The state of the democratic party

I thought Republicans didn't need any Democratic votes to pass legislation, especially anything through reconciliation.

 

Don't threaten me with a good time.

 

Oh, the multiple violations of the separation of powers amendment isn't enough? Cool...

 

Enjoy! Lol

 

The separation of powers amendment? Which one is that? Here is a list of all of them to pick from:
List of the 27 Amendments - Constitution of the United States

 

Related

 

You're being an asswipe just to be an asswipe which is fine and I'm gonna guess how you were given your handle...

"The U.S. Constitution establishes three separate but equal branches of government: the legislative branch (makes the law), the executive branch (enforces the law), and the judicial branch (interprets the law). The Framers structured the government in this way to prevent one branch of government from becoming too powerful, and to create a system of checks and balances."

 

You're favorite Uncle Thomas...I mean justice....

Influenced by Dark Money, Clarence Thomas Has Reversed His Position on a Landmark Legal Doctrine

Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas changed his position on one of America’s most significant regulatory doctrines after his wife reportedly accepted secret payments from a shadowy conservative network pushing for the change. Thomas’s shift also came while he was receiving lavish gifts from a billionaire linked to other groups criticizing the same doctrine — which is now headed back to the high court.
bankrolled a dark money group led by Thomas’s wife, Virginia or “Ginni,” that paid her $120,000. Leo was on the group’s board of directors. In 2012, Leo’s dark money network steered undisclosed consulting payments to Thomas’s wife. The Leo network has funded Republican politicians and several nonprofits pressing the Supreme Court to overturn the Chevron doctrine next term.

Crow, meanwhile, provided luxury travel to the Thomas family for two decades. The justice did not report those trips, and similarly failed to disclose that Crow bought his mother’s house, and allowed her to keep living there rent free, and paid his grandnephew’s boarding school tuition.

Last year, Crow’s wife joined the board of trustees at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank that pressed the Supreme Court to hear the new case aimed at ending the Chevron doctrine.
Crow also cofounded the Club For Growth, a pro-business dark money group that issued a memo pining for the end of the Chevron doctrine.

Spokespeople for Leo, Crow’s company, and the Supreme Court did not respond to the Lever’s requests for comment.

Thomas Reverses Himself
After revelations of the gifts and cash, Thomas’s most loyal defenders have sought to deflect criticism by depicting the justice as immune from influence, insisting that he “refuses to compromise his principles,” as Utah senator and former Supreme Court clerk Mike Lee (R) claimed in a tweet on Monday.

But in this situation, Thomas abandoned his own stated principles on an issue at the heart of one of the conservative movement’s most significant crusades to limit government regulation.

At issue is the 1984 Supreme Court case Chevron USA v. Natural Resources Defense Council, brought by environmental advocates to challenge the Ronald Reagan administration’s weakening of air pollution regulations.

The Supreme Court deferred to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) interpretation of the Clean Air Act, over the protests of environmentalists. The ruling was initially seen as a win for polluters, but it created the so-called Chevron doctrine, which became a landmark principle in administrative law, empowering federal agencies to interpret and implement statutes.

Justice Thomas was initially a defender of the Chevron doctrine. In 2005, he penned a decision upholding it — over the dissent of his fellow conservative justice Antonin Scalia.

The case, National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services, addressed a federal agency’s ability to regulate cable companies under a 1934 law.

Thomas wrote the majority opinion, arguing that the lower court should have applied the Chevron doctrine to the case and deferring to the agency’s interpretation of the law.

wrote in a Yale Law Journal article in 2017. “Though Justice Thomas himself had authored one of the Court’s most significant cases affording deference to administrative agencies — National Cable & Telecommunications Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Services — I argue it should come as little surprise that he would be the first to question that case if he felt the Constitution demanded it.”

Rest... https://jacobin.com/2023/05/clarence-thomas-chevron-regulatory-doctrine-conservatives-dark-money

 

Never.

You can’t make me

 

I'm sorry I know that there is no separation of powers amendment. I'm also sorry that I know that the executive branch includes both the president and the agencies that they are currently going after and the Democrats are complaining about Musk attacking, meaning there is no separation of powers issue here. The issue with the current attacks on the regulatory state are statutory, not constitutional. Arguably, Congress exceeded it's authority by infringing on the executive's power to hire and fire employees under the executive branch with their civil service legislation. So no, I am not "being an asswipe just to be an asswipe," you were just talking out of your ass and I was pointing it out.

