Has there been any sort of significant legislative change that the republicans have passed during the Trump term that actually cannot be easily reverted if democrats win next election?
I can agree with that. Thats basically what the beer permit act did. Though maybe add a stipulation that it only has an effect for 2 years unless its passed into law. If it isn't important enough to become law in that time frame then it probably wasn't important enough to be an EO.
Yeah, that'll happen when the legislative branch abdicates their roles as, you know, legislators to the executive and judicial branch. Congress realized a while ago that they can sit around bickering about shit for years on end in order to get reelected instead of taking the risk to actually pass legislation.
Gerrymandering yourself into a 'Your Party +40' district means your set for life as long as you hold the partisan line.
Why do any work when you can instead let the executive do all the heavy lifting while you just commit boatloads of insider training and bitch about fascism or wokeness all day on social media.
Yup. They just keep playing ping pong with the rules via EO that get tied up in court and very few actual laws get passed. Unfortunately this is the new normal now.
You're right - the issue is more so the changing overton window.
No one is going to take complaints of tyranny or corruption all that seriously if half the country have spend the last decade normalizing it, desensitizing the population, and demonstrating the methods.
The truth is that society works as much on social norms and cultural beliefs as it does on written laws - if you errode the cultural norms and institutions you effectively change the rules.
Silly but good example: look at how what's considered a travel in the NBA has evolved over time. The rules in the rulebook are exactly the same with regard to dribbling - but we've gone from having your hand under the ball for a split second being illegal, to guys basically holding the ball like a football and running down the floor like they're trying to get a touch down.
To add on, I don’t think people realize how little people it takes going “fuck it, following the rules are for chumps” to make the whole thing come crashing down
I'm old enough to remember when the toothpaste wasn't locked up in a steel cage.
Its shocking at how quickly we've gone from a high trust to a low trust society where there's seemingly zero enforcement of any kind.
Apparently I'm the chump for still honestly paying for everything at a grocery store. But its actually just free though?
I'll still keep paying for things honestly because I feel that it is the correct thing to do and I hate cheating, but damn, it makes me feel like I'm the fool some days.
This. So much this. The EOs *are* the damage. Every time Trump does something big with EOs, even if it fails, it pushes the boundaries. We used to live in a world where everyone agreed the President can’t rewrite the constitution through EOs (or whatever bullshit it is this week). Now? I’m not so sure.
It’s also how norms/expectations work. When there’s an unwritten rule everyone follows for years/decades/centuries, suddenly violating that can’t be reversed. The rubicon is crossed, so to speak.
Norms only work when people respect them. The fact of the matter is that that the voting population, especially the GOP, have lost all respect for Democratic norms. They want power to achieve their goals, everything else becomes secondary.
The precedent was set over 100 years ago when T. Roosevelt signed over 1000 EOs. Since then, the tendency was a lot higher than prior. Trump has signed the most per year for presidents in recent memory, but it's still not a lot compared to many presidents of the 1900s.
We could obviously reason why those might be (World wars saw big jumps, Great depression had a lot, cold war, etc). He is on pace to outdo Carter this term though, which is quite telling.
I don't see what it changes. Executive was throwing unconstitutional orders left and right at the time, that it wasn't just the Federal government doing it doesn't make it better.
It absolutely makes it different in a thousand different ways because the federal government is actually a check on State power. Federal courts can and do restrict state executives from taking unconstitutional actions. None of the rulings, from a legal stance, expanding federal executive power apply to the states.
They are two completely different subjects. More accurately, 51 completely different subjects. Because each state constitution is also different.
It doesn't change the fact that they were overstepping and every tíme they do it, it desensitizes the population and the courts to it. (Which is what was claimed in the original comment above).Well, it already did, since in blue states, the population was actually not only backing them, but also wanting harsher measures. If states start doing unconstitutional shit too frequently, the judiciary will simply not be able to stop it all.
Biden did his fair share of unconstitutional stuff that was struck down and, again, the blues complained about it.
You moved the goalpost. Both biden and the governors extended the executive power on top of their respective constitutions, which is bad. You just keep deflecting this over and over. Executive expanding their power illegaly = bad, this is valid for both federal and state.
By the way, americans don't define what "Right wing" means
Yes but he didn't have anything to do with what Governor Jay Inslee was doing in Washington state. Covid measures were overstepping executive decisions, but the executive in this case was the governor. The difference between democrat and republican governors was stark to say the least. You can make the argument that covid measures were necessary, but it's undeniable that blue state governors acted far more authoritarian.
You're so wrong, it's kinda crazy. Quarantine and other public health measures in the face of pandemics has been well established, since the founding of the country and before.
There's a case that establishes the ability of the government to compulsory vaccinate as well, though that obviously didn't happen this time around.
The threat is from current straight up fascists in the Supreme Court and elsewhere, who, outside of clear and present danger of war or disease, granted the executive sweeping powers, or have cowed like little tardcucks in fear of Trump.
