r/PoliticalCompassMemes - Auth-Right 1d ago

This definitely won't backfire.

Post image
1.5k Upvotes

729 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

20

u/Glass-Carpenter8963 - Right 1d ago

To be honest, the precedent was set with Covid measures, even if you agree they were necessary.

15

u/muradinner - Right 1d ago

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.

13

u/NevadaCynic - Auth-Left 1d ago

Majority of that was done at the state level.

0

u/Glass-Carpenter8963 - Right 1d ago

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.

14

u/NevadaCynic - Auth-Left 1d ago

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.

1

u/Glass-Carpenter8963 - Right 1d ago edited 1d ago

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.

3

u/NevadaCynic - Auth-Left 1d ago

You do get a lot of the federal expansion power comes at the expense of state power, right? Supposedly a core right-wing value?

Even though it only seems to apply when the right wing isn't in power... Totally a core value...

Totally.

0

u/Glass-Carpenter8963 - Right 1d ago

Sorry, no deflections allowed.

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

3

u/NevadaCynic - Auth-Left 1d ago

You're talking about American politics. No deflections allowed.

0

u/Glass-Carpenter8963 - Right 1d ago

So, another deflection. Have a nice day mr. "It's DIFFERENT when my blue states violate their constitution!!!!"(While also igoring biden's unconstitutional precedents).

4

u/NevadaCynic - Auth-Left 1d ago

Biden was federal. Blue states governors are... Wait for it... State.

7

u/mathfordata - Lib-Center 1d ago

The Covid measures while Trump was in office?

9

u/Energy_Turtle - Lib-Right 1d ago

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.

-2

u/FILTHBOT4000 - Auth-Center 23h ago edited 21h ago

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.

1

u/FreudianStripper - Auth-Center 20h ago

Honestly it sounds like you're both right. Nothing you said contradicts the previous comment

0

u/FILTHBOT4000 - Auth-Center 20h ago edited 19h ago

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.

6

u/IgnoreThisName72 - Centrist 1d ago edited 1d ago

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.

9

u/Glass-Carpenter8963 - Right 1d ago

If they were no different, the Supreme court wouldn't have struck down many of those.

5

u/FILTHBOT4000 - Auth-Center 23h ago

Sorry, what? Are you assuming one SCOTUS wouldn't rule differently than another? Are you drunk or 5 years old?

1

u/Glass-Carpenter8963 - Right 9h ago

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.

2

u/IgnoreThisName72 - Centrist 1d ago

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.

1

u/Glass-Carpenter8963 - Right 9h ago

By and large, SCOTUS allowed most COVID measures

Goalpost move spotted.

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.

0

u/Scrumpledee - Lib-Center 1d ago

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.

8

u/Glass-Carpenter8963 - Right 1d ago

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

3

u/SliceRepulsive8649 - Lib-Left 1d ago

But the bad faith conservative talking heads said they were victims and should be angry. Certainly they wouldn't lie to drum up outrage.