#from the executive to the judicial and legislative branches

[freetheshit-outofyou]

You know you're getting close when Dem's starts crying.

When the Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches at all levels are trying to stop the government from seeing where the government is spending all the TAX dollars you must be sniffing in the right shit pile. Where was all this outrage and handwringing when OUR data was stollen in the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Treasury, Department of Justice, Department of the Interior breaches and multiple breaches in the Department of Defense. That was just 2023. Add on to that Social Security breach in 2024, Internal Revenue Service breaches in 2015 and 2024, Veterans Affairs breach in 2020 and 2024, Office of Personnel Management, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Energy, US Navy's Smart Web Move, United States Postal Service, National Security Agency, Tricare, the Whitehouse and Department of State. When it is our data being stolen the Executive, Judicial and Legislative are crickets. But when "We The People" higher a guy to crack open all the books and look deep inside to see where the money that is extorted from us is going, now that is a problem. Mr. Trump, make every payment made with U.S. tax dollars made public, ever fucking cent. Make ever department explain why they run on a "use it or lose it" budget system.

[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]

[wishmaker-astra]

Unitary means there isn't anything like a judiciary, legislative, or executive branch separate from it.

Superior means it can override/direct other branches of government like the legislature and judiciary in an overriding fashion in the vast majority of cases.

Balance of powers means there's a complex web of checks and balances it in theory is equal to other branches such as executive and legislature.

Inferior means it's an independent branch but subject to override of other branches.

Department/agency means it's a subsection of the executive branch carrying out executive directives as authorized, empowered, and constrained by the legislative and judicial branches (if extant) within it's system.

[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.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Jonathan V. Last at The Bulwark:

1. There Is Only War

There is a way in which you can view Trump’s first term as a mostly intramural kampf. Trump took office in 2017 without the support of much of the institutional Republican party,1 but came to Washington hoping to become the same lovable host he’d been on TV. Instead, his most substantial opposition came from inside the GOP—people like Jeff Flake, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. (And also Jim Mattis, John Kelly, and Rex Tillerson.)

Over the course of his administration, Trump discovered that this faction might superficially support him, but was fundamentally opposed to him. So he engaged in a power struggle with them for control of the party. Trump ultimately triumphed, but the energy required for this fight precluded him from doing much governing. There simply wasn’t time to both purge the GOP and pass legislation. Also, Trump discovered that there were two other spheres in which structures prevented a president from acting as emperor. The first was the federal government, in which conscientious political appointees could thwart his will and civil service bureaucrats held their own power. The second was the broader culture, in which business leaders, internet platforms, and media organizations held some sway over public opinion. [...]

For a moment, put aside Elon Musk’s Nazi salute, the removal of Mark Milley’s portrait from the Pentagon, and the “Gulf of America.” Look at where the power is. The Courts. For the next two years, the judicial branch is the only institution with the power to check Trump. That’s why he issued an executive order to end birthright citizenship. There is no question that this order is unconstitutional. The only issue is whether or not there will be five votes on the Supreme Court to risk a showdown with Trump over enforcement of a verdict. Trump understands that at some point he is likely to come into open conflict with the Supreme Court. Ending birthright citizenship is a probing action designed to test the Court’s nerve. Will five justices be willing to rule against him on an open-and-shut case? Or will John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett be worried that Trump might defy a contrary ruling, exposing the Court as toothless—and so decide to go along with him now in order to reserve the right to oppose him later?

[...]

Blue States. We have reports that Trump’s deportation raids are slated to target Chicago, Boston, and New York—Democratic cities in Democratic states. The inherent tension in Trump’s deportation regime is that if he followed through on his promises and deported several million immigrants, he would hobble the national economy. To take just one example: A red state like Texas would experience huge problems in the construction industry, which relies heavily on immigrant labor. Either housing construction in Texas would slow—raising housing prices. Or construction wages would climb—also raising housing prices. But there is a way for Trump to have his cake and eat it too: If he targets immigrants in blue states, he can create a drag on local, blue-state economies while satisfying the anti-immigrant desires of red-state voters. It’s a twofer. Trump can hurt businesses and make life more expensive for consumers in New York and Illinois—and then attack blue state mayors and governors for these problems and maybe even help Republican candidates win in those states. Meanwhile, Fox will run B-roll from the raids on a loop, satisfying Trump voters in Texas and Arizona—whose economies will continue to benefit from immigrant workers. Trump understands that blue states are the last bastions of meaningful popular opposition to his rule, so he will use the federal government to subdue them.

Jonathan V. Last of The Bulwark doing excellent journalism once again.

[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]

[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."

[mareastrorum]

I don’t normally chime in on this, but I want to clear up some misinformation floating around. If you follow me, please take a few minutes to read.

The United States government has three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. These are each outlined in articles I-III of the constitution, respectively. This post is about agencies specifically.