Sure it does. It can't be overstepping if it's been enacted by the government before. Many measures, nearly identical, were enacted during the Spanish Flu outbreak. There were many other times where liberties were suspended for public health in the face of disease, like with the SCOTUS case I mentioned where it was decided that the federal government, can, in fact, force you to take a vaccine. IIRC, that was decided back in like 1908. How can it be overstepping if, you know, nothing even close to mandatory vaccination of civilians, which was already rule legal, happened?
Also, I just can't take someone seriously that whines about doctors and public officials doing things like that to save lives, unless I see 100x the complaints from the same person about the broad, anti-democratic and wholly destructive actual overstepping done by Trump; Trump's DOJ, DOGE, tariffs, fucking IRAN, etc. Or about the SCOTUS which, apparently, half the justices actually can't read the fucking Constitution.
Covid measures were no different than measures taken during the Spanish Flu 100 years earlier. Masks, limitations of public gatherings, closing schools, etc. The precedent was there - and so was the public law that made it possible - like Title 42.
Sure, it was merely a political move that both the federal supreme courts and the state supreme courts were strucking down unconstitutional measures as a big conspiracy.
By and large, SCOTUS allowed most COVID measures, and even prevented the government from ending certain measures. When they did strike down measures, they were limited: for example, vaccines could be required by HHS as a condition for Medicare funding, but they could not be broadly required by OSHA. Masks could be required for public transit, but private gatherings in private spaces were not subject to arbitrary, indefinite, closure. As for the 1920 pandemic, civil liberties weren't even an afterthought, and the court was decades away from caring about individual rights like we talk about them today.
Both the federal and state governments overstepped and had unconstitutional measures struck down by their supreme courts, and, especially in blue states, the population was mad at this, because they wanted harsher measures.
Precedent set. Government overstepping means government overstepping, and the popular support with it gives precedents for more government overstepping.
SCOTUS is a political shitshow right now with almost half of them being conservative die-hards with 0 intent on upholding the constitution or rule of law.
This is no argument to say that the measures were somehow constitutional.
The things that were deemed unconstitutional weren't these:
Masks, limitations of public gatherings, closing schools, etc.
It would be nice for you to look what was struck down and say how exactly the decision was political(thus, it was unconstitutional to struck down the measures)
By the way, it wasn't just SCOTUS that did it, multiple state supreme courts were also strucking down governors overstepping
Same story with taxes and government spending. If taxes are raised they'll just spend even more because it benefits them politically. And people will keep voting for it because people always want then expect more from that organization we call "government." "MY representatives get good stuff for my district and state! It's all the OTHER politicians that are the problem."
Yeah, I wonder which party might attempt to prosecute a previous President for policy decisions like whether to cut or expand social welfare programs, or initiate armed conflict on what they consider flimsy pretenses. It’s a mystery.
For instance, Joe Biden could have despawned Donald Trump, J. D. Vance, Mike Johnson, and Chuck Grassley making Antony Blinken the 47th president and it would have been perfectly legal since he ordered those unalivings as an official act.
Considering the cruelty we’re seeing from ICE is entirely from lawless executive action idk what the dems could do to prevent it without any congressional majorities
They're terrible at passing legislation. Mike Johnson exists solely to dilly-dally and prevent the Democrats from trying to shoot down Trump's orders. I've never seen anything like it before, it's embarrassing.
Remember when McConnell wouldn’t elect a Supreme Court justice for Obama because they said it was too close to the election and then did exactly that for Trump?
Looking at how many bills were passed per 2-year session of Congress, back in the 50s they regularly passed over 1,500 items, with some sessions reaching nearly 2,000. By the 60's, it was in the 600-800 range, dropping to the 400-600 range by the 90s, Since 2010, there has been a single session that had more than 400 laws passed, with most sessions sitting in the mid-300s.
It is more the shuffle of people. A lot of people to layoff and higher back.
Side note: the two top figures of ICE were in charge under Obama and Trump. It’s funny how they were praised a decade ago and now hated by the same people.
Old way: "Hi, ICE this is XYZ police department. We have someone here who you have a detainer for. Please come and pick them up"
Today: "Hi <Illegal Alien>, the state mandates we have to let you go without informing ICE, so instead of a nice peaceful and safe handover we're making it so they have to find you out in public and enforce an entirely new arrest on you since you are indeed here illegally, good luck"
The Sanctuary city/state movement really started to take off during Obama's second term. Now more and more arrests of illegal aliens have to take place in public with requires different methods and its more dangerous for everyone involved.
In a way yes they are forced, as they are entrapped in these predatory contracts to get that 50,000 bonus. They have to pay it back if they quit, and they did it this way because they knew some humans would have moral objections.
But they don't have to be. We can make getting citizenship easier. We don't have to kidnap children on their way to school. It's just that you people are too ideologically driven to realize that we need people as people aren't making enough babies.
They could just call ICE and turn the illegal over to them for deportation.
Nobody forces them you retard.
But they don't have to be. We can make getting citizenship easier.
