everything that is going on or might be going on or will be going on around the world. And they have a Legislative Branch and a Judicial Branch to work with, which will not necessarily be harmonious or even the least bit helpful. And in this century, we're also usually in the midst of at least one war (not to mention the military conflicts of other countries) or a dangerous national/international economic climate -- along with the damaged and rapidly changing actual climate. So, all of the President's plans and hopes and dreams and agendas start taking a backseat to everything else as soon as they raise their right hand and repeat the oath on January 20th. But they still have to accomplish what they set out to do. And if they DO accomplish it, they have to sell it to the country, so that everyone realizes that they actually DID accomplish something. And, again, all this starts the moment they take office and doesn't pause and doesn't end until they move out of the White House.

So, yeah, there's nothing to really get someone ready for that.

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this story from Grist:

On Monday, Senator Debbie Stabenow, a longtime champion of programs that support farmers and increase access to nutritious foods, introduced a new version of the farm bill, a key piece of legislation typically renewed every five years that governs much of how the agricultural industry in the U.S. operates. 

Stabenow, who is retiring next month after representing Michigan in the Senate for 24 years, has staked her career on her vision for a robust, progressive farm bill: one that, among other things, paves the way for farmers to endure the worst impacts of the climate crisis.

The text of her bill comes almost two months after the 2018 farm bill, which initially expired last year and was revived thanks to a one-year extension, expired for a second time on September 30. And it comes mere weeks before the end of the year, when funding for several programs included in the farm bill will run out. 

But more importantly, the bill comes after many months of infighting between Democratic and Republican lawmakers over what matters most in the next farm bill — and just weeks before the current congressional term ends. In order to pass the bill, Stabenow would need to gain the support of Republicans in the Senate agriculture committee and the House of Representatives, where Democrats lack the votes necessary to pass their own version of the legislation. 

It’s likely, even expected, that that won’t happen. Senator John Boozman, a Republican from Arkansas who is likely to chair the Senate agriculture committee after Stabenow’s retirement, criticized her bill on X, calling it an “insulting 11th hour partisan proposal.” Meanwhile, in the House, Republicans are reportedly hoping instead to pass another one-year extension of the farm bill, pushing negotiations over the new bill into next year, according to Politico. There’s virtually no reason for Republicans not to prolong the process of hammering out the next farm bill, as starting in January they will have majority control over the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of the federal government.