This is an extremely legalistic view. Most information you will find online is going to categorize agencies differently because they’re written by people who have not studied constitutional law, administrative law, or really any kind of law. I’m using these categories because it’s based on case law—what the courts have typically held (though not unanimously in every case, because that’s case law).

The President is the head of the executive branch and has a specific list of powers. For example, article II, section 2 grants the President control of the military. However, the constitution only mentions two people for that entire branch: the President and the Vice President. In order to carry out that duty out, the constitution has been interpreted to provide the authority to establish agencies, appoint necessary posts, possess land for offices, contract with soldiers and businesses, etc. All the things needed to do to actually run a military. Thus, we now have the Department of Defense, a parent agency that oversees the Army, the Navy, etc. The DoD is an executive agency under the full control of the President because it was created for the specific and sole purpose of exerting Presidential power granted by the constitution. (Of course, funding still comes from Congress, but that doesn’t erode the control aspect.)

That reasoning is the basis for all executive agencies. Some people prefer to only use that term to refer to agencies represented by the President’s cabinet, but to be blunt, that’s a rather ridiculous reason. The cabinet isn’t mentioned in the constitution. It’s a made up category. It doesn’t reflect any level of additional legal or constitutional legitimacy. Executive agencies are all agencies created for the purpose of enacting power granted by Article II.

But there’s another type of agency. The names for this type have varied, such as independent agencies, but that isn’t accurate because that is based on that cabinet distinction, which doesn’t tell us where that authority comes from. Further, this type of agency is quite dependent on both Congress (which granted them authority and funding) and the President (who oversees and staffs them). The term quasi-legislative agency is the label that I feel really expresses what they are.

Article I of the constitution establishes Congress’s power to pass law. However, some legal areas are extremely nuanced, require more rapid responses than a full review by Congress, and would benefit from specialists rather than whomever manages to win votes. Congress decided to pass statutes that created agencies, assigned very specific Congressional power to those agencies, and delegated power to the executive branch to run them. That last bit is extremely important. The delegation of power is the specific reason that the courts have ruled that these quasi-legislative agencies are not unconstitutional even though there is no reference or basis for them in the document. After all, if the President can establish agencies (and it must be possible, because how can 2 people be a military?), then so can Congress. However, Congress cannot abdicate power completely because the Constitution didn’t say that was possible. Thus, it is a conditional, enumerated, limited delegation of power for a specific purpose.

So the types of agencies you need to know are executive agencies (acting purely under the President’s authority) and quasi-legislative agencies (acting under Congress’s authority that was conditionally delegated to the executive). There’s judicial ones too, but they’re not at issue right now.

For example, Congress passed the Securities Exchange Act, which created the Securities and Exchange Commission. Congress recognized that agency expertise and responsiveness was needed to adequately regulate the finance sector. Today, after several acts have revised and refined that delegation of power, the SEC is empowered to pass regulations, license private businesses and individuals, enforce those laws, and even hold tribunals to determine whether a violation has occurred. However, the President appoints each member of the Commission overseeing the agency, though they are confirmed by the Senate. Given the ability to replace the people in charge, the President has a mechanism to direct the agency’s goals and priorities.

There is going to be a lot of government action and attention focused on these two kinds of agencies. In recent history, Republicans have been very anti-quasi-legislative agencies and very pro-executive agencies. The reason for this isn’t as simple as anti-Congress and pro-President. It’s that the quasi-legislative agencies tend to be the ones that heavily regulate various industries, thereby increasing the cost of business while also preventing a lot of collateral damage.

The SEC is extremely bureaucratic and cumbersome to deal with, and it’s also good at disincentivizing predatory business practices because it responds to new forms of market manipulation far more quickly than Congress would. The EPA is a pain in the ass, and it’s why we have cleaner skies, waters, and land than we did 40 years ago. The FCC is incredibly old fashioned and also keeps our telecommunications systems functioning and extremely cross compatible when private interests would prefer otherwise.

Quasi-legislative agencies are also more resistant to the President’s control because their authority is based on that conditional delegation of power. The President can’t just tell them to dissolve because they were created by Congress. The President can’t tell them to stop working because they must carry out the purpose Congress specified in the statute that made them. The President can’t use their money for other things because Congress chooses their budget.

What we’re going to see, as we did last time, is a lot of attempts to stymy these agencies by finding gaps in case law or challenging the restrictions that seem like ones the Supreme Court will overturn. There will be executive orders that push the boundaries of legality because (1) they slow things down at agencies that Republicans don’t like, and (2) there is a chance it could be upheld at least in part, which expands the President’s power to control these agencies.

A lot of scary stuff is going to happen. Some lower courts will likely make alarming decisions that will not be upheld on appeal. Sometimes SCOTUS is going to do something truly ridiculous. All these things do is change the rules. In the same way that the current heads of government seek to erode these agencies’ authority and power, there will be similar ways to oppose or reverse it. It’s going to take time, it will not be pretty, and some of it will be undone. For all its faults, this bureaucratic mess of a government does a pretty good job at preventing simple takeovers.