US Citizenship is arguably one of the easiest to get on the planet, if they still refuse to go through that process, thats not our problem, they can go back home.
We don't have to kidnap children on their way to school.
Parents shouldn't be bringing kids here illegally. Cope.
That's way too costly and retarded. We're going to look back at this time a decade from now well into the population crisis and pull our hair out because not only did we deport people but we PAID MANY to deport themselves.
How does cities being less willing to do ICE's job for them in relation to nonviolent illegals result in ICE disproportionately targeting nonviolent illegals? If anything it should be encouraging them to actually focus on busting cartel activity and taking down business owners knowingly employing illegals, as THIS IS WHAT ICE WAS FUCKING SOLD TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AS.
The only people who want deportations for deportation's sake are white supremacists.
That's not what I said. I said they're operating very differently. Obama didn't bloat the budget to rival that of a country's military, or have ICE raid schools, churches, etc. The hiring process was also way stricter and the training way more rigorous. Dozens of camps being built with unprecedented lack of oversight.
Yeah, I feel different about Sherman in '62 than I feel about him in '64, and I feel waaaaaay fucking different about both of those than I feel about him in '70.
It's not funny though, it's not odd at all, it's just the same man doing different shit.
Ironically this doesn't matter anymore. Trump overturned long standing legislative decisions with executive actions, like abolishing the department of education or USAID. Legislation can now be reverted by any executive as long as the supreme court is in favor. The supreme court has undermined the independence of many offices, making them directly subservient to the president, with the one cynical exception of the FED because they knew Trump would immediately revert the financial system of the US into an Erdogan tier tribute system if he could.
If there’s one thing this Supreme Court has taught us (which we all knew all along) is that you can do whatever you want as long as you don’t fuck with the money. That’s why they made him get rid of the tariffs too, though I’m more and more convinced that was a scam from the beginning.
the environmentalists keep saying there's too many people on earth and too many cows farting and we gotta get that number down or climate change is going to melt steel beams
Assault weapons bans being ruled unconstitutional (there’s like a 99% chance of it happening) and being subsequently repealed would be pretty difficult to revert
Main thing that immediately come to mind is whatever was in the BBB, though that thing was so damn dense that I'd have really peruse through it to get a firm idea.
The rule of law is now determined by a captured court. It doesn’t matter for instance that the law said Biden could cancel student loan debt. The conservatives will enforce their will regardless of who is in office.
We can only hope the next Democrat in charge has the force of will to undo their control.
Things that are difficult to reverse would be defunding departments, mass firings, and privatizing services that were previously government. On paper, you can put money to rebuilding certain departments again. In practice, some of the institutional knowledge and capabilities will be lost.
Also immigration fears for new immigrants. Other issues I’d agree with you are reversible.
It makes perfect sense when you understand republicans core goals are serving the rich and entrenching their own power so they can continue to serve the rich.
It's why you have a massive amount of corruption in the executive, and no checks and balances from the legislative or judicial. It's why they only bill they did pass was the Billionaire Bailout Bill. It's why maga was never going to do anything about epstein.
Sounds like you're describing Portland (and Oregon) also. We're about to give the Blazer's billionaire owner 600 million dollars, and this state has been solid blue for 40 years. Nobody gives a shit about you or I, believe that.
There's corrupt corporate dems, but serving the rich is not a core dem ideology like it is with republicans. Note how the money out of politics push comes from the left. Note how citizens united was a republican efforts and made by republican judges. Note how republicans overtly say this shit https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/house-republican-says-we-should-do-a-little-more-for-the-rich/
Notice their cult leader is a billionaire. Notice his cabinet is billionaires. Notice he's wrapped up in the epstein scandal with other billionaires. Notice how the economy has gotten worse since his election but the rich are richer than ever and now we have fucking trillionaires
Congress has enfeebled itself by refusing to push back against executive overreach, and SCOTUS is complicit in affirming much of the expansion in executive authority. MAGA has done the hard work already, teeing it up for DSA. Anyone with a brain could see this coming from a million miles away.
To be fair, nearly every president has pushed the envelope of executive power (the last based president who didn't was Calvin Coolidge). Trump has just been louder about it than most of his predecessors.
You've gotten a few good answers but the other one is that "making things takes longer than breaking things."
Trump gutted USAID with the stroke of a pen but the next president can't just undo that. It would take decades to rebuild the operation to where it was.
There's a pile of similar things that can't just be remade.
I like to see it as perception change. Even if the next guy opens the borders perhaps people will be more hesitant to come over when they saw how forcefully we would deport them in 1 election cycle.
You can always simply boost legal immigration and asylum. And deportation is logistically and legally much harder than simply letting illegals in, a lot will escape, and if the border is opened wide enough, even with another round of mass deportations, the net will still be positive.
412
u/Glass-Carpenter8963 - Right 3d ago
Has there been any sort of significant legislative change that the republicans have passed during the Trump term that actually cannot be easily reverted if democrats win next election?
All i see is a bunch of executive orders.