I find it hard to take seriously liberals complaints about Trump being authoritarian or running a "hyper-presidency." You may have a point about some issues. But I was so traumatized, shocked and red pilled by the authoritarianism of the covid regime under Biden, that all I can say now is: "Thank God, we are not living under a Harris/walz administration."
The covid authoritarianism turned civilization upside down for months and then years. Lockdowns, schools closed, mask mandates. Then came the "Get out of Jail Card," thee 98% effective miracle lipid nanoparticle mrna vaccine. Oops, not 98% effective. We soon learned that it did NOT prevent infection or transmission. Yet It was MANDATED by Biden for all federal employees AND contractors. Think about that. Even pregnant women who might be against the vaccine, mistrustful, were forced to get two injections or more into their body. And the mrna vaccine was never studied in pregnant women.
I could write pages about the authoritarianism of the covid regime. Censorship. The Biden admin sent millions sent to universities to monitor disinformation. Not just about covid of course, but any sort of politically inconvenient information. Posts about transgender nuttiness? Censored. Posts criticizing Ukraine war, probably censored also.
Its a sinister joke to claim that Trump is somehow more authoritarian that Biden and the dems. ( Lets remember that Tim Walz set up a fink line in Minneapolis for neighbors to denounce eachother for violating covid rules!) I will never forget and never forgive what my former party did during covid.
You use the phrase unitary executive like a pejorative, but we do only have ...one president. The other two co-equal branches are not similarly constructed and have to deal with that fact when it comes to maintaining equal status and power in their constitutionally assigned lanes versus a strong-willed individual in the office of the president, which is not unique in our history. Unfortunately, Congress soiled itself long ago and created a vast administrative state which reports to, under the constitution, the president. SCOTUS, as it dances between the raindrops of law, politics and power, appears to be trying to buy time for Congress to get its act together because SCOTUS has no enforcement capability.
As a student of governance, I find this fascinating. As a citizen wanting the best outcome for our nation, it is concerning.
"Our democratic survival requires that the presidency be brought back under the system of checks and balances that the Founders envisaged. They would ask no less of us."
Too true, Mr. Ginsburg, but how to do that remains unanswered. The reality of how we got to such a perilous place is that enough voters believed the propaganda of the disinformation industry, birthed in 1989 when Rush Limbaugh made character assassination, conspiracy theories, misogyny, racism and outright lies a successful business model, to put a profoundly unfit man in the White House. Not once, but twice. As long as the bulk of American voters are enthralled by right-wing talk radio, Fox news, its imitators and the bile that oozes out of the Internet, we cannot have a democratic republic. James Madison made it clear with this simple statement: "A democratic republic requires a well-informed electorate." Full stop.
Fine article. I have a quibble with the characterization of Loper Bright as empowering the president's interpretation of laws over executive branch agencies'. By declining to accord special weight to agency interpretations, the ruling seems clearly to reorient agencies to equal litigants against regulated entities and people. The president may be able to force agencies interpretive hands by the power to fire officials and control of the Justice Department lawyers who litigate for agencies. But Loper Bright does not seem to contribute particularly much to the hyper-presidency dynamics described in the rest of the article. It's a small nit, obviously, I hope, and I'm happy to hear arguments that would correct me.
I find it hard to take seriously liberals complaints about Trump being authoritarian or running a "hyper-presidency." You may have a point about some issues. But I was so traumatized, shocked and red pilled by the authoritarianism of the covid regime under Biden, that all I can say now is: "Thank God, we are not living under a Harris/walz administration."
The covid authoritarianism turned civilization upside down for months and then years. Lockdowns, schools closed, mask mandates. Then came the "Get out of Jail Card," thee 98% effective miracle lipid nanoparticle mrna vaccine. Oops, not 98% effective. We soon learned that it did NOT prevent infection or transmission. Yet It was MANDATED by Biden for all federal employees AND contractors. Think about that. Even pregnant women who might be against the vaccine, mistrustful, were forced to get two injections or more into their body. And the mrna vaccine was never studied in pregnant women.
I could write pages about the authoritarianism of the covid regime. Censorship. The Biden admin sent millions sent to universities to monitor disinformation. Not just about covid of course, but any sort of politically inconvenient information. Posts about transgender nuttiness? Censored. Posts criticizing Ukraine war, probably censored also.
Its a sinister joke to claim that Trump is somehow more authoritarian that Biden and the dems. ( Lets remember that Tim Walz set up a fink line in Minneapolis for neighbors to denounce eachother for violating covid rules!) I will never forget and never forgive what my former party did during covid.
You use the phrase unitary executive like a pejorative, but we do only have ...one president. The other two co-equal branches are not similarly constructed and have to deal with that fact when it comes to maintaining equal status and power in their constitutionally assigned lanes versus a strong-willed individual in the office of the president, which is not unique in our history. Unfortunately, Congress soiled itself long ago and created a vast administrative state which reports to, under the constitution, the president. SCOTUS, as it dances between the raindrops of law, politics and power, appears to be trying to buy time for Congress to get its act together because SCOTUS has no enforcement capability.
As a student of governance, I find this fascinating. As a citizen wanting the best outcome for our nation, it is concerning.
"Our democratic survival requires that the presidency be brought back under the system of checks and balances that the Founders envisaged. They would ask no less of us."
Too true, Mr. Ginsburg, but how to do that remains unanswered. The reality of how we got to such a perilous place is that enough voters believed the propaganda of the disinformation industry, birthed in 1989 when Rush Limbaugh made character assassination, conspiracy theories, misogyny, racism and outright lies a successful business model, to put a profoundly unfit man in the White House. Not once, but twice. As long as the bulk of American voters are enthralled by right-wing talk radio, Fox news, its imitators and the bile that oozes out of the Internet, we cannot have a democratic republic. James Madison made it clear with this simple statement: "A democratic republic requires a well-informed electorate." Full stop.
Fine article. I have a quibble with the characterization of Loper Bright as empowering the president's interpretation of laws over executive branch agencies'. By declining to accord special weight to agency interpretations, the ruling seems clearly to reorient agencies to equal litigants against regulated entities and people. The president may be able to force agencies interpretive hands by the power to fire officials and control of the Justice Department lawyers who litigate for agencies. But Loper Bright does not seem to contribute particularly much to the hyper-presidency dynamics described in the rest of the article. It's a small nit, obviously, I hope, and I'm happy to hear arguments that would correct me.