| ▲ | panarky 16 hours ago |
| What happens when you eliminate the independence of agencies like the DOJ and FTC, replace experienced leaders with party loyalists, and tee up opportunities for selective prosecution? Equal justice under law collapses into a race to see which competitor can pay the largest ransom. |
|
| ▲ | hn_throwaway_99 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| This is what makes me so angry and sad. My objections to the incoming administration largely have nothing to do with policy (I may disagree with policies, but I think it's easy to have an honest disagreement about that, and many of the purported policies I can agree with), but it's that it's now completely overt that the number one qualification for political appointees is obsequious fealty. I mean, we're closing in on banana republic levels of overt corruption: the only thing that matters is bending the knee. Paul Krugman (who I often disagree with) had a good article on how the rise of tariffs will be perfect for crony capitalism: the executive branch can't pick and choose who pays income taxes, but currently the executive branch has extremely wide latitude over tariffs, and especially, who gets exemptions. Watch as corporations line up to pledge allegiance in order to get tariff exemptions. I'm just completely at a loss at how this behavior, which would have been looked on with disgust on both sides of the political spectrum until very recently, is now so readily accepted. |
| |
| ▲ | ethbr1 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It used to be the status quo, before the civil service reforms ~1875. | | | |
| ▲ | tbihl 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Trump 45 never got off the ground because he just tried to pick the smartest generals, who in turn disagreed with him on many things and eventually broke with him. Republican legislature is similarly undisciplined. On Democrat agendas, a single senator will defect during important bills. When Republicans have control, some random Rep stages a coup against the leadership. I think they're realizing that you don't win at party politics by failing to have a party, and the party is more than just cheerleaders and fundraising. They're clearly not done consolidating power yet, considering the withdrawal of Gaetz and the lingering of a few impeachment representatives. Hopefully what he gains in consistency and teamwork isn't totally overshadowed by the fact that his loyal people are, in many cases, not longtime government officials. | |
| ▲ | sleepybrett 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I mean, we're closing in on banana republic levels of overt corruption: the only thing that matters is bending the knee. my dude, we passed that in 2016 | | |
| ▲ | hn_throwaway_99 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I respectfully disagree. Sure, we may have been on our way, but I think the contrast between Jeff Sessions and Matt Gaetz/Pam Bondi really just shows how we're truly off the rails now. Jeff Sessions appropriately recused himself from investigations into the Trump campaign, because 8 years ago we still expected the Justice Department to act impartially. In doing that, Sessions got nothing but the deep ire of Trump, solely because he wasn't willing to act as the President's personal lawyer. Now, though, both Gaetz and Bondi have basically fallen over backward saying they'll do whatever Trump asks. The only reason Gaetz wasn't confirmed wasn't because he said flatly that he would weaponize the Justice department, but it was because he's basically loathed by everyone on Capitol Hill (IMO the sex and drug allegations were more of a convenient out to not confirm him rather than the true reason for his withdrawal). The current situation is completely without precedent in my lifetime. | |
| ▲ | gjsman-1000 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | my dude, we passed that in 2008 | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | danielmarkbruce 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Trump was elected. The president is supposed to be the head of the administrative branch of the government. He has actually been quite straightforward about what he wants to do. If a country elects a bunch of bad eggs, it all falls over. There isn't a way around it. |
| |
| ▲ | treyd 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | Let's hopw this whole federalism thing works out and states pick up the slack when the federal government can't. | | |
| ▲ | danielmarkbruce 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | As far as the specifics against MSFT, I hope no one does anything. A company can choose to deal with MSFT or not, it's no mystery what they are signing up for. There are good alternatives. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | PKop 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I don't want independent agencies. I want agencies with accountability to the voters through their elected representatives. What you describe is madness. Government bureaucrats that aren't elected, cannot be fired by the people, and... outside the power of the president who is supposed to be in charge of the executive branch? What kind of government is this? Not democracy. |
| |
| ▲ | threeseed 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > What kind of government is this? Not democracy The Westminster system on which almost all of the world's democracies are based rely on an independent, unelected civil servants who serve the government of the day. You will never get well-run governments if you require every person involved to be elected and an expert on politics and not on specific subjects e.g. renewable energy policy. | |
| ▲ | guhidalg 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | All US government agencies are created through congress, by your elected representatives. It is the executive branch (the president, who is also elected) that is then responsible for carrying out the agency's mission. All the high-level government bureaucrats are confirmed by the senate, all elected officials. If a president dismisses them, the senate has to confirm their replacement. This kind of government is described in the US constitution. | | |
| ▲ | danielmarkbruce 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | This is a disingenuous take. The agencies as they currently function (creating rules) isn't "described in the US constitution". We got here via a combination of practice, legislation and court decisions over decades and decades and decades. And recently court cases are swinging back against the power of the agencies. | | |
| ▲ | threeseed 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | It has always been the responsibility of agencies to implement the strategic objectives passed by Congress i.e. create the rules. It is not reasonable nor sensible for Congress to shift towards defining in minutiae every detail about how the laws should be implemented. Which are then locked in stone until a new bill is passed. Or not passed as in the case with Congress these days. Because as we've seen time and time again innocent mistakes will be made and you want them rectified as quickly and easily as possible. | | |
| ▲ | danielmarkbruce 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Regulatory agencies weren't even a thing until the ICC in 1887. People aren't talking about the post office when they complain about regulatory agencies. Now we have all kinds of regulatory agencies making stuff up as they go. Nothing in the constitution talks about congress passing "strategic objectives" nor a vast apparatus of administrative law making entities like the the current regulatory agencies. | | |
| ▲ | threeseed 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | This is simply wrong. Regulatory agencies are constrained by the laws that Congress passes. Where there is ambiguity (of which there is an infinite supply) the precedent was to leave up to agencies to interpret it. As opposed to requiring endless new bills to be passed. | | |
| ▲ | danielmarkbruce 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Nope, it's right, every single part. Right now there are over 100,000 rules in the code of federal regulations across 50 volumes: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/CFR Here is another link for you: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43056/9?utm_s... Search for "major rules". Think about those. They are constrained only by what is nowadays extremely broadly written legislation. Just read anything like dodd-frank, written by incompetent fools who left it so broad that it said both nothing and everything (no constraints in practice) - and is now the source of 100s of rules across various agencies. Yes, precedent, part of my point. The constitution says nothing about it. The first regulatory agency came about 100 years after the constitution - that isn't by chance. It hasn't always been like this. It wasn't envisaged. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