So don’t panic. Newscasters are pretty, and they’re also pretty ignorant. Most lawyers don’t even take admin law nor learn about it on the job because it is an incredible headache. This isn’t simple, and the reason it isn’t simple is because it shouldn’t be. The world is complicated and difficult, so the structure of government is too.

If someone is telling you it should be simple, it’s because they hope you’re ignorant enough not to disagree.

[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.

[mariacallous]

President-elect Trump has suggested that he will impose a wide-range of tariffs when he takes office, including a blanket tariff of 10–20% on all imported goods, an additional tariff between 60 and 100% on Chinese goods, a 100% tariff on countries within the BRICS alliance if they attempt to undermine the U.S. dollar’s status as a global reserve currency, and a 25% tariff on all products imported from Mexico and Canada. Notably, he wants to impose at least some of these tariffs on day one. Can he impose tariffs that quickly? Potentially, yes.

The executive branch has an unusually broad menu of options when it comes to tariffs—the president is able to dictate tariff rates, which countries and goods they apply to, and when and how to impose them without Congressional approval and sometimes without public input or judicial review. We can’t think of another economic policy issue where the executive has so much power and escapes the checks and balances that apply elsewhere to executive branch actions. This is a choice made by the U.S. Congress. 

To be clear, we—like most economists—have a dim view of unilateral tariffs. Tariffs increase the cost of consumption for domestic consumers, and they inefficiently shift economic activity towards sectors where production is more expensive. Moreover, tariffs often provoke retaliation from our trading partners and escalate into trade wars. Putting the economic issues aside, the proposed tariffs by the president-elect raise procedural and institutional questions about whether and how the executive branch should have the authority to unilaterally impose tariffs, and how quickly it can act. 

The power to impose taxes, including tariffs, unequivocally resides with Congress according to the U.S. Constitution. This authority is essential for funding government operations, such as national defense, public services, and infrastructure. The development of tax legislation—jointly managed by the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees—is a process that ideally includes careful study and public debate and can take months or even years. This means that the legislative process cannot realistically impose new taxes on day one of a new administration.

Tariffs are unusual in that they are a tax that is not implemented by congressional legislation, and thus circumvent a potentially lengthy and deliberative journey through the House and Senate. Instead, tariffs are imposed by executive branch regulation—but unlike most federal regulations, tariffs avoid almost all the legislated guardrails, administrative procedures, and judicial reviews that apply to other executive regulations. This means implementing new tariffs can proceed much more quickly than other significant regulatory actions implemented by the executive branch. How fast depends on which authority Trump chooses to invoke. 

The executive branch has the authority to impose tariffs through two different processes. First, a series of Trade Acts—enacted between the 1930s and 1970s—empower the executive branch to proclaim tariff rates to protect American workers and consumers from unfair trade practices. This is the authority that empowered President Trump to impose limited tariffs on products like solar panels and washing machines during his first administration. To invoke this authority, an investigation is initiated by either the Department of Commerce or the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to determine whether tariffs are necessary to remedy unfair trade practices. These investigations take some minimal time—including a 30-60 day notice-and-comment period that allows the public an opportunity to raise concerns—meaning that these authorities cannot realistically be used to impose new tariffs on trading partners on day one.

Instead, if President Trump wishes to impose tariffs more quickly, he will likely need to invoke the authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977. Under the IEEA, Congress grants authority to the executive branch to address “unusual and extraordinary” peacetime threats to national security, foreign policy, or the economy. In May, 2019, President Trump threatened to use the IEEPA to implement  escalating tariffs on Mexican imports in May 2019. He withdrew this threat after Mexico committed to specific measures aimed at curbing immigration. 

Unlike tariffs enacted under the various trade acts, those imposed under the IEEPA bypass departmental reports, reviews, and public notice-and-comment periods. This streamlines implementation but bypasses essentially all regulatory checks and balances. The IEEPA’s speed makes it a likely tool for imposing new tariffs on day one. However, this path also raises legal questions, as seen in 2019, when skepticism emerged over its appropriateness for tariffs on Mexican imports. These criticisms are likely to resurface if the IEEPA is again invoked to justify now-broader tariffs on Mexican and Canadian imports. 

To restore the balance of power, Congress could consider reforms to restore oversight and accountability in trade policy. In a new research brief, we trace the evolution of executive authority in determining tariff rates, highlighting how this authority bypasses the rigorous process that is already in place to provide a check on executive authority to impose other regulations, and we outline what options are on the table to restore oversight. While several bipartisan legislative efforts to address this imbalance have surfaced, they have gained little traction. Without meaningful reform, unchecked tariff authority has the potential to destabilize economic and diplomatic relationships. As the threat of sweeping, unilateral tariffs looms, the need for a more balanced and accountable system has never been more urgent.