Regardless, I am for smaller government. For all the blatant abuses of the Constitution that the Democrats have been happy to ignore (see, for example, the Civil Rights Act, Roe v. Wade, "Substantive Due Process", and most of the 20th century jurisprudence related to the Commerce Clause), I don't think their objections are based on some high-minded fidelity to the Constitution at all.

 

I would love to.

I mean how amazing would it be to wake up tomorrow and see MAGA people decide to do something…. I mean damn near anything that actually helped progress mankind?

Instead I’ll probably wake up and the first thing I’ll see will be some conspiracy theory about how pigeons are actually government drones or how Hillary Clinton is putting eugenics laced liquids in children’s Capri Suns in order to make them gay.

So yes please…. Just say something… anything that isn’t batsh$t crazy, easily false, ignorant, hateful, or racist and I will be so happy to believe we are of the same species, and that you didn’t grow up eating AAA batteries next to the Brio Superfund Site.

 

Buckle up buddy. Government is about to get more expensive because Peter Theil and Musk will need more tax revenue in the future when they privatize every aspect of the federal government creating a system that funnels public money to private corporate executives.

Right now this country is in a semi privatized system where the government has agencies that outsources their work to private contractors. This is how you get the DOD spending 1000 dollar clutch disc replacements that cost 90 dollars to manufacture.

 

They are showing right now that the easiest part is to stop cutting checks. The hard part is changing the entrenched systems like Medicare and Social Security. Anyone can stop paying for clutch disc replacements, or stop paying for subscriptions to Politico, or anything else of the like. You are confusing shifting fullfilment responsibilities (what you are talking about), with eliminating entire systems (what I am talking about). The goal isn't to have the government replace a government mechanic working on a government vehicle with a private mechanic working on a government vehicle. The goal is to sell the vehicle, fire the mechanic, and pay nothing.

 

Buddy, the president brags about returning to manifest destiny. A president like that does not want American global hegemony to end. It takes resources to maintain that hegemony. The combination of soft power and military might is the more cost effective manner to maintain said hegemony than going full stormtrooper.

That is why I was confused with a administration that has an ideology rooted in American global dominance would eliminate entire toolkits to maintain US empire such as USAID. My original thought was "oh these guys are gonna go all hard power and no chill with eliminating the entire concept of soft power and just go stormtrooper on poorer nations to force labor and resource extraction rather than the more cost effective way of generating some form of good will".

Then I remembered how the current tech billionaire class have wet dreams about privatization and then I realized they aren't trying to eliminate these entities to harm American global empire because they are secret Chicom agents. No... It just makes far more sense they want to replace entities like USAID with entities like Palantir. This allows a way to funnel public money into private capital class. I mean I'm pretty certain that is the goal here. It makes the most logical sense.

 

You’re a selfish prick with no family I assume and don’t concern yourself with anyone else. It’s gonna come back and bite you in the ass eventually. Your whole philosophy is bullshit and you’ll see that sooner than later.

 

We have a winner.

Government funds are closely monitored, even by your political enemies. You move the money to the private sector or to another country that's friendly to you, that's always step 1. Step 2 is you have a very exclusive contractor policy on which you will coach your friends and give them secret insider information to decisively win bids (Halliburton for example). Step 3 is some portion of the funds will have funneled to your friends, my guess is somewhere around 25-50%. Those friends will be the ones who make you rich after your political career.

Step 4 when it's time for an audit basically from your citizens, tell them it's private and you can't disclose all the documents that would complete the paper trail in the interest of national security. It's the perfect lie, because you can't check the excuse to make sure it's true. That's game, set, match nothing anyone can do about this money leaving the country because all of this is done in parallel with graphic cinematic storytelling about imminent death that can come to Americans or their families or friends if it's not done urgently. And you have to trust them because, well, for national security reasons they can't show you proof that there's a real threat.

It's just barely complex enough for the average person to give up trying to understand it and I think they know that.

 

Republicans will probably put a man on Mars ... but you'll definitely still be a Democrat.